GÖÇ YÖNETİŞİMİNDE ALGORİTMİK SİSTEMLER VE YAPAY ZEKÂ: TEMEL HAKLAR AÇISINDAN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Abstract

Arka plan: Teknolojik ilerleme toplumun tüm kesimlerine eşit ulaşmamakta, en müdahaleci denetimler ise çoğunlukla en savunmasız gruplar üzerinde uygulanmaktadır. Göç yönetişimi, yapay zekâ ve algoritmik sistemlerin sınır kontrollerinden iltica başvurularına kadar yaygın biçimde kullanılmasıyla bu eğilimin en belirgin örneklerinden birini oluşturmaktadır. İdari süreçleri hızlandırmayı amaçlayan bu sistemler, göçmenler üzerinde yoğun bir denetim kurarak temel haklara doğrudan etki etmektedir. Amaç: Bu çalışma, göç yönetişiminde yapay zekâ ve algoritmik sistem kullanımının ayrımcılık yasağı, çocuğun üstün yararı ilkesi ve hak arama özgürlüğü bakımından doğurduğu hukuki sonuçları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Araştırma, insan hakları hukuku perspektifinden yürütülen doküman incelemesine dayalı normatif ve karşılaştırmalı bir hukuk çalışmasıdır. Betimsel ve analitik model çerçevesinde, AB Yapay Zekâ Tüzüğü başta olmak üzere birincil hukuk kaynakları ile akademik literatür incelenmiş; elde edilen veriler sistematik ve normatif analiz yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Yapay zekâ ve algoritmik sistemlerin, önyargılı veri setleri nedeniyle ayrımcılığı teknik tarafsızlık görünümü altında yeniden ürettiği belirlenmiştir. Özellikle yüz tanıma sistemlerinde etnik köken, yaş ve cinsiyetin kesiştiği gruplarda hata oranlarının arttığı görülmüştür. Biyometrik veri toplama yaşının altıya indirilmesi, çocukların birer güvenlik riski olarak değerlendirilmesine yol açmakta ve çocuğun üstün yararı ilkesiyle çelişmektedir. Ayrıca algoritmik karar mekanizmalarının opak yapısı, kararların gerekçelerinin denetlenmesini güçleştirerek hak arama özgürlüğünü zayıflatmaktadır. Sonuç: Göç yönetişimindeki algoritmik dönüşüm, hukuk devleti ilkeleri açısından önemli riskler barındırmaktadır. Yapay zekâ sistemlerinin ayrımcılığı önleyecek, şeffaflığı sağlayacak ve insan denetimini güvence altına alacak biçimde tasarlanması; çocuk haklarının korunması ve bağımsız etki değerlendirmelerinin zorunlu hâle getirilmesi, temel hakların etkin biçimde korunması açısından gereklidir.

Keywords

• Göç yönetişimi
• Yapay zekâ
• Ayrımcılık yasağı
• Çocuğun üstün yararı
• Hak Arama özgürlüğü.

ALGORITHMIC SYSTEMS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MIGRATION GOVERNANCE: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Background: Technological advancement does not benefit all segments of society equally and the most intrusive surveillance practices are often imposed on the most vulnerable groups. Migration governance has become a key area in which artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems are increasingly used, from border control to asylum procedures. Although these technologies are intended to improve administrative efficiency, they may intensify surveillance and interfere with the fundamental rights of migrants. Objective: This study examines the legal implications of AI and algorithmic systems in migration governance from the perspectives of the principle of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child and the right to an effective remedy. Method: The research employs a normative and comparative legal approach based on document analysis. Using a descriptive and analytical framework, it examines primary legal sources, particularly the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, together with international human rights instruments and relevant academic literature. Findings: AI and algorithmic systems reproduce biases embedded in training datasets under the appearance of technical neutrality. Facial recognition technologies show higher error rates for groups defined by the intersection of ethnicity, age and gender. Lowering the minimum age for biometric data collection to six conflicts with the principle of the best interests of the child by treating children as potential security risks. Furthermore, the opacity of algorithmic decision-making undermines the right to an effective remedy by limiting individuals' ability to understand and challenge administrative decisions. Conclusion: The algorithmic transformation of migration governance poses significant challenges to the rule of law. AI systems should be designed to prevent discrimination, ensure transparency, and preserve meaningful human oversight. Independent impact assessments and stronger safeguards for children's rights are essential to ensuring that digital migration governance complies with international human rights standards.

Keywords

• Migration governance
• Artificial intelligence
• Prohibition of discrimination
• Best interests of the child
• Access to justice.

References

1. Akburakcı, N. F. (2025). Yapay zekânın kullanımından kaynaklı sorunların göç hukukuna etkisi. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 16(64):735–768. https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1809513
2. Avrupa Birliği Temel Haklar Ajansı ve Avrupa Konseyi. (2010). Avrupa ayrımcılık yasağı hukuku el kitabı. Avrupa Birliği Yayınlar Ofisi.
3. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity.
4. Bither, J., & Ziebarth, A. (2021). Automating decision-making in migration policy: A navigation guide. Migration Strategy Group / The German Marshall Fund of the United States. https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/2021-11/Automating%20Decision-Making%20in%20Migration%20Policy_Bither%20and%20Ziebarth.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
5. Bozkurt Gümrükçüoğlu, Y., & Yakacak, G. A. (2023). The application of artificial intelligence in recruitment procedures and algorithmic discriminations. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 72(4), 1701–1757. https://doi.org/10.33629/auhfd.1403311
6. Buolamwini, J., ve Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–15. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
7. Chávez Elorza, M. G., Leal Jiménez, C. ve Aguilar Ortega, T. (2025). Artificial intelligence in the management of the US immigration system. M. M. Erdoğdu, E. Záyago Lau ve A. C. García (Ed.), Artificial intelligence & the future of humanity içinde (ss. 115–138). IJOPEC Publication.
8. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2022). Ligue des droits humains v Conseil des ministres (Case C-817/19), ECLI:EU:C:2022:491.

