SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE IN SHAPING GENERAL LEGAL THOUGHT

Genel Yapay Zekânın Genel Hukuk Düşüncesi Üzerindeki Dönüştürücü Etkisi

Yusuf Suiçmez(YAKIN DOĞU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8967-9766
Pages
1–42
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the same time, the study critically addresses the technological limitations, ethical concerns, and structural risks associated with AI applications—particularly the opacity of algorithmic decision-making processes—and emphasizes the necessity of legal frameworks grounded in transparency, accountability, and human oversight.In conclusion, the study demonstrates that addressing the relationship between legal theory and artificial intelligence through an interdisciplinary approach can contribute to a reconsideration of the methodological foundations of general legal thought.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the transformative role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in the reconsideration of general legal thought.
📊
Key Findings & Data:At the same time, the study critically addresses the technological limitations, ethical concerns, and structural risks associated with AI applications—particularly the opacity of algorithmic decision-making processes—and emphasizes the necessity of legal frameworks grounded in transparency, accountability, and human oversight.In conclusion, the study demonstrates that addressing the relationship between legal theory and artificial intelligence through an interdisciplinary approach can contribute to a reconsideration of the methodological foundations of general legal thought.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Artificial intelligence was utilized in this study for literature review, language and consistency analysis, and topic summarization, and the inductive method (istiqrāʾ) was employed throughout the research.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Genel hukuk düşüncesi · Genel yapay zekâ · Yapay zekâ

Abstract

This study examines the transformative role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in the reconsideration of general legal thought. The research analyzes three foundational approaches in legal theory—Natural Law, Positive Law, and the increasingly discussed Integrative Law—within a conceptual framework informed by developments in artificial intelligence. Natural law is considered for its provision of normative criteria grounded in universal moral principles; positive law for its supply of structured legal data suitable for algorithmic analysis; and integrative law for its contribution of a human-centered, interdisciplinary, and holistic perspective to legal reasoning. The central claim of the study is that the structural and conceptual difficulties that have historically hindered the formation of a general theory of law—arising from differences among legal systems, languages, and jurisdictions—may be re-examined through the analytical capacities offered by advanced AI technologies. In this context, it is argued that artificial intelligence, through its capabilities in pattern recognition, data synthesis, and natural language processing, can contribute to the comparative analysis of legal concepts across different legal systems and to their harmonization to a certain extent. Methodologically, the study employs a systematic literature review in conjunction with theoretical synthesis and evaluates the potential contributions of artificial intelligence to the identification of normative principles and the analytical modeling of legal reasoning. At the same time, the study critically addresses the technological limitations, ethical concerns, and structural risks associated with AI applications—particularly the opacity of algorithmic decision-making processes—and emphasizes the necessity of legal frameworks grounded in transparency, accountability, and human oversight.In conclusion, the study demonstrates that addressing the relationship between legal theory and artificial intelligence through an interdisciplinary approach can contribute to a reconsideration of the methodological foundations of general legal thought. Artificial intelligence was utilized in this study for literature review, language and consistency analysis, and topic summarization, and the inductive method (istiqrāʾ) was employed throughout the research.