Uluslararası İlişkilerde Dijital Dönüşüm: Yapay Zekânın Bilgi İktidar Boyutu ve AB’nin Normatif Çerçevesi

Öz

Bu makale, Yapay Zekânın (YZ) Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) ve Avrupa Çalışmaları alanında yarattığı dönüşümü, Foucaultcu post-yapısalcı bir çerçevede ve Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) düzenleyici normları bağlamında incelemektedir. Temel argüman, YZ’nin bilgi rejimlerini, epistemik otoriteyi, akademik meşruiyet süreçlerini yapısal olarak yeniden düzenleyen bir iktidar teknolojisi olduğu ve bu dönüşümde AB’nin yadsınamaz bir rolü bulunduğudur. Makale, söz konusu dönüşümün birbirine bağlı üç düzeyde gerçekleştiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu bağlamda epistemolojik düzeyde dijital bir bilgi birikimi oluşmakta, metodolojik düzeyde hibrit yöntemler yaygınlaşmakta, kurumsal-normatif düzeyde ise AB’nin hukuki çerçevesi akademik araştırmayı etik kanallar aracılığıyla biçimlendirmektedir. AB YZ Yasası başta olmak üzere AB’nin düzenleyici yaklaşımı, Uİ alanında normatif ve temkinli bir bilgi üretim rejiminin yerleşmesine zemin hazırlarken bahsi geçen alanlar için de bağlayıcı bir referans çerçevesi oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• YZ
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Epistemoloji
• Foucault
• Avrupa Birliği.

Digital Transformation in International Relations: The Knowledge-Power Dimension of Artificial Intelligence and the EU’s Normative Framework

Öz

This article examines the transformation brought about by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the fields of International Relations (IR) and European Studies, within a Foucauldian post-structuralist framework and in the context of the European Union’s (EU) regulatory norms. The key argument is that AI is a technology of power that structurally reorganises regimes of knowledge, epistemic authority and processes of academic legitimacy, and that the EU plays an undeniable role in this transformation. The article argues that this transformation has taken place across three interrelated levels. In this context, a digital body of knowledge is emerging at the epistemological level, hybrid methods are becoming widespread at the methodological level, and at the institutional-normative level, the EU’s legal framework is shaping academic research through ethical channels. The EU’s regulatory approach, particularly the EU AI Act, paves the way for the establishment of a normative and cautious knowledge production regime in the field of international relations, whilst also creating a binding reference framework for the aforementioned areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AI
• International Relations
• Epistemology
• Foucault
• European Union.

Kaynakça

1. Almada, M., ve Radu, A. (2024). The Brussels Side-Effect: How the AI Act Can Reduce the Global Reach of EU Policy. German Law Journal, 25(4), 646-663.
2. Amoore, L. (2023). Machine Learning Political Orders. Review of International Studies, 49(1), 20-36.
3. Aradau, C., ve Blanke, T. (2015). The (Big) Data-Security Assemblage: Knowledge and Critique. Big Data and Society, 2(2), 1-12.
4. Arda, S. (2024). Taxonomy to regulation: A (geo)political taxonomy for AI risks and regulatory measures in the EU AI Act. SSRN Çalışma Kâğıdı. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4608702
5. Baele, S. J., ve Bukhari, I. (2024). Charting AI IR: Much Ado about Nothing? International Studies Review, 26(2), p. viae013.
6. Baysal, B. (2025). Yapay Zekâ Çağında Sosyal Bilimler: Hızlı Uyum İçin Kullanım İpuçları, Global Panorama, 20 Ekim. https://www.globalpanorama.org/2025/10/yapay-zeka-caginda-sosyal-bilimler-hizli-uyum-icin-kullanim-ipuclari/
7. Bilgin, T. (t/y). Kullanıcıların Hatalarını Analiz Ederek Diyalog Tabanlı Zeki Etmenler ile Etkileşimli Yönlendirme Yapabilen Türkçe Python Kod Editörü”, Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, https://avesis.bilecik.edu.tr/proje/ec7b59c6-4dd1-43cc-a60e-0a6430a0078b/kullanicilarin-hatalarini-analiz-ederek-diyalog-tabanli-zeki-etmenler-ile-etkilesimli-yonlendirme-yapabilen-turkce-python-kod-editoru
8. Bowman, T. D. (2023). Viewing Research Assessment, The Academic Reward System, and Academic Publishing Through The Power/Knowledge Lens Of Foucault. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1179376.

9. Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford UP.
10. Bueger, C. (2015). Making Things Known: Epistemic Practices, the United Nations, and the Translation of Piracy. International Political Sociology, 9, 1-18.
11. Calderaro, A., ve Blumfelde, S. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and EU Security: The False Promise of Digital Sovereignty. European Security, 31(3), 415-434.
12. Carayannis, E. G., Pirzadeh, A., ve Popescu, D. (2012). Institutional Learning and Knowledge Transfer across Epistemic Communities: New Tools of Global Governance. Springer.
13. Diez, T. (2005). Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ‘Normative Power Europe’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 613-636.
14. Douglass, R. W., Scherer, T. L., Gannon, J. A., Gartzke, E., Lindsay, J., Carcelli, S., ve Partridge, D. (2024a). Introducing ICBe: an event extraction dataset from narratives about international crises. Political Science Research and Methods, 12(4), 729-749. doi:10.1017/psrm.2024.17.
15. Douglass, R. W., Gartzke, E., Lindsay, J., Gannon, J., ve Scherer, T. L. (2024b). What is Escalation? Measuring Crisis Dynamics in International Relations with Human and LLM Generated Event Data. (Yayımlanmamış Amaç Belgesi/Preprint).
16. Edkins, J. (1999). Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Lynne Rienner.
17. Edkins, J. (2007). Poststructuralism. M. Griffiths (Ed.), International Relations Theory of the Twenty-First Century içinde (ss. 88-98). Routledge.
18. Ersoy, E. (2023). Epistemic Hierarchies and Asymmetrical Dialogues In Global IR: Increasing The Epistemic Gravity of The Periphery Through Thematic Density, Third World Quarterly, 44(2), 513-531.
19. European Commission (2025). “Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027”, C(2025) 8493, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/horizon-europe-work-programmes_en
20. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language (A. M. S. Smith, Çev.). Pantheon Books.
21. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction (R. Hurley, Çev.). Pantheon Books.
22. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews And Other Writings 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham ve K. Soper, Çev.). Pantheon Books.
23. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and the Power. H. Dreyfus ve P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics içinde (ss. 208-226). Harvester.
24. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books.
25. Foucault, M. (2000). Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. The New Press.
26. Golub, J. (2020). Power In The European Union: An Evolutionary Computing Approach. Journal of European Integration, 1-23.
27. Gstrein, O. J., Haleem, N., ve Zwitter, A. (2024). General-Purpose AI Regulation and The European Union AI Act. Internet Policy Review, 13(3), 1-18.
28. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1-35.
29. Hacker, P. (2023). AI Regulation In Europe: From The AI Act To Future Regulatory Challenges. SSRN Çalışma Kâğıdı. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4646148
30. Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. Routledge.
31. Hartmann, D., de Pereira, J. R. L., Streitbörger, C., ve Berendt, B. (2025). Addressing The Regulatory Gap: Moving Towards An EU AI Audit Ecosystem Beyond The AI Act By Including Civil Society. AI Ethics, 5(4), 3617-3638.
32. Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., ve Hussain, A. (2024). Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Cogn Comput, 16(1), 45-74.
33. Hutchings, K. (2023). Doing Epistemic Justice In International Relations: Women and The History Of International Thought. European Journal of International Relations, 29(4), 809-831.
34. Ingvarsson, J. (2021). Towards a Digital Epistemology Aesthetics and Modes of Thought in Early Modernity and the Present Age. Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Klauser, F. (2013). Through Foucault To A Political Geography Of Mediation In The Information Age. Geographica Helvetica, 68(2), 95-104.
36. Kosowski, P. (2025). Convergence Or Divergence? A Cluster Analysis Of Energy Poverty Patterns Across The European Union Amidst Policy Shifts and Crises. Energies, 18(12), 3117.
37. Loke, B., ve Owen, C. (2022). Mapping Practices And Spatiality In IR Knowledge Production: From Detachment To Emancipation. European Journal of International Relations, 28(1), 30-57.
38. Machoň, M., Kohoutová, J., Burešová, J., ve Jaroslava, B. (2018). Epistemic Communities and Their Influence In International Politics: Updating of The Concept. JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, 9(2), 1-18.
