YAPAY ZEKÂ TEMELLİ OTOMATİK KARAR ALMA MEKANİZMALARINDA ALGORİTMİK AYRIMCILIK VE TASARIM YOLUYLA ADALET

Öz

Yapay zekâ teknolojileri günümüzde hızla gelişmekte ve karar verme aşamalarında destekleyici veya belirleyici bir rol oynamaktadır. Böylesine önemle bir role bürünen yapay zekâ araçlarının hukuki sorumluluklardaki konumu ise mevcut yasal düzenlemelerle tespit edilememektedir. Bu sorunun temelinde, otomatik karar alma mekanizmalarının kara kutu olarak tabir edilen opak karakteristiği ve hızlı uyarlanabilme yeteneği yer almakta ve bu durum özellikle hukuki belirlilik ilkesini ihlal ederek hesap verilebilirlik problemine yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışma, yapay zekânın; istihdam, finans gibi özel sektörler ile önleyici polislik ve ceza yargılaması gibi kamu sektöründe vekil değişkenler ve yedekli kodlama yöntemlerini kullanarak tarihsel önyargıları yeniden ürettiğini hukuki ve teknik boyutlarıyla incelemeyi, bu konuda çözüm önerisinde bulunmayı hedeflemektedir. Çalışmamız ayrıca, algoritmaların kullanımının yarattığı ‘’tarafsızlık’’ yanılsaması ve veri sorumluları ile veri işleyenlerin ticari sır / fikri sınai savunmaları karşısında yetersiz kalan mevcut düzenlemelerin yanı sıra AİHS madde 14 çerçevesindeki ayrımcılık yasağının ihlalinin reaktif hukuki koruma mekanizmalar kullanılarak çözülemeyeceği tespitini içermektedir. Son olarak, teknolojik hızın gerisinde kalan geleneksel koruma anlayışının terk edilerek, "Tasarım Yoluyla Adalet" yaklaşımı ekseninde proaktif bir modele geçilmesi gerektiği, bu gereksinimi kapsayan Avrupa Konseyi Yapay Zekâ Çerçeve Sözleşmesi'nin getirmiş olduğu; adaletin ve insan hakları güvencelerinin, sistemin piyasaya arzından önce doğrudan algoritmik mimarinin çekirdeğine kodlanmasını ve sistemin yaşam döngüsü boyunca denetlenmesinin zorunlu kılınması gibi yenilikler tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yapay zekâ
• algoritmik ayrımcılık
• otomatik karar alma
• insan hakları
• tasarım yoluyla adalet

Teşekkür

Araştırma ve yazım aşaması başta olmak üzere tüm akademik sürecimde beni destekleyen yüksek lisans danışmanım Sayın Prof. Dr. Deniz Kızılsümer Özer'e teşekkür ederim.

ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION AND FAIRNESS BY DESIGN IN AI-BASED AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING MECHANISMS

Öz

Artificial intelligence technologies are rapidly evolving, playing a supportive or decisive role in decision-making processes. However, the legal liability of AI tools remains undetermined under current regulations. This issue fundamentally stems from the "black box" opacity and rapid adaptability of automated decision-making mechanisms, which violate the principle of legal certainty and create profound accountability problems. This study examines how AI reproduces historical biases through proxy variables and redundant coding in both private sectors (e.g., employment, finance) and public sectors (e.g., predictive policing, criminal justice), while proposing legal and technical solutions. Furthermore, the study asserts that the illusion of algorithmic "neutrality," the inadequacy of existing laws against the trade secret and intellectual property defenses of data controllers and processors, and the violation of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR cannot be resolved via reactive legal mechanisms. Finally, it argues for abandoning outdated traditional protections in favor of a proactive "Justice by Design" model. In this context, it discusses the innovations introduced by the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which mandates embedding justice and human rights safeguards directly into the algorithmic architecture prior to market release and ensuring continuous auditing throughout the system's lifecycle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• artificial intelligence
• algorithmic discrimination
• automated decision-making
• human rights
• fairness by design

Teşekkür

I would like to thank my master's thesis advisor, Prof. Dr. Deniz Kızılsümer Özer, for supporting me throughout my entire academic process, especially during the research and writing phases.

