Aligning North Macedonia's AI Policy with the EU: Bridging the Regulatory Gap
This policy brief explores how the European Union AI Act will influence North Macedonia's legal and institutional readiness for EU integration. It highlights the country's current regulatory vacuum regarding AI and outlines the necessary structural, legal, and institutional reforms required to harmonize national laws with EU standards. The document emphasizes the risks of regulatory fragmentation and provides recommendations for establishing a dedicated AI law and strengthening enforcement bodies.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Policymakers, regulators, and researchers interested in EU enlargement and AI governance alignment in North Macedonia.
What the document contains
The document addresses North Macedonia's legal, institutional, and technical gaps in AI governance compared to the EU AI Act. It evaluates current data protection laws, discusses the necessity of risk-based AI classification, and outlines steps for regulatory alignment and capacity building.
It does not provide binding national legislation, enforce penalties itself, or establish operational regulatory bodies; it is an analytical policy brief recommending reforms.
- North Macedonia currently lacks a dedicated regulatory framework or specific legislation to govern artificial intelligence.
- Aligning national legislation with the EU AI Act is critical for North Macedonia's EU accession process and to prevent regulatory fragmentation.
- The country's existing Law on Personal Data Protection provides a foundational start but is insufficient to address complex AI challenges like algorithmic bias and automated decision-making.
- Institutional capacity building, including resourcing supervisory authorities and training civil servants, is urgently needed.
- Technical infrastructure improvements, cybersecurity enhancements, and measures to prevent brain drain of AI professionals are vital for sustainable governance.
· Introduction · Overview of the EU AI Act and Its Principles · North Macedonia’s Current Regulatory Landscape for AI · Necessary Legal, Institutional, and Technical Changes for Alignment · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
The Act mandates that these systems undergo conformity assessments, meet specific standards of data quality, ensure human oversight, and include mechanisms for transparency and accountability.
Overview of the EU AI Act and Its Principles
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
4/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Most importantly, adopting this framework anchors the country’s digital future in the protection of fundamental rights— ensuring that AI serves people, safeguards their dignity
Conclusion
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
4/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
that human oversight ensures developers are in full control and able to halt operations at any given moment
Overview of the EU AI Act and Its Principles
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
4/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
and that transparency measures include clear instructions to ensure accountability in deployment and usage
Overview of the EU AI Act and Its Principles
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
This legislation must also mandate fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems before their deployment
Legal Changes
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
4/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
This legislation must also mandate fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems before their deployment
Legal Changes
screening score · 2026-10-23