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Yapay Zekâ (YZ) ve Genel Yapay Zekâ’nın (AGI), genel hukuk düşüncesinin yeniden ele alınmasındaki dönüştürücü rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada, hukuk teorisinin üç temel yaklaşımı olan Doğal Hukuk, Pozitif Hukuk ve çağdaş literatürde giderek artan biçimde tartışılan Bütünleştirici (Integrative) Hukuk, yapay zekâ perspektifinden ele alınarak kavramsal bir çerçeve içerisinde analiz edilmektedir. Doğal hukuk, evrensel ahlaki ilkelere dayalı normatif ölçütler sunması bakımından; pozitif hukuk, algoritmik analiz için elverişli yapılandırılmış hukuki veriler sağlaması yönüyle; bütünleştirici hukuk yaklaşımı ise hukuki akıl yürütmeye insani, disiplinlerarası ve kuşatıcı bir perspektif kazandırması sebebiyle çalışma kapsamında değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın temel savı, farklı hukuk sistemleri, diller ve yargı alanları arasındaki yapısal ve kavramsal farklılıklardan kaynaklanan ve tarihsel olarak genel bir hukuk teorisinin oluşturulmasını güçleştiren sorunların, gelişmiş yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin sunduğu imkânlar aracılığıyla yeniden ele alınabileceğidir. Bu bağlamda, yapay zekânın örüntü tanıma, veri sentezi ve doğal dil işleme alanlarındaki kapasitesinin, farklı hukuk düzenlerine ait kavramların karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmesine ve belirli ölçüde uyumlaştırılmasına katkı sağlayabileceği ileri sürülmektedir. Araştırmada yöntem olarak sistematik literatür taraması ile teorik sentez birlikte kullanılmış; yapay zekânın normatif ilkelerin tespitine ve hukuki akıl yürütmenin analitik düzeyde modellenmesine sağlayabileceği katkılar değerlendirilmiştir. Bununla birlikte çalışmada, yapay zekâ uygulamalarının teknolojik sınırlılıkları, etik sorunları ve algoritmik karar alma süreçlerinin kapalılığı gibi yapısal riskler eleştirel biçimde tartışılmakta; bu risklerin giderilebilmesi için şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve insan denetimini esas alan hukuki düzenlemelerin gerekliliği vurgulanmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, hukuk teorisi ile yapay zekâ teknolojileri arasındaki ilişkinin disiplinlerarası bir yaklaşımla ele alınmasının, genel hukuk düşüncesinin metodolojik temellerinin yeniden değerlendirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmada literatür taraması, dil ve tutarlılık incelemesi ve konu özetlerinde yapay zekadan yararlanılmış ve araştırmanın genelinde istikra metodu kullanılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Suiçmez, Y. (2026). THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE IN SHAPING GENERAL LEGAL THOUGHT. Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.55009/bilisimhukukudergisi.1865880

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Ali, Miss. Aliya Anam Shoukat. “AI-Natural Language Processing (NLP).” International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology 9, no. VIII (2021): 135–40. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2021.37293.
  2. Ali, Sajid, Tamer Abuhmed, Shaker El-Sappagh, et al. “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): What We Know and What Is Left to Attain Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.” Information Fusion 99 (2023): 101805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805.
  3. Anitha, R., and KS Anil Kumar. “Sentiment Analysis In Low Resource Language: Exploring Bert, Mbert, Xlm-R,
  4. And Rnn Architectures To Underpin The Deep Language Understanding.” Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Optimization 15, no. 2 (2024): 180–89.
  5. Aybay, Rona. Genel Kamu Hukuku: Devlet (18.- 20. Yüzyıl). 1st ed. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2017.
  6. Baali, Fuad. Society, State, and Urbanism: Ibn Khaldun’s Sociological Thought. NY: Suny Press, 1988.
  7. Bai, Guangji, Zheng Chai, Chen Ling, et al. “Beyond Efficiency: A Systematic Survey of Resource-Efficient Large Language Models.” arXiv:2401.00625, 2024.
  8. Bayramoğlu, Gökben. “Artificial Intelligence from an Ethical Perspective.” In Futurisks: Risk Management in the Digital Age. Springer, 2025.
  9. Bello y Villarino, José-Miguel. “Global Standard-Setting for Artificial Intelligence: Para-Regulating International Law for AI?” The Australian Year Book of International Law 41 (2023): 157–81. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229-04101018.
  10. Cajueiro, Daniel Oliveira, and Victor Rafael Rezende Celestino. “A Comprehensive Review of Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Weighing Ethical Principles and Innovation.” Journal of Economy and Technology 4 (2026): 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2025.07.001.
  11. Caputo, Nicholas A. “Rules, Cases, and Reasoning: Positivist Legal Theory as a Framework for Pluralistic AI Alignment.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2410.17271, 2024.
  12. Chiao, Vincent. “Algorithmic Decision-Making, Statistical Evidence and the Rule of Law.” Episteme 21, no. 4 (2024): 1241–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.27.