39. Manners, I. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235-58.
40. Mashhadi Moghadam, S. N., ve Rafieian, M. (2019). If Foucault were an urban planner: An epistemology of power in planning theories. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 6(1), 1-17.
41. Nath, R., ve Manna, R. (2021). From Posthumanism to Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. AI and Society, 38(1), 185-196. National Security Commission On Artificial Intelligence [NSCAI]. (2021). The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Final Raporu. https://www.nscai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F ull-Report-Digital-1.pdf
42. Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., Reinemann, C., ve Schindler, J. (2023). The Digital Transformation Of Knowledge Order: A Model For The Analysis Of The Epistemic Crisis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(2), 180-201.
43. OPTED (t/y). Observatory for Political Texts in European Democracies, https://opted.eu
44. Osberg, D. (2010). Knowledge is Not Made for Understanding; It is Made for Cutting. Complicity, An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(2), iii-viii.
45. Paltrinieri, L. (2014). The Visible. Lawlor, L. ve Nale, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon içinde (ss. 534-539). Cambridge University Press.
46. Peppler, K., Rowsell, J., ve Keune, A. (2020). Editorial: Advancing Posthumanist Perspectives On Technology-Rich Learning. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1240-1245.
47. Renda, A. (2021). Making The Digital Economy “Fit For Europe”. Centre for European Policy Studies, 1-10.
48. Rhines, W. (1985). Artificial Intelligence: Out Of The Lab and Into Business. Journal of Business Strategy, 6(1), 50-57.
49. Rouvroy, A., ve Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships? Réseaux, 177(1), 163-196.
50. The European Parliament and The Council. (2016). 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) (Text with EEA relevance), 27 Nisan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng
51. The European Parliament and The Council. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets In The Digital Sector And Amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act), 14 Eylül. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925
52. The European Parliament and The Council. (2024). 2024/1689 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules On Artificial Intelligence and Amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), 12 Temmuz. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
53. TÜBİTAK (t/y). TÜBİTAK Açık Bilim Politikası. https://acikveri.ulakbim.gov.tr/acik-erisim/tubitak-acik-bilim-politikasi/
54. Ünver, A. (2019). Computational International Relations What Can Programming, Coding and Internet Research Do for the Discipline? All Azimuth, 8(2), 157-182.
55. Veri Analizi Okulu. (2025). Eğitim Modülleri. https://www.verianaliziokulu.com/#egitim-modulleri
56. Yasar, A. G., Chong, A., Dong, E., Gilbert, T. K., Hladikova, S., Maio, R., Mougan, C., Shen, X., Singh, S., Stoica, A., Thais, S., ve Zilka, M. (2023). AI and the EU Digital Markets Act: Addressing the risks of bigness in generative AI. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/355086255/2308.02033v1.pdf
57. Yousef, Z. (2024). How Can the Law Address the Effects of Algorithmic Bias in the Healthcare Context?. LSE Law Review, 9(2),197-253.
58. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2024). Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Faaliyetlerinde Üretken Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Dair Etik Rehber. https://proje.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17539645334.Y%C3%BCksek%C3%B6%C4%9Fretimde%20%C3%BCretken%20yapay%20zeka%20kullan%C4%B1m%C4%B1-tr.pdf
59. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2025). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanı Özvar duyurdu: Dijital ve yapay zekâ temelli programları bulunan üniversite sayısı 20’den 70’e çıkıyor, Haberler, https://www.yok.gov.tr/tr/news/yuksekogretim-kurulu-baskani-ozvar-duyurdu-dijital-ve-yapay-zeka-temelli-programlari-bulunan-universite-sayisi-20den-70e-cikiyor-gAIvp
60. Yüksel, A. (2025). Dijital Panoptikonun Gölgesinde: Çalışma Sosyolojisinin Dönüşen Ufuklarında Platform Emekçiliği, İmgelem, 17, 273-298.
61. Zuboff, S. (2020). Caveat Usor: Surveillance Capitalism as Epistemic Inequality. K. Werbach (Ed.), After the Digital Tornado: Networks, Algorithms, Humanity içinde (ss. 174-214). Cambridge University Press.