Governance of Emerging Technologies: Legal Challenges and Alternative Pathways

Introduction

Emerging technologies are undergoing rapid and unprecedented development, with new innovations impacting various aspects of life. Emerging Technologies refer to modern innovations that are still evolving and entering the market, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, digital currencies, the Internet of Things, 5G networks, autonomous robots, and drones, among others. While these technologies hold tremendous potential for strengthening the economy and improving the quality of life, they also necessitate robust regulatory frameworks to ensure their secure and responsible use.

This technological acceleration poses a fundamental legislative challenge. Laws and regulations, by their very nature, require time to develop and pass, while technologies change rapidly and are launched on the market without waiting. Legislators often find themselves racing to catch up with technologies that have already spread and impacted society before an appropriate legal framework is in place.

A recent US government report highlighted that emerging technologies have created a phenomenon known as “the pacing problem,” which arises from the disparity between the rapid pace of innovation and the slow pace of regulation. The report emphasized the importance of aligning legislation with technological advancements, both to protect the public interest and support innovation.

This situation raises a broad dilemma regarding the timing of legislative intervention: Should regulations be enacted preemptively—that is, before the technology becomes widely adopted and before its impacts are fully understood—or is it preferable to adopt an ex-post approach, intervening only once the features and challenges of the technology have become clearer? Each approach entails its own advantages and risks.

Preemptive regulation may protect against potential harms from the outset; however, it faces the challenge of predicting the future trajectory of a given technology. By contrast, adopting a reactive, wait-and-see approach means that society may be exposed to actual harm before the law intervenes. By that time, the technology may have become so entrenched that regulating it effectively becomes far more difficult.

This ambivalence between the precautionary principle and the principle of free innovation is the focus of this paper. It examines the drivers behind regulating emerging technologies, the challenges legislators face in this context, and a survey of various international experiences in addressing new technologies.

The paper also addresses the Egyptian context, which, in addition to these general issues, presents specific challenges related to a pronounced reluctance to advocate for new legislation—even when such laws are primarily regulatory in nature. Recent Egyptian legislative experience has revealed a tendency to address technological advancements disproportionately, often imparting a punitive character to regulatory frameworks.

Why Do Emerging Technologies Require Legal Regulation?

Despite the significant opportunities presented by emerging technologies, there are compelling reasons to regulate them and establish boundaries and controls for their use. This perspective illustrates that the debate surrounding these technologies is inextricably linked to the broader discourse on rights, freedoms, and the balance between legal, economic, and social interests. Accordingly, recognizing the importance of these rationales represents a fundamental entry point for understanding the legislative dimensions associated with technological developments and formulating appropriate public policies.

Protecting Fundamental Rights

The protection of fundamental rights and freedoms constitutes one of the primary rationales for establishing a legal framework that governs emerging technologies. For example, the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence technologies has heightened concerns about privacy violations through large-scale data collection and analysis.

These concerns have prompted legislators—particularly in the European context—to strengthen existing regulatory frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), while simultaneously developing a separate legislative proposal to regulate AI (the AI Act). This approach aims to ensure that technology is used in a manner that safeguards individual privacy and fundamental rights, while imposing clear obligations on developers regarding transparency, accountability, and oversight.

In the same context, the Internet of Things (IoT) and connected devices have sparked extensive debate about the fragility of contemporary digital infrastructures. Their constant connectivity to networks makes them ideal targets for sophisticated attacks that may endanger individual privacy and the stability of critical infrastructures such as energy, water, and healthcare. Real-world incidents, such as attacks on power grids and hospitals through connected devices, have already revealed the scale of these tangible risks.

Accordingly, the role of legislation in this context is not limited to establishing general cybersecurity standards but also extends to imposing specific obligations on manufacturers and service providers. These obligations include embedding security requirements at the design stage (security by design), ensuring that devices undergo risk-assessment testing, and establishing independent oversight mechanisms to review compliance and hold accountable those who fail to comply.

Preventing Societal Harm and Negative Impacts

In addition to protecting individual rights, legislation regulating emerging technologies addresses the broad social repercussions that may result from the uncontrolled spread of these technologies. These technologies can cause harm to the structure and cohesion of society, whether by reproducing existing patterns of discrimination or creating new forms of social and economic exclusion.

For instance, in the case of AI, training practices based on unbalanced or biased datasets have yielded outcomes that perpetuate discrimination against certain groups, such as those based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. This risk has prompted several legislators and researchers to call for legal frameworks that mandate transparency in algorithm design and require system developers to conduct regular testing to detect and mitigate bias.

