From The State Of Exception To Autonomous Decision: Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, State Sovereignty, And The Case Of The Gaza

Öz

This study examines how the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning into military decision-making mechanisms fundamentally transforms the classical understanding of state sovereignty and the "decision on the state of exception". The central argument is that the human act of "decision," rooted in political will and moral responsibility, is being replaced by mathematical "calculation" and optimization processes that scan statistical correlations within Big Data, thereby "dehumanizing" state sovereignty. This new "techno-theology" regime—manifested through systems like "Habsora," "Lavender," and "Where’s Daddy?" used by the Israeli military in Gaza—strips civilians of their legal subjecthood, reducing them to "digital sacred humans" (Homo Sacer) who are viewed merely as "risk scores" or "data points". The resulting "responsibility gap" and "automation bias," characterized by human operators approving machine-generated targets in as little as twenty seconds, turns warfare into an industrial routine where moral and legal agency is lost, driving the international legal system into a profound crisis of legitimacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• State Sovereignty
• Governmentality
• Responsibility Gap
• Algocracy.
• Artificial Intelligence

İstisna Hâlinden Otonom Karara: Yapay Zekâ Algoritmaları, Devlet Egemenliği ve Gazze Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ ve makine öğrenmesi sistemlerinin askerî karar alma mekanizmalarına entegrasyonunun, klasik devlet egemenliğini ve "olağanüstü hâle karar verme" yetisini nasıl kökten bir yapısal dönüşüme uğrattığını analiz etmektedir. Temel argüman; siyasal iradeye, ahlaki muhakemeye ve hukuki sorumluluğa dayanan insani "karar" eyleminin yerini, büyük veri yığınları üzerinden işleyen istatistiksel "hesaplama" ve "optimizasyon" işlemlerine bırakarak egemenliği insansızlaştırdığıdır. Bu süreçte, İsrail ordusunun Gazze'de kullandığı "Habsora", "Lavender" ve "Where’s Daddy?" gibi algoritmik sistemler üzerinden somutlaşan "tekno-ilahiyat" rejimi; bireyleri hukuki özneler olmaktan çıkarıp, yalnızca birer "risk skoru" veya "veri noktası" olarak görülen, öldürülebilir ancak kurban edilemez "dijital kutsal insanlara" (Homo Sacer) dönüştürmektedir. Sahadaki operatörlerin makine çıktılarını sadece yirmi saniye gibi sembolik sürelerde onaylamasıyla ortaya çıkan "sorumluluk boşluğu" ve "otomasyon önyargısı", savaşı ahlaki ağırlığından kopararak endüstriyel bir rutin haline getirmekte ve insan onurunu merkeze alan uluslararası hukuk sistemini derin bir meşruiyet krizine sürüklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Devlet Egemenliği
• Yönetimsellik
• Sorumluluk Boşluğu
• Algokrasi.

Kaynakça

1. Abraham, Y. (2024, April 3). ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. +972 Magazine. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
2. Al Jazeera. (2024, 4 Nisan). ‘AI-assisted genocide’: Israel reportedly used database for Gaza kill lists. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/4/ai-assisted-genocide-israel-reportedly-used-database-for-gaza-kill-lists
3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception, (Translated by Kevin Attell). The University of Chicago Press.
4. Agamben, G. (2001). Kutsal insan: Egemen iktidar ve çıplak hayat (İ. Türkmen, Çev.; 2. basım). Ayrıntı Yayınları. (Orijinal eser yayın yılı 1995).
5. Amnesty International. (2024, Mayıs). Israel/OPT: Unlawful Israeli strikes in Gaza cause mass civilian casualties. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/israel-opt-unlawful-israeli-strikes-in-gaza-cause-mass-civilian-casualties/
6. Automated Decision Research. “2023 Automated Decision Research Year in Summary.” Aralık 2023. https://automatedresearch.org/news/2023-automated-decision-research-year-in-summary/
7. Chamayou, G. (2015). A theory of the drone (J. Lloyd, Çev.). The New Press.
8. Cummings, M. L. (2004). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, 1-8.

9. Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(1), 245-268.
10. Davies, H., McKernan, B., & Sabbagh, D. (2023, 1 Aralık). The Gospel: How Israel uses AI to select bombing targets in Gaza. The Guardian. ‘The Gospel’: how Israel uses AI to select bombing targets in Gaza | Israel | The Guardian
11. Hobbes, T. (2016). “Leviathan” veya bir din ve dünya devletinin içeriği, biçimi ve kudreti (S. Lim, Çev.; 6. basım). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. (Orijinal eser yayın yılı 1651).
12. Horowitz, M. C. (2010). The diffusion of military power: Causes and consequences for international politics. Princeton University Press.
13. Human Rights Watch. (2024, 10 Eylül). Questions and answers: Israeli military’s use of digital tools in Gaza. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/10/questions-and-answers-israeli-militarys-use-digital-tools-gaza Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). “Momentum Plan: The IDF’s Multi-Year Strategic Plan.” No. 1269 (Şubat 2020). https://www.inss.org.il/publication/planning-directorate/
14. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
15. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183.
16. Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics (S. Corcoran, Çev.). Duke University Press.
17. McKernan, B., & Davies, H. (2024, 3 Nisan). ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes
18. Şahin, E. (2024). Güney Çin Denizi’ndeki jeopolitik dinamikler: Ofansif realizm teorisi çerçevesinde ABD Çin rekabeti. Terörizm ve Güvenlik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 63–78.
19. Posen, B. R. (1984). The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars. Cornell University Press.
20. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
21. Rouvroy, A. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163-196.
22. Shaw, I. G. R. (2013). Predator empire: The geopolitics of US drone warfare. Geopolitics, 18(3), 536-559.
23. Scharre, P. (2018). Army of none: Autonomous weapons and the future of war. W. W. Norton & Company.
24. Schmitt, C. (2016). Siyasi ilahiyat: Egemenlik kuramı üzerine dört bölüm (A. E. Zeybekoğlu, Çev.; 5. basım). Dost Kitabevi Yayınları. (Orijinal eser yayın yılı 1922).
25. Şahin, E. (2026). Algorithmic bipolarity: A neoclassical realist analysis of military artificial intelligence competition between the United States and China. ASSAM International Refereed Journal, (29),1-42. https://doi.org/10.58724/assam.1871082
26. United States Department of Defense. (2023). Data, analytics, and artificial intelligence adoption strategy: Accelerating decision advantage. U.S. Government Printing Office.
27. Weizman, E. (2006). Lethal theory. Log, (7), 53-118.