  13. Cohen, Marshall. Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld Totowa, NJ, 1984.
  14. Comete Ethical AI Workshop. “Legal Regulation of AI and Morality in the Context of Natural Law and Legal Positivism" Accessed December 31, 2025. https://lix.polytechnique.fr/ethicalai/presentations/arturas-grumulaitis/.
  15. Daicoff, Susan. “Law as a Healing Profession: The Comprehensive Law Movement.” Pepp. Disp. Resol. LJ 6 (2006): 1.
  16. Dally, William J., Stephen W. Keckler, and David B. Kirk. “Evolution of the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU).” IEEE Micro 41, no. 6 (2021): 42–51.
  17. Damirli, Mehman A. “Integrative Jurisprudence from Fuzzy Logic Perspective.” International Conference on Theory and Applications of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing, 2020, 198–205.
  18. Damirli, Mehmet. Genel Hukuk Teorisi (Türkiye’de Tarihi Gelişimi ve Çağdaş Durumu). Adalet Yayınevi, 2024.
  19. Deeks, Ashley. “The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence.” Columbia Law Review 119, no. 7 (2019): 1829–50.
  20. Ducret, M., E. Wahal, D. Gruson, et al. “Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Learnings from the EU AI Act.” Journal of Dental Research 103, no. 11 (2024): 1051–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345241271160.
  21. Dworkin, Ronald M. “The Model of Rules.” The University of Chicago Law Review 35, no. 1 (1967): 14–46.
  22. Editorial. Insights from Contemporary Legal Theorists on Modern Law - Laws Learned. Legal Theorists. July 23, 2024. https://lawslearned.com/contemporary-legal-theorists/.
  23. Edwards, Lilian. “The EU AI Act: A Summary of Its Significance and Scope.” Artificial Intelligence (the EU AI Act) 1 (2021): 25.
  24. Erdoğan, Gökhan. “Yapay Zekâ ve Hukukuna Genel Bir Bakış.” Adalet Dergisi, no. 66 (May 2021): 117–92.
  25. “EU AI Act - Updates, Compliance, Training.” Accessed March 20, 2026. https://www.artificial-intelligence-act.com/.
  26. Gözler, Kemal. Hukukun Genel Teorisine Giriş: Hukuk Normlarının Geçerliliği ve Yorumu Sorunu. Vol. 14. Kemal Gözler, 1998.
  27. Grace, Stephanie L. “Finding Equilibrium: An Integrative Approach to Balancing Human and Artificial Intelligence in Legal Research.” Legal Reference Services Quarterly, August 7, 2025, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270319X.2025.2534229.
  28. Gruetzemacher, Ross, and Jess Whittlestone. “The Transformative Potential of Artificial Intelligence.” Futures 135 (January 2022): 102884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102884.
  29. Habuka, Hiroki. Japan’s Agile AI Governance in Action: Fostering a Global Nexus Through Pluralistic Interoperability. September 10, 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/japans-agile-ai-governance-action-fostering-global-nexus-through-pluralistic.
  30. Hadi, Muhammad Usman, Rizwan Qureshi, Abbas Shah, et al. “Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey of Its Applications, Challenges, Limitations, and Future Prospects.” Authorea Preprints 1, no. 3 (2023): 1–26.
  31. Hernandez, Danny, and Tom B. Brown. “Measuring the Algorithmic Efficiency of Neural Networks.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2005.04305, 2020.
  32. Hess, David. “The Transparency Trap: Non‐Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights.” American Business Law Journal 56, no. 1 (2019): 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12134.
  33. Insights. “2026 AI Laws Update: Key Regulations and Practical Guidance.” Gunderson Dettmer, February 5, 2026. Accessed March 21, 2026. https://www.gunder.com/en/news-insights/insights/2026-ai-laws-update-key-regulations-and-practical-guidance.
  34. Jaranilla, Charles, Hojin Shin, Seehwan Yoo, Seong-je Cho, and Jongmoo Choi. “Tiered Storage in Modern Key-Value Stores: Performance, Storage-Efficiency, and Cost-Efficiency Considerations.” 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), February 18, 2024, 151–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigComp60711.2024.00032.