Similarly, the growing proliferation of automation and robotics raises concerns about technological unemployment, as machines replace workers in various sectors, including traditional industries and certain service professions. This is where regulatory efforts become more critical, mandating countries and companies to develop “Just Transition” policies that ensure the retraining of workers and the expansion of social safety nets, thus preventing the exacerbation of economic inequalities.

In addition, the digital environment has enabled an unprecedented proliferation of disinformation and hate speech, affecting both social stability and democratic processes. This has prompted the enactment of specific legislation to combat harmful content, striking a balance between obligating digital platforms to establish effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms and protecting freedom of expression from excessive restrictions.

Ensuring Fair Competition and Preventing Monopolization

Emerging technologies often give rise to new markets that rapidly reshape the rules of economic interaction. Yet these markets frequently evolve into arenas dominated by a handful of large corporations. This is mainly due to interrelated factors, most notably network effects—where the value of platforms increases with the number of users—and first-mover advantage, which enables early entrants to secure a dominant position that is difficult to challenge.

Today, Big Tech companies exemplify this phenomenon, monopolizing key sectors such as search engines, social media platforms, and digital advertising. This raises concerns about the emergence of technological monopolies that can exclude competitors and control the flow of information and data. Consequently, there have been growing calls to apply classical antitrust mechanisms to the digital environment, and even to develop new frameworks tailored to the unique characteristics of emerging technologies.

In the same context, concerns have been raised in the field of AI. The control of a limited number of companies over large-scale models and cloud infrastructure can restrict competition and weaken the ability of new players to enter the market. This underscores the need for regulatory rules that guarantee neutral access to data and infrastructure, while curbing monopolistic practices that could lead to the concentration of technological power in the hands of a few.

Indeed, the issue extends beyond merely curbing monopolies to the necessity of designing ex-ante regulatory policies for digital markets, ensuring equal opportunities for startups and medium-sized enterprises, and fostering innovation by opening the field to a diversity of actors. This approach serves two complementary objectives: protecting consumers from the effects of monopoly and establishing a fair, competitive environment that encourages the development of innovative solutions aligned with the public interest.

Protecting Vulnerable and At-Risk Groups

Protecting vulnerable groups is one of the most compelling rationales for regulating emerging technologies. Children, minors, and ordinary consumers with limited technical literacy may lack the knowledge and digital skills necessary to recognize and address online risks. Consequently, they become more susceptible to exploitation or harm from practices associated with technologies such as AI, IoT, or digital medical applications.

The European legislator has paid particular attention to these groups in the AI Act, explicitly stipulating the need to protect children and minors, taking into account their limited digital maturity and poor ability to assess risks. The Act also includes a ban on specific applications that exploit their vulnerability or are specifically designed to influence their choices and decisions in ways that could harm their interests or fundamental rights.

In parallel, data protection laws worldwide have emphasized the establishment of special rules for safeguarding children’s data. For instance, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in the United States imposes obligations on companies to collect and process children’s data transparently, while also requiring parental consent in many cases. Similarly, health data protection laws—such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States—impose strict standards to ensure the confidentiality of patient data, recognizing their sensitive status.

In addition, legislation is now mandated to extend protection to digital consumers more broadly by imposing obligations related to transparency and disclosure. One of the most prominent of these is the principle of “the right to know.” It mandates companies to clearly disclose whether the user is interacting with an AI system or a robot, allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the nature of the other party.

This approach reflects a growing recognition that the vulnerability of some groups is not solely confined to age or health status, but also extends to limited technical and cognitive expertise in dealing with advanced and complex digital systems. Protecting vulnerable groups has become a fundamental legislative focus to ensure that emerging technologies do not become a tool for entrenching inequality or exploiting those least able to defend themselves.

Challenges in Regulating Emerging Technologies

Despite the strong rationale for regulating emerging technologies, the process of enacting legislation and developing regulatory frameworks in these domains remains fraught with difficulties and complexities. The most prominent challenges can be outlined as follows:

Technological Novelty and Uncertainty

The novelty and opacity of emerging technologies represent one of the most pressing challenges for legislators. In the early stages of any new technology, the knowledge available is often limited and ambiguous—even for developers and experts themselves. These technologies, by their very nature, are subject to rapid cycles of innovation and constant change, making predictions about their future trajectories and their social, political, and economic impacts fraught with uncertainty.

This ambiguity becomes strikingly clear when examining past experiences. For instance, when social media networks first emerged, no one could have predicted that within a decade, they would evolve into critical infrastructures for public discourse, profoundly influencing elections, political power dynamics, and social interaction patterns. A similar uncertainty applies today to technologies such as generative AI and blockchain, where debates continue over whether they will unlock unprecedented avenues for innovation and productivity, or instead exacerbate existing crises, including economic inequality and privacy threats.

