مطالعه تطبیقی قوانین و سیاست گذاری های هوش مصنوعی در کشورهای پیش رو و ارائه پیشنهاداتی برای ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
افزایش سریع استفاده از هوش مصنوعی با چالش ها و تهدیدهایی همراه است. ازجمله این چالش ها می توان به استفاده از راه حل های نامناسب اخلاقی و نادیده گرفتن حریم خصوصی کاربران، نگرانی های امنیتی مرتبط با سایبری، تقلب و تقلید و همچنین تبعیض و نابرابری اشاره کرد. از طرفی، بیشتر فنّاوری های هوش مصنوعی به صورت جعبه سیاه عمل می کنند و عملکرد دقیق آن ها مشخص نیست. در همین راستا، نیاز به تدوین قوانین و مقررات هوش مصنوعی، به منزله چهارچوبی حمایتی در طراحی، ساخت و استفاده ایمن از این فنّاوری، وجود دارد. نیاز به قانون گذاری در زمینه هوش مصنوعی در کشورمان ایران نیز به دلیل مواجهه با چالش های برشمرده ضرورتی انکارناپذیر است. درحال حاضر، قانون مشخصی در این زمینه در کشورمان تدوین نشده و حتی مرجع قانون گذاری برای هوش مصنوعی مشخص نشده است؛ لذا در پژوهش حاضر با بررسی قوانین و سیاست گذارهای انجام شده در زمینه هوش مصنوعی در کشورهای پیش رو جهان و با درنظرگیری نیاز های کشور، پیشنهاداتی برای قانون گذاری در زمینه هوش مصنوعی در ایران ارائه می شود.Comparative Study of Artificial Intelligence Laws and Policies in Advanced Countries and Proposing Recommendations for Iran
The rapid increase in the use of artificial intelligence comes with challenges and threats. Among these challenges, we can mention the use of unethical solutions, ignoring users' privacy, security concerns related to cyber, fraud and imitation as well as discrimination and inequality. On the other hand, most artificial intelligence technologies act as black boxes and their exact functionality is not known. In this regard, there is a need to formulate rules and regulations of artificial intelligence, as a supporting framework in the design, construction and safe use of this technology. Iran is also facing these challenges; therefore, the need for legislation in the field of artificial intelligence is needed; while no law has been formulated in this field and even the legislative authority for artificial intelligence has not been specified. Therefore, in this research, by examining the laws and policies made in the field of artificial intelligence in the leading countries of the world and considering the needs of the country, suggestions are presented for legislation in the field of artificial intelligence in Iran. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Regulation, Supportive Framework, Data Ownership, Privacy 1. Introduction Blockchain-based financial transactions have developed so rapidly that many countries have yet to keep pace. The relatively steady increase in cryptocurrency prices and the widespread public interest in investing in cryptocurrencies with the hope of huge financial gains, which has led to an increase in the number of cryptocurrency exchanges and the expansion of their activities, has compelled various governments, in accordance with the nature of their governance, to supervise and regulate digital currencies, especially the platforms that facilitate their transactions (cryptocurrency exchanges), regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of these institutions, the methods of establishment, the limits and boundaries of the activities of these entities, and their responsibility for the services they provide to their customers on these platforms, to specify and explain their legal approach. On the other hand, despite the increasing influence of these institutions at the national and international levels, due to the relatively widespread gap in the field of legal studies and domestic legislation on the subject of cryptocurrency exchanges, we have sought to study and examine the legal approach of developed countries and the first world - especially the European Union and the United States of America - towards cryptocurrency exchanges, and to compare these two legal approaches with Iranian law on this subject, and finally to provide suggestions for domestic legislators on the supervision and regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges. This research aims to examine the legal approach of developed countries and the first world (the European Union and the United States of America) regarding the establishment, activities, and legal, contractual, and civil liabilities of cryptocurrency exchanges, as well as the challenges and legal solutions of the two aforementioned legal systems with a comparative look at Iranian law, in order to ultimately, through the examination of their legal experiences and comparison of the legal approach of the two mentioned systems, provide suggestions to the Iranian legislator to improve regulation in this area. Therefore, the main research question is how the legal systems of the European Union, the United States, and Iran approach the regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges. Based on this, the sub-questions are formulated as follows: Firstly, what regulations, systems, and conditions are in place for the establishment of cryptocurrency exchanges in our selected legal systems? Secondly, what rules and regulations govern the supervision of the activities and services of these exchanges? Thirdly, how are cryptocurrency exchanges responsible to the relevant authorities and their users? More specifically, what are the criminal, administrative, contractual, and civil liabilities that these three legal systems impose on cryptocurrency exchanges? In domestic studies, despite the existence of numerous articles and books on cryptocurrency law, except for a master thesis written by Mohammad Shiri-Aatashgah in 2023 on the legal impact of centralized and decentralized exchanges on the Iranian economy with an emphasis on the economic aspect of cryptocurrency exchanges, no specific research has been conducted on the law governing cryptocurrency exchanges so far. In the studies of foreign researchers, most of the research has been on the law of cryptocurrency itself from the perspective of different countries; although there has also been research on the regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges in the laws of different countries (including Europe and America), which have rarely been comparative researches. 2. Methodology In this research, we tried to collect and gather information from primary sources (including laws, regulations, directives, bylaws, judicial decisions, etc.) and secondary sources (such as books and articles, theses, research reports, etc.) in scientific research data centers, official and reputable websites, libraries, and similar resources. From the authors' perspective, the title of the research suggests that first, the legal arrangements for establishing cryptocurrency exchanges in each legal system should be addressed, and secondly, the framework for activities and service provision in the selected countries should be explored. The logical order of the research requires the types of liabilities and guarantees in case the exchanges deviate from the regulations of activity in these countries; therefore, the legal study of the regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges in the European Union, the United States, and Iran in these areas has been considered, which is organized under three main titles; the first main title is the area of the establishment, the second main title is the legal framework for the activities of exchanges, and the third main title is the types of liabilities of these exchanges, which include criminal, administrative, contractual, and civil liabilities. 