Artificial Intelligence Governance, Algorithmic Accountability, and Administrative Law Reform: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Canada and South Korea

Abstract

This article examines how artificial intelligence (AI) governance and administrative law reform reshape institutional accountability, public-sector legitimacy, regulatory transparency, and sustainable governance in Canada and South Korea. The study argues that AI governance increasingly constitutes a structural transformation of administrative law because algorithmic decision-making systems, automated public services, and predictive governance technologies influence regulatory authority, public accountability, socio-economic inclusion, and democratic legitimacy. Using comparative legal and socio-institutional analysis, the article investigates how Canada’s rights-oriented and ethics-centered AI governance framework and South Korea’s innovation-driven and digitally integrated governance model generate divergent approaches to algorithmic accountability, public-sector automation, regulatory oversight, and institutional coordination. Drawing on government AI frameworks, OECD digital-governance indicators, administrative-law reforms, World Bank governance datasets, UNESCO AI ethics reports, and comparative legal scholarship, the findings demonstrate that effective AI governance depends on regulatory coherence, institutional adaptability, procedural accountability, and public legitimacy. The comparison reveals that Canada prioritizes rights-based administrative safeguards, ethical accountability, and procedural transparency, whereas South Korea emphasizes technological integration, administrative efficiency, and coordinated digital-state transformation. The article contributes to legal scholarship by proposing a conceptual framework linking AI governance, administrative accountability, institutional trust, regulatory resilience, and sustainable socio-economic development. The findings further indicate that algorithmic governance may strengthen administrative efficiency and policy responsiveness while simultaneously generating tensions concerning automated discrimination, surveillance expansion, institutional opacity, and democratic accountability when legal safeguards remain insufficient.