Some scholars have articulated this challenge through what is known as “the Collingridge Dilemma”, which highlights the inherent paradox in the stages of technological development. In the early phases, intervention and regulation are relatively more straightforward given the limited diffusion of the technology; yet, knowledge of its actual impacts remains incomplete. However, over time, as those impacts become clearer and better understood, the technology has often already become entrenched in social and economic structures, making it far more difficult—and costly—to steer or control.

From this perspective, legislators face a dual dilemma: either to adopt precautionary rules that may constrain innovation based on incomplete knowledge, or to wait until the picture becomes clearer and then bear the burdens of addressing deeply entrenched impacts that are difficult to contain. This dilemma highlights the inherent difficulty of anticipating future risks and underscores the limitations of states’ regulatory capacity in the face of rapid technological innovation.

Fear of Stifling Innovation and Overregulation

Concerns about slowing innovation or driving away investment represent a central consideration for policymakers when contemplating the regulation of emerging technologies. The technology sector is marked by unprecedented dynamism and speed, and Silicon Valley typically cites the motto “permissionless innovation”—a principle closely associated with the rise of many leading tech companies.

In this context, the United States has historically leaned toward a flexible regulatory approach that prioritizes allowing innovation first and seeking approval later, thereby fostering an environment conducive to entrepreneurship and the emergence of global technology giants. In contrast, Europe adopts a more cautious approach rooted in the Precautionary Principle, which emphasizes proactive regulation—that is, anticipating potential risks and seeking to mitigate them before they materialize, even if this comes at the expense of some degree of experimental freedom.

Along the same lines, the concept of “Smart Regulation” has emerged—referring to the design of both explicit and flexible rules. This approach helps stimulate rather than hinder innovation by reassuring investors, providing greater legal certainty regarding risks, and ensuring a sustainable competitive environment. In this sense, regulation is not viewed as an obstacle, but rather as a tool for shaping fair and transparent rules that foster trust among all stakeholders.

It is clear from the above that the core challenge lies in striking a delicate balance. Excessive regulation at the outset may raise compliance costs and complicate innovation pathways, potentially discouraging entrepreneurs and investors from entering the market or pushing them to relocate to more flexible environments. Conversely, the absence of adequate regulatory frameworks may leave the door open to severe social and economic harms, such as the exacerbation of inequalities, threats to privacy, and even security risks.

The Global Nature of Technology and Its Transcendence of National Borders

Digital technologies are characterized by their transnational nature, as applications, services, and data flow seamlessly through cyberspace, transcending traditional geographic and political boundaries. This global nature renders any national regulatory effort alone limited in its impact and may even fail to achieve its desired goals. For example, cryptocurrencies have posed an apparent regulatory dilemma. While China has moved to impose a complete ban, citizens have nevertheless remained able to access them through foreign platforms beyond the reach of domestic authorities.

The same applies to harmful digital content—such as disinformation and hate speech— which spreads globally within seconds, rendering any national law only partially effective unless integrated with robust international cooperation mechanisms. This raises a critical question: who holds jurisdiction in regulating such transboundary phenomena? And are local frameworks sufficient to confront threats that are global in nature?

This dilemma has prompted some researchers to call for the development of international regulatory frameworks, or at least regional coordination among major powers to ensure a minimum level of legal harmonization. Yet the reality is far more complex, as regulatory approaches diverge significantly.

The United States, for example, tends toward a flexible, market-driven model; Europe adopts a strict precautionary approach rooted in the Precautionary Principle; while China pursues a path of centralized control and extensive state oversight. This divergence is not limited to major powers; it also extends to many developing countries that already lack the technical and institutional capabilities to exercise effective control over the digital space.

The World Economic Forum described this situation as being “at risk of fragmentation” due to intensifying geopolitical competition among major powers, each seeking to impose its own standards. This competition comes at a time when global risks—such as the use of AI in military, security, or intelligence domains—demand unprecedented levels of international coordination that transcend existing political divisions.

Lack of Technical Expertise within Legislative and Regulatory Bodies

The lack of technical knowledge within legislative and regulatory institutions is one of the most significant challenges complicating the regulation of emerging technologies. Technological advancement progresses at a pace far exceeding the ability of parliaments and administrative bodies to keep up. This knowledge gap leaves legislators vulnerable to relying on superficial information or the narratives of major corporations, which themselves have an interest in steering policies according to their priorities.