  35. Karahan, Çetin, Hakan Velioğlu, and Yenal Arslan. “Unveiling the Shadows: Anticipating Future Cyber Risks and Their Impacts on Businesses.” In Futurisks: Risk Management in the Digital Age. Springer, 2025.
  36. Kiral, Halis, and Gökhan Yılmaz. “The Impact of Emerging Technologies and the Future of Risk Management: A Strategic Perspective.” Futurisks: Risk Management in the Digital Age, 2025, 3–13.
  37. Kosykh, Aleksei. “Intellectual Nature of Law in the Basic Concepts of Understanding Law.” Penitentiary Science, December 17, 2021, 835–43. https://doi.org/10.46741/2686-9764-2021-15-4-835-843.
  38. Kröger, H., I. Donner, and G. Skiello. “Influence of a New Virostatic Compound on the Induction of Enzymes in Rat Liver.” Arzneimittel-Forschung 25, no. 9 (1975): 1426–29.
  39. Li, Barbara. “Global AI Governance Law and Policy: China | IAPP.” IAPP.Org, November 12, 2025. https://iapp.org/resources/article/global-ai-governance-china.
  40. Legal Information Institute. “Natural Law.” Accessed August 29, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law.
  41. Marcinkevičs, Ričards, and Julia E. Vogt. “Interpretability and Explainability: A Machine Learning Zoo Mini-Tour.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2012.01805, 2020, 1–24.
  42. McFarland, Daniel A., and H. Richard McFarland. “Big Data and the Danger of Being Precisely Inaccurate.” Big Data & Society 2, no. 2 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715602495.
  43. Motro, Amihai. “Imprecision and Uncertainty in Database Systems.” Fuzziness in Database Management Systems 5 (1995): 3–22.
  44. NexLaw “NexLaw Blog | AI in Legal: Evidence Management for Arbitration.” Accessed August 27, 2025. https://www.nexlaw.ai/blog/ai-evidence-management-litigation/. Number of Connected IoT Devices Growing 14% to 21.1 Billion. n.d. Accessed January 1, 2026. https://iot-analytics.com/number-connected-iot-devices/.
  45. Raz, Joseph. “Can There Be a Theory of Law?” Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, 2005.
  46. Roos, MC. “Is Law Science?” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ) 17 (2014): 1392–439. Row, Liam J. “Ethical & Effective Federal Artificial Intelligence Policy.” Honors Thesis, University of Dayton, 2025. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/uhp_theses/486.
  47. Shaffer, Gregory, and Mark A. Pollack. “Hard and Soft Law.” International Law and International Relations: Insights from Interdisciplinary Scholarship, New York, 2012, 197–222.
  48. Sharma, Chinmayi, and Alan Rozenshtein. “Regulatory Approaches to AI Liability.” Lawfare, September 24, 2024. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/regulatory-approaches-to-ai-liability.
  49. Sheikh, Haroon, Corien Prins, and Erik Schrijvers. “Artificial Intelligence: Definition and Background.” In Mission AI, by Haroon Sheikh, Corien Prins, and Erik Schrijvers. Research for Policy. Springer International Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21448-6_2.
  50. Sözer, Ali Nazım. “Bilim ve Hukuk.” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 20, no. 1 (2014): 1081–118. https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.607133.
  51. Tiddi, Ilaria, Mathieu d’Aquin, and Enrico Motta. “Quantifying the Bias in Data Links.” International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 2014, 531–46.
  52. Turan, Tülay, Nazan Kemaloğlu, and Ecir Küçüksi̇lle. “Hukuk’ta Yapay Zeka: Çalışmalar ve Gelecek Öngörüleri.” Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 11, no. 2 (2020): 246–55. https://doi.org/10.29048/makufebed.748843.
  53. Twining, William. General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807374.
  54. Wael, Ayham, and Amer Madi. “Accelerating Artificial Intelligence: The Role of GPUs in Deep Learning and Computational Advancements.” East Journal of Engineering 1, no. 1 (2025): 31–46.
  55. Zeidi, Farnaz. “Improving the Performance of NLP Tasks in Legal Tech.” Doktora, İstanbul Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Enformatik Ana Bilim Dalı / Enformatik Bilim Dalı, 2024.