Algoritmik Hedef Oluşturma ve Gözaltının Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku Açısından Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2022, Issue: 8, 19 - 36, 27.12.2022

Berkant Akkuş

Abstract

Makine öğrenimi algoritmaları; büyük miktarda bilgiyi anlamlandırma, karar verme modellerini tespit etme ve anormallikleri insanlardan daha iyi belirleme özelliklerine sahiptir. Önümüzdeki on yıllarda orduların savaşın birçok alanında tahmine dayalı algoritmalara, makine öğrenme teknolojisine ve yapay zekâya büyük ölçüde güveneceği tahmin edilmektedir. Askeri operatörler, programcılar ve hukukçular, silahlı çatışma hukukuna uygun karar destek algoritmaları oluşturmaya çalışırken çeşitli zorluklarla karşılaşacaklardır. Hukukçuların algoritmaların yeteneklerini, gereksinimlerini ve sınırlarını anlamaları gerekirken programcıların savaş hukukunun temellerini ve orduların baskı altında savaş hukuku ile belirlenmiş kararları nasıl aldıklarını öğrenmesi gerekecektir. Bu makale, bu aktörlerin üç aşamalı bir süreç izlemesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır: (1) uygulanacak hukuku belirlemek; (2) hukuki çerçeveyle ilgili tavsiye üretecek faktörler etrafında algoritmayı hazırlamak ve eğitmek; (3) algoritmik tahminleri, uygulanacak hukuk bağlamında yorumlamak. Bu işlemlerle ulaşılmak istenen amaç; hukuka duyarlı, veriye dayalı, hukukçuların ve operatörlerin harekete geçebileceği algoritmik öneriler üretmek olmalıdır. Hukuka uygun olarak hassas tahmin algoritmaları oluşturma çabaları, devletlerin savaş hukuku ve insan hakları hukukunun kurallarını yorumlamayı taahhüt ettiği kurumlar arası süreç türlerini değiştirebilir ve orduları şu anda yalnızca insan analizlerini nasıl üstlendiklerini yeniden değerlendirmeye teşvik edebilir.

Keywords

Yapay Zeka, Makine Öğrenmesi, Tahmine Dayalı Algoritmalar, Uluslararası Hukuk, Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku

Algorithmic Target Construction and Detention under International Human Rights Law

Abstract

In the light of developments in military technologies, armies are actively using artificial intelligence technology in order to make fast and accurate decisions on data. Algorithms have reached the level of development to decide who should be detained, set targets, and decide. In the literature, autonomous weapon systems have been evaluated mostly in terms of international humanitarian law. However, in this study, the concepts of algorithmic target construction, autonomous weapon systems, and detention by algorithms were examined in terms of the positive obligations of states to protect human rights, specifically the right to life and the right to privacy. There are two main research questions that were examined in this article. First, to what extent is it possible and reliable to convert legal concepts into computer code? Second, is it possible to trust the decisions taken by the algorithms and the predictions they make and to check their compliance with the law? This study supported the view that the use of autonomous weapon systems and algorithms without meaningful human control to identify targets using machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies will not be compatible with international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Algorithms, International Law, Law of Armed Conflict