There is also a gap in understanding the socio-economic and rights-related implications of emerging technologies, such as the role of algorithms in reinforcing discrimination, or the use of surveillance technologies in undermining public freedoms. In the absence of sufficient technical competence, legislation may end up being either overly vague and difficult to enforce or delayed to the point where the technology has already become firmly entrenched in the market and society.

These challenges have prompted many countries and international institutions to consider innovative mechanisms to bridge this gap— for example, establishing committees or advisory bodies that bring together experts from diverse fields, or creating specialized units within legislative bodies that combine legal and technical expertise. Proposals have also emerged to strengthen transparency in the relationship between legislators and technology companies, to mitigate the risk of “regulatory capture” that may arise when legislators rely excessively on private-sector expertise.

Models of Emerging Technologies and Their Legal Treatment

To understand how the considerations above can be balanced in practice, it is helpful to review real-world examples of prominent emerging technologies that have sparked legislative debates or interventions in recent years. Below are five case studies highlighting different regulatory approaches:

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence has emerged as one of the most prominent technologies that has captured the attention of legislators and policymakers worldwide in recent years. While AI algorithms are not entirely new, rapid advances in areas such as deep learning and generative intelligent content have sparked extensive debates on transparency, bias, safety, and the broader impact of these systems on fundamental rights.

The European Union was among the first to attempt a comprehensive legal framework through the AI Act, proposed by the European Commission in 2021. The Act adopts a risk-based approach, classifying AI applications according to their level of risk.

Unacceptable Risks (Prohibited)

• Practices involving manipulation, deception, or the exploitation of vulnerabilities.
• Social scoring systems or predictive policing of individual crimes.
• Indiscriminate collection of facial images or databases for facial recognition.
• Real-time, remote biometric identification in public spaces.

High Risks (Permitted with Strict Safeguards)

• Safety components in critical infrastructure and medical products.
• Education (e.g., exam grading, career guidance).
• Employment and workforce management (e.g., CV screening).
• Essential services (e.g., credit scoring).
• Law enforcement (e.g., evidence analysis).
• Migration, asylum, and border control.

Limited risks (requires transparency)

• Disclosure when interacting with chatbots.
• Clear labelling of AI-generated content, in particular, deepfakes and automatically generated text.

Minimal or No Risk (Free Use)

• Applications such as video games and spam filters.

In contrast, the United States has adopted a more flexible approach. To date, no comprehensive federal law on AI has been enacted. Instead, reliance has been placed on voluntary guidelines and codes of conduct, supplemented by the application of existing legislation—such as anti-discrimination laws—to AI-related cases. Additionally, the White House has issued executive orders to promote the development of safe AI without establishing a strict legal framework.

This divergence between the European and U.S. models reflects a complex balance between precaution and innovation. While the European approach views protecting society as requiring stringent and preemptive regulation, the U.S. approach relies more heavily on industry self-regulation to avoid stifling innovation.

At the international level, calls have intensified for the development of common codes of conduct and shared standards for AI. These include UNESCO’s efforts to adopt ethical guidelines and ongoing discussions within the United Nations on establishing a global framework for AI governance. These efforts underscore that the issue has become a global priority, requiring international coordination that transcends differences across legal systems.

2. Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies

Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies—such as Bitcoin—represent one of the clearest examples of the regulatory challenges posed by decentralized, cross-border technologies. From their inception, these currencies have been associated with a vision of liberation from traditional regulatory authorities, such as central banks and governments, which has inherently placed them in confrontation with financial authorities around the world. Regulatory responses have, accordingly, varied significantly across legal systems.

China has exemplified the most stringent regulatory approach. In September 2021, the People’s Bank of China, in coordination with ten other regulatory authorities, announced a complete ban on all cryptocurrency transactions and mining activities. The authorities justified this stance by citing concerns related to safeguarding the financial system from systemic risks and organized crime, as well as the state’s desire to maintain absolute control over monetary policy.

Concerns have also been raised regarding money laundering and financial fraud, and the negative impact of mining on China’s environmental goals due to its massive energy consumption. The People’s Bank of China has emphasized that it will deal “firmly” with any attempt to use virtual currencies, deeming it necessary to protect citizens and the economic and social system.

On the other hand, the European Union has taken a more open path, based on regulation and integration rather than prohibition. In 2023, a unified legal framework for cryptocurrencies, known as MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), was adopted. This framework aims to integrate digital assets into the formal financial system by mandating registration for trading platforms, implementing strict anti-money laundering rules, and ensuring investor protection.

Additionally, the regulation required stablecoin issuers to maintain specified financial reserves and imposed stringent transparency and disclosure requirements on service providers. Through this approach, the European Union has sought to transform cryptocurrencies from an “unknown risk” into a regulated sector, aiming to strike a balance between fostering financial innovation and mitigating its attendant risks—much in line with its earlier approach to the fintech sector.

