A MODEL OF CYBERSECURITY, LEGAL LIABILITY, AND INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEMS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Authors

  • Danayeva Zulhumor Abdusodiq kizi Samarqand iqtisodiyot va servis institutitalabasi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55640/

Keywords:

artificial intelligence security; e-commerce cybersecurity; institutional stability; legal accountability; digital trust; AI governance; adversarial machine learning; panel data analysis; digital policy of Uzbekistan.

Abstract

The deep integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into global e-commerce platforms has significantly optimized operational processes, expanded the scope of cybersecurity risks and formed new digital attack vectors. In this context, the need for a comprehensive analysis of the interrelationship between cybersecurity, legal accountability, and institutional stability is growing. This study develops an AI-CLIS (Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity–Legal Accountability–Institutional Stability) model that integrates these three components. The model analyzes the impact of AI governance on security and institutional stability in e-commerce ecosystems based on a multidimensional approach.

References

1.Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business.

2.Apruzzese, G., Pierazzi, F., Colajanni, M., & Marchetti, M. (2022). Detection and adversarial machine learning in cybersecurity: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–36.

3.Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275.

4.Biggio, B., & Roli, F. (2018). Wild patterns: Ten years after the rise of adversarial machine learning. Pattern Recognition, 84, 317–331.

5.ENISA. (2024). ENISA Threat Landscape 2024. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.

6.European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation 2024/1689).

7.European Union. (2022). NIS2 Directive (Directive 2022/2555).

8.European Union. (2019). Cybersecurity Act (Regulation 2019/881).

9.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

10.Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.

11.Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

12.McKinsey Global Institute. (2023). The economic potential of generative AI.

13.OECD. (2019/2024). Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Publishing.

14.OECD. (2023). Going Digital Toolkit. OECD Publishing.

15.North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

16.NIST. (2022). Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

17.UNCTAD. (2024). Digital Economy Report 2024. United Nations.

18.World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators & Governance Indicators. Washington, DC.

19.World Bank. (2023). Digital Economy Projects and Regulatory Sandboxes Report.

20.World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2024.

21.ITU. (2024). Global Cybersecurity Index 2024. International Telecommunication Union.

22.Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

23.Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial policy for the twenty-first century. Harvard University.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-07

How to Cite

A MODEL OF CYBERSECURITY, LEGAL LIABILITY, AND INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEMS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. (2026). International Journal of Political Sciences and Economics, 5(6), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.55640/

Similar Articles

1-10 of 919

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.