3. Results and Discussion In the European Union, with the adoption of numerous directives, we witness a precise, comprehensive, and well-considered legal system regarding cryptocurrency exchanges, particularly in terms of licensing, customer identification, combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and how exchanges operate while identifying and categorizing the types of services they can provide. In the United States, the laws and regulations governing cryptocurrency exchanges are generally developed and implemented at both the federal and state levels; at the federal level, the main agencies generally view cryptocurrency exchanges as money transmission institutions, and at the state level, despite efforts to create a unified legal system for exchanges, we see a diversity of laws and regulations. Also, due to the common law system of the United States, numerous court cases that have been brought regarding cryptocurrency exchanges will generally create judicial precedents in similar cases. The establishment of a regulatory sandbox in Europe and self-regulation in the United States are notable features of these two legal systems. In Iran, to date, no specific law or regulation has been enacted that directly addresses the issue of cryptocurrency exchanges. This legal vacuum is even more palpable regarding the establishment and licensing of cryptocurrency exchanges, which requires the rectification of the relevant legal deficiencies and, more importantly, their operationalization. This is a very serious weakness in the law governing exchanges in Iran, which has practically placed the establishment of exchanges in Iran in a lawless environment and solely subject to the will of the founders of the exchange. Regarding how exchanges operate in Iran, some circulars and guidelines have been issued that are generally indirectly but relatively extensively related to their operation and activities, which requires, while explicitly stating the laws on the inclusion of financial regulatory regulations on exchanges and, if possible, notifying the CEOs of these institutions of the regulations governing exchanges, like European and American legal systems, by properly implementing a "regulatory sandbox" or "self-regulatory" system, to benefit from these experimental and decentralized institutions in regulating exchanges. In fact, it is suggested for the Iranian legislator that if it decides to develop comprehensive regulations to oversee the activities of cryptocurrency exchanges, until its approval, it should apply quick-to-approve but experimental regulations to exchanges so that, in this way, there is both an opportunity to develop appropriate regulations and to use the positive or negative feedback of experimental regulations in developing final regulations. However, if the Iranian legislator decides to enact interventionist regulations to oversee the activities of exchanges, it is recommended that at least by granting more supervisory power and authority to domestic self-regulatory bodies, such as the Computer Systems Engineers Association, the Association of Financial Technologies, and the Blockchain Technologists Association, in the more accurate implementation and execution of this American regulatory system in the law governing exchanges in Iran, a significant step should be taken towards indirectly supervising Iranian cryptocurrency exchanges. In addition, the imposition and implementation of income tax regulations on exchanges and the transactions conducted on their platforms can be fruitful in the light of clause 17 of the general policies of "resistance economy" announced by the leadership, aimed at reforming the government's revenue system by increasing the share of tax revenues. In addition, given the international nature of digital currency transactions on the blockchain and the huge investments of Iranian citizens in the digital currency market, regulations should be enacted and implemented to restrict capital outflows from the country, such as imposing daily deposit limits. Regarding the liabilities of cryptocurrency exchanges, it seems that apart from their administrative/professional liability (which, of course, includes cryptocurrency exchanges according to subsequent regulations) and their criminal liability (which is subject to the general criminal regulations of the country), the legislator's attention to the contractual and civil liabilities of exchanges towards their users in terms of consumer protection has been largely neglected, and it is recommended that specific legal mechanisms be created (such as obligating exchanges to insure customers' assets or monitoring the system of charging fees by exchanges from users) to protect consumers (exchange users) - who are considered the weaker party in the exchange-user relationship - through bodies such as the "Consumer Protection Organization", in order to, while adjusting the unilateral contracts of exchanges against users, create a reasonable balance between the rights and obligations of exchanges and their users. 4. Conclusions and Future Research Overall, it seems that the few domestic regulations that have been developed in the field of cryptocurrency law have generally been about cryptocurrencies in general and have not been specific to the requirements of cryptocurrency exchanges. This is while the institution of cryptocurrency exchanges, due to their prominent role in the world of digital currencies, requires special regulations. Special legislation for the institution of exchanges is more important than legislation for cryptocurrencies themselves; because, given the centralized nature of exchanges, these institutions are more amenable to being regulated than cryptocurrencies themselves, which are typically decentralized. In fact, the domestic legislator has not yet fully considered the high economic potential of cryptocurrency exchanges and, of course, their potential threats in developing and implementing regulations in this area, and in this regard, there is still a lot of room for improvement in its legal policy to reach the desired global level - compared to the first-level legal systems of the world, including the European Union and the United States of America.
تبلیغات