The United States, meanwhile, has adopted an intermediate position: it has neither prohibited cryptocurrencies nor established a comprehensive federal framework to date. Instead, regulators have relied on the application of existing laws—most notably securities legislation—by classifying specific cryptocurrencies as unregistered securities.

Recently, the U.S. Congress has seen efforts to introduce clearer legislation, particularly in the wake of the collapse of major platforms such as FTX, which highlighted the risks of lacking strict controls. Overall, the United States is gradually shifting toward a selective regulatory approach that prioritizes investor protection and the prevention of financial crimes. It is also aiming to avoid stifling innovation, which is regarded as a key driver of the digital economy in Silicon Valley.

3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs (Civil Drones)

Over the past decade, drones have transitioned from being purely military equipment to widely used civilian tools, employed in various applications, including photography and media production, logistics and delivery services, as well as agriculture and environmental monitoring.

This rapid proliferation has brought air safety and individual privacy to the forefront of regulatory discussions. Drones are real aircraft that can be operated by non-specialists, raising the risk of potential collisions or unauthorized aerial surveillance. Consequently, most legislative efforts across countries have focused on two main areas: air safety and privacy protection.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been responsible for regulating drone operations since 2015. The rules required any drone weighing more than 250 grams to be registered in a national database and imposed operational restrictions. These restrictions include limits on maximum flight altitude, maintaining visual line-of-sight with the operator, and prohibitions on flying over crowds or near airports and other sensitive airspace without special authorization.

The FFA also recently adopted a mandatory electronic identification system (Remote ID), enabling authorities to track drones and assign accountability in the event of violations or accidents. Regarding privacy, the federal government has left most of the details to state-level legislation, many of which have passed laws criminalizing the use of drones for unauthorized filming or surveillance on private property.

In Europe, a unified EU regulation came into effect in 2020 under the supervision of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This regulation adopts a risk-based approach, categorizing drone operations into three distinct classes:

• Open Category (Low Risk): Flight is permitted under simplified conditions, such as restrictions on drone weight and distance from people.
• Specific Category (Medium Risk): Requires prior notification or authorization based on a risk assessment for each operation.
• Certified Category (High Risk): Treated similarly to human-crewed aircraft, requiring airworthiness certificates and certified operators; intended for advanced operations such as urban delivery or, in the future, passenger transport.

The EU regulation also requires registration of most drones that exceed a certain weight or are equipped with cameras. It mandates that operators undergo training and obtain certifications graded according to the operational category. The European framework further places particular emphasis on personal data protection considerations, requiring any use of cameras or data collection to comply with privacy legislation such as the GDPR.

A striking example in this context is the “Regulatory Sandboxes” initiative. This initiative was implemented in the UK and other countries, allowing companies to test innovations—such as drone delivery services—within defined boundaries and under regulatory supervision, with temporary relaxation of certain restrictions. This framework strikes a balance, enabling experimentation and innovation while maintaining a minimum level of oversight.

Overall, the regulatory experience with drones illustrates a gradual and adaptive approach. It began with the establishment of basic safety rules, followed by the introduction of technical requirements such as Remote ID, and most recently, the development of flexible solutions to encourage safe and innovative use. Debates persist regarding fully autonomous drones and the implications of their decision-making processes. However, the experience so far serves as a relatively successful example of how law can keep pace with technological advances and protect the public interest without banning the technology itself.

Egyptian Laws Influencing Emerging Technologies

When examining the legal environment for emerging technologies in Egypt, a recurring pattern appears in the legislative philosophy: one dominated by security and central control at the expense of development and innovation considerations. In many provisions related to scientific research, the digital space, and technology regulation, Egyptian legislators operate from the premise that technology is a potential source of risk before recognizing its potential as a development opportunity.

This legislative philosophy is evident in a significant increase in the criminalization of modern technology use. This expansion occurs either through provisions that are broadly worded, allowing for wide interpretation, or by granting regulatory and security authorities discretionary powers that lack precise limitations.

Instead of adopting flexible and gradual legislative tools, as in recent international experiments such as experimental regulations or regulatory sandboxes, legislators tend to favor pre-emptive restrictions that impose legal barriers before technological activities are even undertaken. These restrictions effectively stifle many innovation efforts at their inception. Additionally, this approach aligns with the nature of administrative regulation in Egypt, characterized by centralized authority and hierarchical licensing and approval processes, where bureaucracy becomes a direct constraint on researchers, developers, and entrepreneurs.