Kaynakça

1. Ahuchogu, Magnus Chukwuebuka / Musa, Gabriella Folashade Akenn / Howard, Eric / Mathur, Kashmira: AI and Bias in Recruitment: Ensuring Fairness in Algorithmic Hiring, Journal of Informatics Education and Research, Cilt 5, Sayı 3, 545-553.
2. Aksoy, Hüseyin Can: Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Yönüyle Algoritmik Karar Verme, Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 2, 69-87.
3. Ananny, Mike / Crawford, Kate: Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability, New Media & Society, Cilt 20, Sayı 3, 973-989.
4. Anantrasirichai, Nantheera / Bull, David: Artificial Intelligence in the Creative Industries: A Review, arXiv, 2007.12391, 2020.
5. Anayasa Mahkemesi: T. 26.12.2013, E. 2013/67, K. 2013/164, (https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Kararlar/GenelKurul/Basvuru_Karari/2016-27.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2026).
6. Appelman, Nadia / Ó Fathaigh, Ronan / van Hoboken, Joris: Social Welfare, Risk Profiling and Fundamental Rights: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law (JIPITEC), Cilt 12, Sayı 4, 257-271.
7. Atabekov, Askar / Yastrebov, Oleg: Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence Across Countries: Legislation on the Move, European Research Studies Journal, Sayı 21, 773-782.
8. Australian Human Rights Commission: Using Artificial Intelligence to Make Decisions: Addressing the Problem of Algorithmic Bias, Technical Paper, 2020.