9. Dumbrava, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence in asylum procedures in the EU (Briefing No. PE 775.861). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/775861/EPRS_BRI(2025)775861_EN.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
10. Dursun, S. (2025). Çalışma hayatında yapay zekânın görünmeyen yüzü: Yapay zekâ önyargısı. İş, Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 27(1), 178–191.
11. Erdogan, I. (2024). Diving into the iceberg: Establishing transparency in AI for law enforcement. European Papers, 9(3), 956–977. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/794
12. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
13. European Commission. (2016). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints... (recast) (COM(2016) 272 final/2). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0272(01). (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
14. European Data Protection Supervisor. (2017). Opinion 3/2017 on the proposal for a regulation on the establishment of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). https://www.edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/17-03-070_etias_opinion_en.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
15. European Digital Rights. (2024). Protect, not surveil: EU AI Act fails migrants and people on the move. https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Statement-AI-Act-migration.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
16. European Network Against Racism. (2023). Structural racism in the new European Union Pact on Migration: A devastating blow to the right to asylum [Policy briefing]. https://www.enar-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/Migration-Pact-Policy-Brief-2112-2.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
17. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1358 on the establishment of Eurodac. Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1358. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32024R1358 (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
18. European Parliament. (2026). Recast Eurodac Regulation (Legislative Train 01.2026). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/carriage/jd-recast-eurodac-regulation/report?sid=9901. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
19. European Union Agency for Asylum. (2025). Digital transformation of asylum and reception systems (Situational Update No. 23). https://www.euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2025-09/2025_digitalisation_asylum_reception_EN.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
20. Grother, P., Ngan, M., & Hanaoka, K. (2019). Face recognition vendor test (FRVT) part 3: Demographic effects (NISTIR 8280). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8280
21. Gugliotta, L. & Elbi, A. (2023). Will AI 'subtly' take over decision-making in the EU migration context? Warnings and lessons from ETIAS and VIS (Jean Monnet Network on EU Law Enforcement Working Paper Series). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
22. Ineli-Ciger, M. (2024). Resettlement by algorithm: Can artificial intelligence uphold human rights? Computer Law & Security Review, 55, Makale 106051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106051
23. Kantayya, S. (Director). (2020). Coded bias [Documentary]. Netflix.
24. Kotwal, K., & Marcel, S. (2025). Review of demographic fairness in face recognition. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.02309. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
25. Ligue des droits humains v. Conseil des ministres, C-817/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:491 (2022). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0817. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
26. Musco Eklund, A. (2023). Rule of law challenges of 'algorithmic discretion' & automation in EU border control: A case study of ETIAS through the lens of legality. European Journal of Migration and Law, 25(3), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340152.
27. Ntoutsi, E., Nejdl, W., Fafalios, P., Gadiraju, U., Iosifidis, V., Vidal, M.-E., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Papadopoulos, S., Krasanakis, E., Kompatsiaris, I., Kinder-Kurlanda, K., Karimi, F., Fernandez, M., Wagner, C., Berendt, B., Kasneci, G., Alani, H., Kruegel, T., ... Staab, S. (2020). Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(3), Article e1356. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1356
28. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
29. Roshan, H. (2024). Exploring AI-powered migration management in Canada through the prisms of algorithmic governmentality, technosolutionism, and critical data studies (Working Paper No. 2024/01). Toronto Metropolitan Centre for Immigration and Settlement; CERC in Migration and Integration. https://www.torontomu.ca/content/dam/centre-for-immigration-and-settlement/tmcis/publications/workingpapers/2024-01-wp-roshan.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
30. Sarridis, I., Koutlis, C., Papadopoulos, S., & Diou, C. (2023). Towards fair face verification: An in-depth analysis of demographic biases. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.10011. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
31. Späth, E. (2025). AI use in the asylum procedure in Germany: Exploring perspectives with refugees and supporters on assessment criteria and beyond. P. Ahrweiler (Ed.), Participatory artificial intelligence in public social services: From bias to fairness in assessing beneficiaries içinde (ss. 135–152). Springer.
32. TÜBİTAK. (2026). Destek süreçlerinde üretken yapay zekânın (ÜYZ) sorumlu ve güvenilir kullanımı rehberi. https://tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/2026-01/UYZ_Rehberi_v04_TR.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
33. Van der Kist, J. (2025). Algorithmically constructed shibboleths: The technological mediation of automated dialect recognition in asylum procedures. Geopolitics, 31(2), 810–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2025.2530417
34. Vavoula, N. (2024). Algorithmic accountability through the “human over the loop” in interoperable and EU AI-reliant large-scale IT systems for migration and security. European Papers, 9(3), 1228–1249. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/791
35. World Economic Forum. (2022). A policy framework for responsible limits on facial recognition: Use case: Law enforcement investigations (Insight Report). https://www.unicri.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/A%20Policy%20Framework%20for%20Responsible%20Limits%20on%20Facial%20Recognition.pdf. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).
36. Yıldız, A., & Arıkan Açar, D. (2024). Artificial intelligence and migration governance: Navigating cooperation and complexity in European Union–Türkiye relations. METU Studies in Development, 51, 191–209. https://izlik.org/JA42MY76FF
37. Zanger-Tishler, M., Nyarko, J., & Goel, S. (2023). Risk scores, label bias, and everything but the kitchen sink. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.12638. (Erişim adresi: 01.03.2026).