BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in BRICS and the European Union

Full Text:


Global digitization and the emergence of Artificial Intelligence-based technologies pose challenges for all countries. The BRICS and European Union countries are no exception. BRICS as well as the European Union seek to strengthen their positions as leading actors on the world stage. At the present time, an essential means of doing so is for BRICS and the EU to implement smart policy and create suitable conditions for the development of digital technologies, including AI. For this reason, one of the most important tasks for BRICS and the EU is to develop an adequate approach to the regulation of AI-based technologies. This research paper is an analysis of the current approaches to the regulation of AI at the BRICS group level, in each of the BRICS countries, and in the European Union. The analysis is based on the application of comparative and formal juridical analysis of the legislation of the selected countries on AI and other digital technologies. The results of the analysis lead the authors to conclude that it is necessary to design ageneral approach to the regulation of these technologies for the BRICS countries similar to the approach chosen in the EU (the trustworthy approach) and to upgrade this legislation to achieve positive effects from digital transformation. The authors offer several suggestions for optimization of the provisions of the legislation, including designing a model legal act in the sphere of AI.

About the Authors

D. Cyman
Gdansk University

Damian Cyman – Associate Professor, Department of Financial Law, Faculty of Law and Administration

6 Jana Bazynskiego St., Gdansk, 80-309

E. Gromova
National Research South Ural State University
Russian Federation

Elizaveta Gromova – Associate Professor, Department of Business, Competition and Ecological Law

78 Lenina Av., Chelyabinsk, 454082

E. Juchnevicius
Gdansk University

Edvardas Juchnevicius – Professor, Department of Financial Law, Faculty of Law and Administration

6 Jana Bazynskiego St., Gdansk, 80-309


1. Berdykulova G. et al. The Emerging Digital Economy: Case of Kazakhstan, 109 Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 1287 (2014).

2. Burri T. International Law and Artificial Intelligence, 60(1) Ger. Yearb. Int’l L. 91 (2019).

3. Caytas J.D. European Perspectives on an Emergent Law of Robotics, 12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 12 (2017).

4. Deorsola A.B. et al. Intellectual Property and Trademark Legal Framework in BRICS Countries: A Comparative Study, 49 World Pat. Inf. 1 (2017).

5. Elisavetsky A. & Marun M.V. La tecnología aplicada a la resolución de conflictos. Su comprensión para la eficiencia de las ODR y para su proyección en Latinoamérica, 3(2) Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution 51 (2020).

6. Esfangareh A.N. & Hojeghan S.M. Digital Economy and Tourism Impacts, Influences and Challenges, 19 Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 308 (2011).

7. Ferreira D.B. & Filho E.A. Anulatória de sentença arbitral: uma análise doutrinária e empírica da jurisprudência dos tribunais dos estados de Santa Catarina, Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo entre 2015 e 2019, 3(2) Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution 195 (2020).

8. Gevaerd J. Internationality and Commerciality in the UNCITRAL Model Law: A Functional and Integrative Analysis, 1(2) Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution 19 (2019).

9. Gromova E. & Ivanc T. Regulatory Sandboxes (Experimental Legal Regimes) for Digital Innovations in BRICS, 7(2) BRICS L.J. 10 (2020).

10. Gromova E. The Free Economic Zone of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol, 6(3) Russian L.J. 79 (2018).

11. Hagendorff T. The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines, 30(1) Minds and Machines 99 (2020).

12. Heidemann M. & Lee J. The Future of the Commercial Contract in Scholarship and Law Reform: European and Comparative Perspectives (2018).

13. Hendrik C.M. & Pienaar M. The Evolution of the South African Science, Technology and Innovation System 1994–2009: An Exploration, 2(3) African J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 82 (2010).

14. Ivanc T. Theoretical Background of Using Information Technology in Evidence Taking in Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil Procedure 265 (Vesna Rijavec et al. eds., 2016).

15. Jobin A. et al. The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines, 1(9) Nat. Mach. Intell. 389 (2019).

16. Kraljić S. New Family Code and the Dejudicialization of Divorce in Slovenia, 15 Balkan Social Science Review 158 (2020).

17. Minbaleev A. & Nikolskaia K. New Perspectives on Ethics and the Laws of Artificial Intelligence in the Investigation of Incidents Related to DDoS Attacks in 2020 International

18. Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies (FarEastCon) (2020).

19. Nikitin E. & Marius M.C. Unified Digital Law Enforcement Environment – Necessity and Prospects for Creation in the “BRICS Countries,” 7(2) BRICS L.J. 66 (2020).

20. Ostanina E. & Titova E. The Protection of Consumer Rights in the Digital Economy Conditions – the Experience of the BRICS Countries, 7(2) BRICS L.J. 118 (2020).

21. Podshivalov T. Protection of Property Rights Based on the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Russian Case Law, 6(2) Russian L.J. 39 (2018).

22. Rusman G. & Popova E. Development of the Software for Examination of the Crime Scene by Using Virtual Reality, Based on Spherical Panoramic Shot and 3D-Scanning in 2020 Global Smart Industry Conference (GloSIC) 297 (2020).

23. Scherer M.U. Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies, 29(2) Harv. J.L. & Tech. 353 (2016).

24. Shugurov M. The TRIPS Agreement, International Technology Transfer and Development: Some Lessons from Strengthening IPR Protection, 3(1) BRICS L.J. 120 (2016).

25. Smuha N.A. The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, 20(4) Comput. L. Rev. Int’l 97 (2019).

26. Sossin L. & Smith C.W. Hard Choices and Soft Law: Ethical Codes, Policy Guidelines and the Role of the Courts in Regulating Government, 40(3) Alberta L. Rev. 867 (2003).

27. Stead W. Clinical Implications and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning, 320(11) JAMA 1107 (2018).

28. Tschider C.A. Deus ex Machina: Regulating Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence for Patients of the Future, 5(1) Savannah L. Rev. 177 (2018).

29. Turing A.M. Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 59(236) Mind 433 (1950).

30. Vinge V. The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era in Proceedings of the Vision 21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace 11 (1993).

31. Vogl R. et al. Rethinking Explainable Machines: The GDPR’s “Right to Explanation” Debate and the Rise of Algorithmic Audits in Enterprise, 34(1) Berkeley Tech. L.J. 143 (2019).

32. Wachter S. et al. Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation, 7(2) Int’l Data Priv. Law 76 (2017).

33. Xenidis R. & Senden L. EU Non-Discrimination Law in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Mapping the Challenges of Algorithmic Discrimination in General Principles of EU Law and the EU Digital Order 151 (Ulf Bernitz et al. eds., 2020).

34. Zou J. & Schiebinger L. AI Can Be Sexist and Racist – It’s Time to Make It Fair, 559(7714) Nature 324 (2018).


For citations:

Cyman D., Gromova E., Juchnevicius E. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in BRICS and the European Union. BRICS Law Journal. 2021;8(1):86-115.

Views: 2148

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)