References

• Abé, N. (2012, 12 14). The Woes of an American Drone Operator. Spiegel International , s. 12.
• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2015). General Comment no 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Life (Article 4). Banjul: AfCommHPR.
• Amoroso, D. (2017). Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum Arguments Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems: A Re-appraisa. Questions of International Law, 5-31.
• Anderson, K., Reisner, D., & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous Weapon Systems. International Law Studies, 394.
• Asaro, P. (2016). Jus Nascendi, Robotic Weapons and the Martens Clause. I. Kerr, M. Froomkin, & R. Calo içinde, Robot Law (s. 367). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] Joint Dissenting Opinion by Judges Tulkens, Spielmann and Garlicki, 39692/09 (ECtHR 03 15, 2012).
• Battista v. Italy, 43789/09 (ECtHR 12 02, 2014).
• Benso, K. (2014). Kill ‘em and Sort it Out Later: Signature Drone Strikes and International Humanitarian Law. Global Business & Development Law Journal, 18.
• Brehm , M. (2017). Defending The Boundary: Constraints And Requirements On The Use Of Autonomous Weapon. Geneva: The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.
• Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 112309/84 (ECtHR 11 29, 1988).
• Cantoral Huamaní and Garcia Santa Cruz v. Peru, C 167 (IACtHR 07 10, 2007).
• Chander, A. (2017). The Racist Algorithm. Michigan Law Review, 1023-1045.
• Chengeta, T. (2017). Defining the Emerging Notion of Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems. New York University International Law and Politics, 852.
• Citron, D. (2008). Technological Due Process. Washington University Law Review, 1271.
• Council of Europe. (2018). Explanatory Report to the Protocol Amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Doudou, D. (2006). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, UN doc A/HRC/29/46. Geneva: UN.
• Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Ekelhof, M. (2018). Lifting the Fog of Targeting: Autonomous Weapons and Human Control through the Lens of Military Targeting. Naval War College Review, 61.
• European Parliament. (2016, 04 27). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. General Data Protection Regulation. Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Fransa: European Council.
• Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, 23458/02 (ECtHR 03 24, 2011).
• Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002 (2005) (Human Rights Committee 03 17, 2005).
• Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions UN General Assembly, A/HRC/23/47 (9 April 2013). New York : United Nations.
• Heyns, C. (2016). Human Rights and the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems During Domestic Law Enforcement. Human Rights Quarterly, 358.
• Heyns, C. (2017). Autonomous Weapons in Armed Conflict and the Right to a Dignified Life: an African Perspective. South African Journal on Human Rights , 50.
• Holewinski, S. (2014). Just Trust Us. D. Rothenberg, & P. Bergen içinde, Drone Wars: Transforming Conflict, Law, and Policy (s. 45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ICRC. (2016). Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons. Geneva: The International Committee of the Red Cross.
• Isayeva v. Russia, 57950/00 (ECtHR 02 24, 2005).
• Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, 11082/06 (ECtHR 07 25, 2013).
• Kindervater, K. H. (2016). The Emergence of Lethal Surveillance: Watching and Killing in the History of Drone Technology. Security Dialogue, 224.
• Klass et al. v. Germany, 5029/71 (ECtHR 09 06, 1978).
• Koss, K. (2015). Leveraging Predictive Policing Algorithms to Restore Fourth Amendment Protections in High-Crime Areas in a Post-Wardlow World. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 301-334.
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 131 (International Court of Justice 07 09, 2004).
• Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017) (Wisconsin Supreme Court 06 26, 2017).
• Malgieri, G., & Comandé, G. (2017). Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 245.
• Margulies, P. (2017). Making Autonomous Weapons Accountable: Command Responsibility for Computer-Guided Lethal Force in Armed Conflicts. J. D. Ohlin içinde, Research Handbook on Remote Warfare (s. 405). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Marques de Morais v. Angola, CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (2005) (Human Rights Committee 03 29, 2005).
• Mauri, D. (2022). Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Protection of the Human Person An International Law Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.
• Miller, S. (2014). The Ethics of Targeted Killing: Osama bin Laden, Drones and Counter-terrorism. Public Affairs Quarterly, 317-340.
• OHCHR. (2014). The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, Report of 30 June 2014, UN doc A/HRC/27/37. New York: OHCHR.
• Partnership on AI. (2019). Report or Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools in the U.S. Criminal Justice System. New York: Partnership on AI.
• Roman Zakharov v. Russia, 47143/06 (ECtHR 12 04, 2015).
• Salihpaşaoğlu, Y. (2013). Özel Hayatın Kapsamı: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İçtihatları Işığında Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 227-266.
• Schachter, O. (2017). Human Dignity as a Normative Concept. American Journal of International Law, 848.
• Schmitt , M., & Thurnher, J. (2013). Out Of The Loop: Autonomous Weapon Systems And The Law Of Armed Conflict. Harvard National Security Journal, 268.
• Schmitt, M. (2013). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics. Harvard National Security Journal, 1-138.
• Sharkey, N. (2016). Staying in the Loop: Human Supervisory Control of Weapons. S. Beck, R. Geis, H. Y. Liu, & N. Bhuta içinde, Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy (s. 34). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Shimovolos v. Russia, 30194/09 (ECtHR 06 21, 2011).
• Shwartz, S. S., & David, S. B. (2014). Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Siemion, R. (2017). Presidential Policy Guidance: Procedures for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets Located Outside The United States and Areas of Active Hostilities. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Sifton, J. (2012, 02 27). A Brief History of Drones. The Nation , s. 23.
• Šilih v. Slovenia, 71463/01 (ECtHR 04 09, 2009).
• Spagnolo, A. (2017). Human Rights Implications of Autonomous Weapon Systems in Domestic Law Enforcement: Sci-Fi Reflections on a Lo-Fi Reality. Questions of International Law, 43.
• Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, 35532/97 (ECtHR 03 22, 2001).
• Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, 37138/14 (ECtHR 01 12, 2016).
• Tucker, P. (2016, 01 27). Refugee or Terrorist? IBM Thinks Its Software Has the Answer. http://www.defenseone.com: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/refugee-or-terrorist-ibm-thinks-its-software-hasanswer/ adresinden alındı
• U.N. Institute For Disarmament Research . (2015). The Weaponization Of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies: Considering How Meaningful Human Control Might Move The Discussion Forward. Geneva: UNIDIR.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Procedures for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets Located Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.
• Ülgen, Ö. (2017). Kantian Ethics in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Questions of International Law, 73.
• Ülgen, Ö. (2020). Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an Elementary Consideration of Humanity? Baltic Yearbook of International Law (s. 8). Leiden: Brill.
• Wachter, S. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 92.