The Emerging Law of Artificial Intelligence in Azerbaijan: Between National Strategy and European Regulatory Frameworks
TL;DR
The article proposes a proportionate Azerbaijani Responsible AI Framework based on functional risk classification, impact assessment, documentation, meaningful human oversight, public-sector procurement controls, incident reporting, effective remedies and institutionally credible supervision and argues for regulatory interoperability with European and international models without mechanical institutional transplantation.
Abstract
Azerbaijan is moving from a general digital-development policy toward a distinct but still fragmented legal and institutional framework for artificial intelligence (AI). This article examines that transition through doctrinal legal research and functional comparative analysis. It evaluates constitutional and personal-data safeguards, the Artificial Intelligence Strategy for 2025–2028, national AI standards, digital-government infrastructure, regulatory experimentation, public-sector AI applications and the binding synthetic-media rules adopted in 2026. The article characterises the emerging model as strategy-led modularism: strategic direction, technical standards, institutional coordination and issue-specific legislation develop incrementally rather than through a single comprehensive AI statute. Comparison with the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act identifies the principal gap as the absence of enforceable lifecycle duties for high-impact systems, particularly where AI affects individual rights or structures the exercise of public authority. The article proposes a proportionate Azerbaijani Responsible AI Framework based on functional risk classification, impact assessment, documentation, meaningful human oversight, public-sector procurement controls, incident reporting, effective remedies and institutionally credible supervision. It argues for regulatory interoperability with European and international models without mechanical institutional transplantation.