9. Avrupa Konseyi: Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Strazburg, 2024.
10. BAK, Başak: Medeni Hukuk Açısından Yapay Zekânın Hukuki Statüsü ve Yapay Zekâ Kullanımından Doğan Hukuki Sorunlar, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, Sayı 35, 211-232.
11. Barocas, Solon / Selbst, Andrew: Big Data’s Disparate Impact, California Law Review, Cilt: 104, Sayı: 3, 671-732. Bartoletti, Ivana / Xenidis, Raphaële: Study on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence Systems, Their Potential for Promoting Equality, Including Gender Equality, and the Risks They May Cause in Relation to Non-Discrimination, Council of Europe, 2020.
12. Buolamwini, Joy / Gebru, Timnit: Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Cilt 81, 77-91.
13. Casciola, Clelia: Artificial Intelligence and Health Care: Reviewing the Algorithmic Accountability Act in Light of the EU AI Act, Vermont Law Review, Cilt 47, Sayı 1, 127-155.
14. Cavazos, Sadie: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lending: A New Form of Redlining?, Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, Cilt 11, Sayı 2, 331-354.
15. Cut the SaaS: Case Study: How Amazon's AI Recruiting Tool Learnt Gender Bias, cut-the-saas.com (https://www.cut-the-saas.com/ai/case-study-how-amazons-ai-recruiting-tool-learnt-gender-bias, Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2025).
16. Custers, Bart / Fosch Villaronga, Eduard: Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022. Doshi-Velez, Finale / Kim, Been: Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning, arXiv, 2017 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608).
17. Duffourc, Mindy / Gerke, Sara: Decoding US Tort Liability in Healthcare’s Black-Box AI Era: Lessons From the EU, Stanford Technology Law Review, Cilt 27, 1-56.
18. Equal Rights Trust: Principles on Equality by Design in Algorithmic Decision-Making, Londra, 2017. Fabeyo, Stephen: Explainable AI in employment decision-making: a systematic review of transparency methods in hiring algorithms, Issues in Information Systems, Cilt 26, Sayı 3, 127-135.
19. Ganty, Sarah: Exploring the Court’s Reluctance to Investigate Article 14, Strasbourg Observers (https://strasbourgobservers.com/2025/07/15/exploring-the-courts-reluctance-to-investigate-article-14/, Erişim Tarihi: 22.12.2025).
20. Hacker, Philipp: Teaching Fairness to Artificial Intelligence: Existing and Novel Strategies Against Algorithmic Discrimination Under EU Law, Common Market Law Review, Cilt 55, 1143-1186.
21. Henrard, Kristin: The European Court of Human Rights, Ethnic and Religious Minorities and the Two Dimensions of the Right to Equal Treatment: Jurisprudence at Different Speeds?, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, Cilt 34, Sayı 3, 157-177.
22. Hettikankanamage, Nadeesha / Shafiabady, Niusha / Chatteur, Fiona / Wu, Robert M. X. / Ud Din, Fareed / Zhou, Jianlong: eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Review for Unveiling the Black Box Models and Their Relevance to Biomedical Imaging and Sensing, Sensors, Cilt 25, Sayı 21, Makale No: 6649 (https://doi.org/10.3390/s25216649, Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2026)
23. Hildebrandt, Mireille: Saved by Design? The Case of Legal Protection by Design, NanoEthics, Cilt 11, 307-311. Hoffmann, Anna Lauren: Where Fairness Fails: Data, Algorithms, and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Discourse, Information, Communication & Society, Cilt 22, Sayı 7, 900-915. Hüsch, Moritz / Lensdorf, Lars: EU AI Act and GDPR: Tracing CJEU Case Law on Automated Processing and Decision-Making, Covington & Burling LLP (https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2024/03/eu-ai-act-and-gdpr-tracing-cjeu-case-law-on-automated-processing-and-decision-making, Erişim Tarihi: 20.12.2025).
24. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO): What Does the UK GDPR Say About Automated Decision-Making and Profiling?, Information Commissioner's Office (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/automated-decision-making-and-profiling/what-does-the-uk-gdpr-say-about-automated-decision-making-and-profiling/, Erişim Tarihi: 20.12.2025).
25. Illinois Eyaleti 103. Genel Kurulu: Olağan Oturum, 3773 Sayılı Temsilciler Meclisi Yasa Tasarısı (775 ILCS 5/2-101 ve 775 ILCS 5/2-102 sayılı Illinois Derlenmiş Kanunlarını değiştiren 103-0870 Sayılı Kamu Yasası), Illinois, 2024.
26. Janardhanan, Harish: Ethics, Governance, and Fairness in Large-Scale Data Science and Algorithmic Decision Systems, ResearchGate, 2025.
27. Johnson, Kristin / Pasquale, Frank / Chapman, Jennifer: Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Bias in Finance: Toward Responsible Innovation, Fordham Law Review, Cilt 88, Sayı 2, 499-529.
28. Kızılsümer Özer, Deniz: İnsan Haklarının Birleşmiş Milletler’in Kurumsal Yapısı İçinde Korunması, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 17, Sayı 2, 205-234.
29. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu: Üretken Yapay Zekâ ve Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Rehberi (15 Soruda), Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu, Ankara, 2025.
30. Lazcoz, Guillermo / De Hert, Paul: Humans in the GDPR and AIA Governance of Automated and Algorithmic Systems: Essential Pre-Requisites Against Abdicating Responsibilities, Computer Law & Security Review, Cilt: 50, 2023, Makale No: 105833.
