Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Japan’s AI Promotion Act uses a consensus-driven, innovation-first approach to regain competitiveness, contrasting with Korea’s stricter compliance model and China’s control-focused regime, reflecting divergent paths in Asia’s AI governance.

Paper long abstract

Japan’s Act on the Promotion of Research and Development and the Utilization of AI-Related Technologies embodies a distinctive regulatory philosophy grounded in consensus-building and voluntary compliance. Rather than imposing rigid obligations, the Act promotes guidelines and collaborative frameworks, reflecting Japan’s longstanding reliance on “soft law” instruments to steer technological governance. This normative approach is consistent with Japan’s broader commitment to international dialogue, as evidenced by its active role in the G7 Hiroshima AI Process, which seeks harmonization of principles across jurisdictions. At its core, the Act aims to stimulate domestic innovation and restore Japan’s competitive position in the global AI ecosystem, responding to mounting concerns that the country risks lagging behind leading technological powers and losing the AI race.

In contrast, South Korea’s AI Basic Act adopts a markedly prescriptive orientation. Anchored in a risk-based methodology, it mandates compliance for high-risk applications and generative AI systems, thereby offering greater regulatory certainty and enforceability. China, by comparison, advances a state-centric paradigm characterized by algorithmic transparency, cybersecurity imperatives, and stringent content governance. Through binding rules and pervasive oversight, the Chinese model prioritizes sovereign control and normative alignment with national security objectives.

This contribution pivots around the Japanese Act, however, it also undertakes a comparative analysis of these three regulatory trajectories, situating Japan’s flexible, consensus-driven strategy against Korea’s compliance-oriented and China’s control-focused frameworks. It interrogates the implications of these divergent models for global governance, particularly in terms of interoperability and normative convergence. We will examine the interplay between legal formality, policy objectives, and technological dynamism. This study contributes to ongoing debates on whether "soft" approaches (such as the Japanese) can effectively balance innovation incentives with societal safeguards in an era of accelerating AI development.

Keywords: Japan, China, South Korea, AI Gobernance