AI 시대 디지털 규범의 이원적 체계와 입법론적 고찰 - EU와 미국의 비교법적 분석을 통한 한국 인공지능기본법에 대한 시사점 - = The Dual System of Digital Norms in the AI Era and Legislative Considerations This work was supported by research fund of Chungnam National University : Implications for the South Korean AI Framework Act through a Comparative Legal Analysis of the EU an

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study analyzes the global digital regulatory order formed in response to the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology and the expansion of the data economy. Based on this analysis, it examines the legislative orientation of the Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust (hereinafter the “Framework Act on AI”), which came into effect in the Republic of Korea in 2026.
In an AI environment, data possesses unique attributes of non-rivalry and non-excludability. Consequently, traditional property law frameworks designed for exclusive possession are prone to regulatory gaps in determining data's legal status. To address these institutional challenges, global legal paradigms have diverged into two primary models: the ex-ante regulation and fundamental rights protection model led by the European Union (EU), and the market autonomy and ex-post corrective model led by the United States.
Starting from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and extending to the Data Act and the world's first comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the EU has established an integrated regulatory system that enhances administrative transparency and reinforces fundamental rights protection through a risk-based approach. This framework conceptualizes AI as a socio-technical object interacting with fundamental rights, aiming for a double-layered approach that combines technical preventive measures with legal rights guarantees. Conversely, the U.S. maintains a pragmatic line prioritizing trade secret protection and freedom of contract. Simultaneously, it is consolidating a decentralized legal order—distinct from the EU's integrated norms—to secure technological hegemony through reinforced self-regulation.
By employing a comparative legal analysis focused on institutional effectiveness, this study elucidates the process of conflict and convergence between these two legal systems and proposes a roadmap for an AI management framework. To ensure the stable settlement of the Framework Act on AI, it is crucial to embrace the advantages of U.S.-style technology-autonomous infrastructure while establishing a certification and evaluation system aligned with global standards to secure accessibility to the EU market. Ultimately, moving beyond passive regulatory compliance, it necessitates a legislative effort to internalize the principle of substantive accountability within the legal system to guarantee human dignity throughout the entire AI lifecycle—from planning to deployment and operation.