31. Leslie, David: Understanding Bias in Facial Recognition Technologies: An Explainer, The Alan Turing Institute, 2020.
32. Lundberg, Emma: Automated Decisionmaking vs Indirect Discrimination, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Umeå University, 2019.
33. Mecaj, Stela Enver: Artificial Intelligence And Legal Challenges, Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza), Cilt: 20, Sayı: 34, 180–196.
34. Meriç-Atakan, K. Bahar: İşe Alımda Algoritmik Yanlılığı Gidermeye Yönelik Yapay Zeka Tekniklerinin İncelenmesi, "İş, Güç" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, Cilt: 27, Sayı: 2, 18-62.
35. Metikoš, Ljubiša / Ausloos, Jef: The Right to an Explanation in Practice: Insights from Case Law for the GDPR and the AI Act, OSF Preprints, 2024, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ezgxf.
36. Mishra, Saurabh/ Clark, Jack/ Perrault, C. Raymond: Measurement In AI Policy: Opportunities And Challenges, arXiv, 2020, 1-28.
37. Mitra, Bhaskar / Nalisnick, Eric / Craswell, Nick / Caruana, Rich: A Dual Embedding Space Model for Document Ranking, arXiv, 1602.01137, (https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01137, Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2026).
38. Noë, Alexandre / Bouhouita-Guermech, Sarah / Zawati, Ma’n: The Right to Explanation in AI: In a Lonely Place, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Cilt: 27, 2025, Makale No: e64482.
39. O’Neil, Cathy: Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, 1. Baskı, Crown, New York, 2016.
40. Pasquale, Frank: The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, (MA), 2015.
41. Prince, Anya E. R. / Schwarcz, Daniel: Proxy Discrimination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, Iowa Law Review, Cilt: 105, Sayı: 3, 1257-1318.
42. Public Law Project: Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI, Public Law Project, London, 2024 (https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/2024/10/Securing-meaningful-transparency-of-public-sector-AI.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2025).
43. Rachovitsa, Adamantia / Johann, Niclas: The Human Rights Implications of the Use of AI in the Digital Welfare State: Lessons Learned from the Dutch SyRI Case, Human Rights Law Review, Cilt: 22, Sayı: 2, 2022, Makale No: ngac010.
44. Remzi, Mehmet / Aydın, Sezer: Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 8. Bası, İkinci Sayfa Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015.
45. Rodgers, Waymond / Murray, James / Stefanidis, Abraham / Degbey, William / Tarba, Shloma: An artificial intelligence algorithmic approach to ethical decision-making in human resource management processes, Human Resource Management Review, Cilt 33, Sayı 4, Makale No: 100925.
46. Salgado-Criado, Jesús / Fernández-Aller, Celia: A Wide Human-Rights Approach to Artificial Intelligence Regulation in Europe, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Cilt 40, Sayı 1, 55-65.
47. Scherer, Matthew: Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Sayı 29, 353-400.
48. Schneider, Valerie: Locked Out by Big Data: How Big Data, Algorithms and Machine Learning May Undermine Housing Justice, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Cilt 52, Sayı 1, 251-314.
49. Selbst, Andrew D. / Powles, Julia: Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation, International Data Privacy Law, Cilt 7, Sayı 4, 233-242.
50. Şentürk, Candide: Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Özelinde Yargıda Dijitalleşme, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 25, Sayı 2, 755-785.
51. Soydan, Batuhan: Yapay Zeka, Otomatik Karar Alma ve Ayrımcılık Yasağı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yaşar Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, İzmir, 2025.
52. Söderlund, Karin: High-risk AI Transparency? On Qualified Transparency Mandates for Oversight Bodies Under the EU AI Act, Technology and Regulation, 97-113.
53. Strand, Vibeke Blaker: Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence and Discrimination, Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, 2025.
54. Thomson Reuters: What is Disparate Treatment Discrimination – and How is it Proven?, Thomson Reuters, 2022 (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/the-basics-of-disparate-treatment-discrimination-under-title-vii, Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025).
55. van der Sloot, B. / Monti, G. / Bostoen, F. (Editörler): From Regulating Human Behaviour to Regulating Data, Open Press Tilburg University, Tilburg, 2021.
56. van Kolfschooten, Hannah B: A Health-Conformant Reading of the GDPR's Right Not to be Subject to Automated Decision-Making, Medical Law Review, Cilt 32, Sayı 3, 373-391.
57. Wachter, Sandra / Mittelstadt, Brent / Russell, Chris: Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Cilt 31, Sayı 2, 841-887.
58. Wachter, Sandra / Mittelstadt, Brent / Russell, Chris: Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI, Computer Law & Security Review, Cilt 41, 1-72.
59. Wang, Pei / Goertzel, Ben (Editör): Theoretical Foundations of Artificial General Intelligence, Atlantis Press, Paris, 2007.
60. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik: Strengthening Legal Protection Against Discrimination by Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence, The International Journal of Human Rights, Cilt 24, Sayı 10, 1572-1593.
61. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik: Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2018.