First: The Egyptian Constitutional Framework and Emerging Technologies

The Egyptian Constitution serves as the foundational reference for any discussion on regulating emerging technologies, as it establishes a set of principles and obligations directly or indirectly relevant to the innovation and scientific research environment. An examination of its provisions reveals that the constitutional legislator has established an integrated system that emphasizes the centrality of education, research, and innovation within the state’s structure.

These provisions serve as a supreme constitutional reference, constraining ordinary legislators and state institutions from enacting laws or adopting policies that undermine the environment for technological development or stifle scientific research, except to the extent required by legitimate necessity and in accordance with specific controls.

Accordingly, any legislative framework for emerging technologies in Egypt must strike a careful balance: on the one hand, safeguarding rights and the public interest, and on the other, respecting the constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of research and innovation. The Constitution explicitly imposes positive obligations on the state to implement and provide the necessary conditions—an imperative that must be reflected in all legislation related to innovation and technology.

Foremost among these provisions is Article 23, which enshrines the principle of freedom of scientific research as a “means to achieve national sovereignty and build a knowledge-based economy.”

The article goes beyond merely recognizing this freedom; it obliges the state to promote research institutions and support researchers and inventors, including the allocation of at least 1% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to support scientific research. This constitutional commitment establishes a direct legal responsibility on the state to create an environment that enables innovation. It sets clear limits on any attempt to enact restrictive legislation that is not grounded in legitimate necessity.

Article (21) further affirms the state’s commitment to ensuring the quality of higher education and developing it in accordance with international standards, while reinforcing the autonomy of universities and scientific institutions. Although the article primarily addresses the educational domain, institutional autonomy constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for the flourishing of scientific research in emerging technological fields. Consequently, any restrictions that undermine academic or research freedom would constitute a direct conflict with this constitutional framework.

Regarding natural resources and energy, Article (32) stipulates the state’s obligation to preserve resources and ensure their proper utilization, promote investment in renewable energy sources, and support related scientific research. This direct linkage between scientific research and strategic technologies expands the constitutional framework to encompass technological innovation as an integral component of national sovereignty and resource management.

Finally, Article 238 imposes a temporal obligation on the state to gradually increase allocations for education and scientific research until the constitutional targets are met. This article provides a mechanism to hold the state accountable in case of underfunding the research and development environment, which could otherwise jeopardize the sustainability of the technological innovation ecosystem.

Second: The Universities and Scientific Research Law

The legal framework governing higher education and scientific research in Egypt is characterized by a high degree of centralization. The Law Regulating Universities – particularly Article (19) – vests full authority over the formulation of higher education and scientific research policies in the Supreme Council of Universities. This authority has led to a uniform, top-down regulatory environment, where a central body dictates research priorities and strategic plans for all Egyptian universities.

While this centralized model may ensure institutional consistency, it simultaneously undermines universities’ ability to respond swiftly to rapid technological changes. For instance, researchers could face difficulties in directing their efforts toward emerging fields, such as AI or biotechnology, due to the limited autonomy granted to universities under this law, which constrains them within a slow-moving bureaucratic framework.

The executive regulations of the law reveal a strong tendency to control the academic and research trajectory through complex procedural requirements, ranging from research topic registration to academic supervision, the formation of discussion committees, and even publication procedures.

For example, Articles (98 and 103–105 ) stipulate a tiered system for approving research topics, requiring successive approvals: from the Department Council, then the College Council, and finally the Graduate Studies Committee. This obligatory chain of approvals prolongs research timelines. It entangles projects in bureaucratic labyrinths—an approach that is at odds with the nature of emerging technologies, which demand high flexibility, rapid adaptation to research and development trends, and sometimes the acceptance of levels of risk that traditional, rigid university frameworks are ill-equipped to accommodate.

The law’s impact is not limited to the administrative aspect; it rather extends to shaping the institutional culture governing academic work. Articles (123 and following) of the executive regulations demonstrate an excessive focus on disciplinary controls such as “academic violation” and “unauthorized activity,” coupled with severe penalties for researchers and students.

Rather than providing incentives and expanding academic freedom, this environment creates a climate of caution and compliance that limits researchers from experimenting with new ideas or engaging in sensitive fields such as digital technologies or international collaboration on research projects.

Regarding the university–society interface, Article (35 bis “a”) of the law provides for the establishment of a Community Service and Environmental Development Council within each university. However, the absence of implementing mechanisms and binding legislative obligations has rendered this provision largely declarative, with little practical effect.

