Uluslararası Hukuk ve Yapay Zeka

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 247 - 264, 30.06.2025

Sinem Kiliçatan

Öz

Yapay zekâ (YZ) teknolojilerinin küresel ölçekte hızla gelişmesi, uluslararası hukuk sistemlerinde düzenleyici boşluklar ve yetersizlikler ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu makale, YZ ile uluslararası hukuk arasındaki kesişimi inceleyerek, mevcut düzenleyici yaklaşımları analiz etmekte, temel yönetişim zorluklarını ortaya koymakta ve daha tutarlı, bağlamsal ve ölçülebilir uluslararası çerçeveler geliştirmek üzere öneriler sunmaktadır. Makale, literatürdeki teorik yaklaşımları ve uygulamadaki bölgesel düzenlemeleri karşılaştırarak, özellikle Avrupa Birliği'nin yatay yaklaşımı ile Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin bağlama özgü modeli arasındaki ayrımı vurgular. Ayrıca, teknolojik riskler, yargı yetkisi sorunları, Kuzey-Güney ayrımı ve inovasyon ile risk azaltma arasındaki denge gibi başlıca zorluklar analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, bağlayıcı ve bağlayıcı olmayan hukuki araçların bir arada kullanıldığı katmanlı yönetişim modellerini önererek, hem ulusal farklılıkları gözeten hem de uluslararası koordinasyonu mümkün kılan esnek bir çerçeve geliştirilmesini savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, YZ’nin küresel etkilerine karşı uluslararası hukuk normlarının uyarlanması, teknolojinin insanlığın ortak yararına hizmet etmesini sağlamak için elzemdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası hukuk , yapay zeka , bilişim hukuku

International Law and Artificial Intelligence

Öz

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on a global scale has revealed regulatory gaps and inadequacies in international legal systems. By examining the intersection between AI and international law, this article analyzes existing regulatory approaches, identifies key governance challenges, and provides recommendations to develop more coherent, contextualized and measurable international frameworks. The article compares theoretical approaches in the literature and regional arrangements in practice, highlighting in particular the distinction between the horizontal approach of the European Union and the context-specific model of the United States. It also analyzes the main challenges, such as technological risks, jurisdictional issues, the North-South divide, and the balance between innovation and risk mitigation. By proposing layered governance models with a combination of binding and non-binding legal instruments, the study argues for the development of a flexible framework that both respects national differences and enables international coordination. In conclusion, adapting international legal norms to the global impacts of AI is essential to ensure that technology serves the common good of humanity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

International Law , Artificial Intelligence , IT Law

Kaynakça

• Aaronson, S. A. (2015). Why trade agreements are not setting information free: The lost history and reinvigorated debate over cross-border data flows, human rights and national security. World Trade Review, 14(4)
• ASEAN. (2021). ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics. Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
• Berman, P. S. (2012). Global legal pluralism: A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge University Press.
• Burri, M. (2021). Data flows and global trade law. In M. Burri (Ed.), Big data and global trade law (pp. 11–41). Cambridge University Press.
• Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133), 20180080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080
• Cath, C. (2022). Inclusive AI governance: Building global capacity for equitable innovation. AI & Society, 37(3), 823–839.
• Council of Europe. (2023). Towards a framework convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI).
• Druzin, B., Boute, A., & Ramsden, M. (2025). Confronting Catastrophic Risk: The International Obligation to Regulate Artificial Intelligence. Michigan Journal of International Law, 46(2), 173.
• Floridi, L. (2021). Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical. Philosophy & Technology, 34(1), 1–17.
• Greenleaf, G. (2018). Global data privacy laws 2017: 120 national laws, and counting. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, (152), 10–13.
• Gurumurthy, A., & Bharthur, D. (2020). A feminist perspective on AI governance: Centering equity and justice. Development, 63(2–4), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-020-00267-z
• ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. (2021). Artificial intelligence – Overview of trustworthiness in AI (ISO/IEC TR 24028:2020). International Organization for Standardization.
• Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2022). Global AI ethics guidelines: The role of international organizations. Ethics and Information Technology, 24(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09609-2
• Kuner, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in the internet era: Regulatory and policy challenges. European Journal of International Law, 25(4), 909–935.
• Mittelstadt, B. (2022). Regionalism in AI ethics: The role of multilateral bodies. Ethics and Information Technology, 24(3), 233–249.
• Mozur, P., Zhong, R., & Krolik, A. (2021, August 10). A new rule in China: Algorithms must promote party values. The New York Times.
• OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Publishing.
• Park, S. (2024). Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework. Washington International Law Journal, 33(2).
• Scharre, P. (2018). Army of none: Autonomous weapons and the future of war. W. W. Norton & Company. Smuha, N. A. (2021). From ethics to law: Why, when and how to regulate AI. Philosophy & Technology, 34(3), 503–522.
• Svantesson, D. J. B. (2017). Solving the internet jurisdiction puzzle. Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, L., & Kuk, G. (2021). Data justice in the Global South: Towards a political economy of AI. Information, Communication & Society, 24(1), 21–37.
• UNESCO. (2023). Steering AI and advanced ICTs for knowledge societies: A rights-based approach. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
• Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112.
• Wagner, B. (2021). AI standardization and global governance: A pathway to coordinated regulation? Computer Law & Security Review, 41, 105567.
• Wagner, B. (2022). AI regulation in the EU and beyond: Flexibility versus legal certainty. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13(1), 56–73.
• Wischmeyer, T., & Rademacher, T. (2020). Regulating artificial intelligence in the European Union. Common Market Law Review, 57(5), 1429–1460.
• Wright, D., & Raab, C. (2014). Privacy principles, risks and harms. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 28(3), 277–298.
• Zaidan, A., & Ibrahim, S. (2024). Comparative analysis of the EU and US AI regulatory approaches. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Policy and Law, 6(1), 1–25.
• Zaidan, E., & Ibrahim, I. A. (2024). AI Governance in a Complex and Rapidly Changing Regulatory Landscape: A Global Perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article number: 1121.
• Zeng, Y., Lu, E., & Huangfu, C. (2018). Linking artificial intelligence principles. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278731