The law offers neither incentives nor mandates to encourage universities to forge technological partnerships with industry, host business incubators, or provide platforms for testing emerging technologies. Rather than serving as engines of innovation and creativity, as seen in leading global examples, Egyptian universities remain constrained by a central authority that may not keep pace with global technological advancements. This authority limits academics’ and researchers’ influence in the market and their ability to leverage funding and investment opportunities.

Third: The Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law

Law No. 175 of 2018 on Combating Information Technology Crimes was issued as Egypt’s first comprehensive legislative framework for regulating the digital space and addressing cybercrimes. While the law plays a key role in enhancing cybersecurity, a critical reading of its provisions reveals sensitive areas of tension between security requirements on one hand, and freedom of innovation and research on the other. These tensions create a legal environment heavily laden with restrictions, undermining investment in emerging technologies and discouraging technological experimentation.

The law employs vague language, using terms such as “unauthorized access,” “unauthorized interception”, and “exceeding the bounds of a right” (Articles 14–17), without providing precise technical definitions or clear standards for establishing criminal intent. This ambiguity allows for broad interpretations that could encompass purely educational or research activities, such as attack simulations or penetration testing. The absence of a clear distinction between legitimate use of technologies for research or academic purposes and malicious use fosters a climate of legal uncertainty and ongoing apprehension, undermining the very essence of experimentation-based innovation.

Additionally, the law imposes substantial obligations on service providers. Article (2) requires internet providers and digital companies to retain user data for a minimum of 180 days and to grant security authorities access upon request. The law does not explicitly mandate prior judicial authorization, raising substantial privacy concerns.

This obligation constitutes a considerable operational and financial burden on start-ups, which often lack the infrastructure to secure data on such a scale. Moreover, the fines stipulated in Articles (31 and 33) may reach millions of Egyptian pounds, which threatens the sustainability of these companies and deters investors from financing data-driven or cloud-based projects.

Article (7) grants the investigative authority the power to block any website or digital platform on the grounds of threatening “national security” or the “national economy”, without providing precise definitions of these terms or transparent criteria for enforcement. The absence of clear definitions may allow this authority to extend to emerging platforms or applications based on blockchain technology or generative AI. This legal ambiguity fosters self-censorship among developers, who may refrain from pursuing innovative experiments out of fear of being blocked or prosecuted, ultimately eroding Egypt’s digital dynamism.

On the other hand, cybersecurity research requires the use of tools that might appear “dangerous” outside an academic context, such as malware generators or virus simulation software. Yet, Article (22) criminalizes the possession or distribution of these tools for criminal purposes, without explicitly exempting their use in scientific research. This gap exposes researchers and students to potential legal liability, even when they intend to develop protective technologies. The absence of a clear distinction between research and criminal contexts undermines the ability of universities and research centers to contribute to the development of local cybersecurity solutions.

Furthermore, the law is characterized by a punitive, deterrent-oriented philosophy, as reflected in the severe penalties stipulated in Articles (30 and 34), which may reach heavy imprisonment and fines amounting to millions of Egyptian pounds.

The law also lacks mechanisms to strike a balance between deterrence and empowerment, as it provides no incentives for digital innovation and fails to distinguish between creative and criminal intent in the use of technology. Consequently, it functions more as a tool for control and intimidation than as a flexible framework capable of keeping pace with technological developments.

The current version of the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law prioritizes security considerations over innovation. Unless its executive regulations are amended to accommodate the particularities of scientific research and digital entrepreneurship, Egypt’s innovation ecosystem will remain susceptible to the risks of criminalization and content blocking.

Fourth: Law Regulating the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones)

In 2017, Egypt enacted a law regulating the use and distribution of automated or remotely controlled drones. Consequently, it adopts a general prohibition with conditional authorization: the import, manufacture, possession, or operation of drones is criminalized unless a prior permit is obtained from the Ministry of Defense. Such licenses are granted only under strict conditions and procedures and remain subject to the discretion of the competent military authorities.

This regulatory philosophy transforms the default rule regarding drone use into a prohibition, making authorization a limited exception. In addition, the law imposes severe penalties, ranging from lengthy prison terms to, in some cases, life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the use is linked to acts threatening state security. It also grants security and military authorities broad powers of control, inspection, and confiscation.

This stringent legal environment presents entrepreneurs and innovators with a genuine dilemma. Instead of being viewed as tools for economic development and service improvement, drones are perceived as latent threats, requiring tight restrictions. This situation has led to an almost complete freeze on commercial and innovative uses of drones in Egypt, as project owners fear entering the field due to potential criminal prosecution.

As a result, the innovative cost of the law becomes excessively high, as society loses economic and technological opportunities that could have contributed to the fields of smart transportation, precision agriculture, and emergency medical services.

While this precautionary approach may appear consistent with national security considerations, at its core, it undermines Egypt’s ability to keep pace with global advancements in one of the most promising technologies of the current decade.

Fifth: Telecommunications Regulation Law

Amid the global technological boom, Egypt sought to update its legal framework for the telecommunications sector through successive amendments to Law No. 10 of 2003 on the Regulation of Telecommunications, the most notable of which was Law No. 172 of 2022.

Although the stated aim of these amendments is to regulate the market and combat unlawful practices, their practical outcomes reveal an excessive expansion of criminalization and stringent bureaucratic restrictions, casting a heavy shadow over the environment for technological innovation.

The amended law has broadened the scope of criminalization relating to communications equipment and devices, so that it is no longer limited to unlicensed manufacturers or importers, but also includes unlicensed possession, use, operation, marketing, and installation. As a result, end-users and developers find themselves at the center of potential criminal liability.

The aim of this expansion may be to address “technological chaos” and regulate non-compliant devices; however, its actual effect is to create an environment fraught with legal risks. Even experimenting with a prototype or testing an innovative telecommunications device could expose its creator to legal liability. Ultimately, this undermines entrepreneurial initiative and constrains the potential for independent development.

The current formulations also lack flexibility in dealing with emerging technologies. They do not distinguish between large-scale commercial use and limited research or experimental applications. This rigidity places students, inventors, and researchers at risk of penalties if they use equipment not listed in the official registries.

Instead of encouraging the development of local solutions that meet national needs, the law has become an obstacle, undermining opportunities to keep pace with global technological advances and confining innovation to a narrow, risk-averse space.

Additionally, the amendments grant the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority up to 90 days to review permit applications for the use of new devices or technologies. While this period may seem reasonable from an administrative standpoint, it is excessively long in the fast-paced world of technology; within three months, a concept may lose its competitive edge or be overtaken by developments.

The amendments also adopt broad formulations linking any unauthorized use to “national security”, granting authorities extensive powers of prohibition, confiscation, and punishment, even without proof of actual harm. In this way, the law functions as a preventive regulatory tool that criminalizes technological acts in advance, bypassing the original principle of permissibility. The risks of this approach are even greater for dual-use technologies, such as encryption systems and decentralized networks, whose use is, in practice, almost entirely prohibited.

It is worth noting that Article (57) of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates the protection of citizens’ right to use means of communication and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation thereof. However, the amendments to the law imposed stringent restrictions and severe penalties without statistical justification or an assessment of the effectiveness of previous sanctions. Most importantly, the law has left no room for experimentation or innovation under academic or official supervision, treating all uses with equal strictness.

Conclusion

A careful reading of the Egyptian legislative frameworks governing emerging technologies reveals a crisis that goes beyond the legal texts themselves and reaches the very core of the legislative philosophy underpinning them. This philosophy, as demonstrated by examples from the Universities Organization Law, the Anti-Information and Technology Crimes Law, the Drone Regulation Law, and the Telecommunications Regulation Law, prioritizes control and security precaution over empowerment and innovation.

This orientation is reflected in legal provisions characterized by vague and ambiguous wording, excessively harsh penalties, or protracted bureaucratic procedures, while lacking a clear framework that elevates innovation as an integral part of the public interest that should be protected and nurtured.

The risks of this orientation manifest on several levels:

• At the level of scientific research: it creates a brain-draining environment, where researchers and innovators face three options: either strictly adhere to cumbersome and slow procedures that hinder experimentation, operate unofficially outside formal frameworks, or emigrate to countries that offer greater support and flexibility.
• At the level of investment and entrepreneurship: this legal climate reinforces a negative perception among investors and startups, based on legal uncertainty and fear of criminal liability for even the simplest technological experiments. As a result, Egypt becomes an unattractive environment for quality investments, which, by nature, rely on rapid experimentation and low compliance costs.
• At the international level: this approach contradicts established principles in technology governance, such as those outlined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and UNESCO standards. These principles emphasize striking a balance between innovation and responsibility, engaging stakeholders in decision-making, and resorting to strict legal measures only when necessary.

Suppose Egypt’s national strategies proclaim an ambition to become a regional hub for innovation and technology. In that case, the persistent gap between its legislative philosophy and global trends represents a structural obstacle that fundamentally undermines this objective.

Accordingly, the entire regulatory system should be reconsidered. It should shift from a philosophy of control and oversight toward one of empowerment and encouragement of experimentation and innovation. Given that the ability to keep pace with technological development is a fundamental prerequisite for any serious developmental project in the twenty-first century.