Çeviri


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004    Tam Metin (PDF)

Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku

Florian MösleinSevda Bora Çınar

Yapay zeka, hızlı teknolojik gelişimi sayesinde çok yakın bir gelecekte şirket yönetim kurulu odalarına girecektir. Bu çalışma yapay zeka ve şirketler hukuku arasındaki etkileşimi araştırmakta ve birbirlerine nasıl uyum sağlayacaklarını analiz etmektedir. Mevcut şirketler hukuku düzenlemeleri yapay zekanın getirdiği zorlukları karşılamakta mıdır, yoksa düzenlemelerin uyarlanması mı gerekmektedir? Daha belirgin olarak, bu çalışma şirketlerin yöneticilerine odaklanmaktadır. İnsan yöneticilerin yapay zekaya güvenmelerine ne ölçüde izin verilmesi gerektiği ya da buna ne ölçüye kadar zorlanabilecekleri dikkate alınmıştır. Dahası teknoloji, yakında yapay zekanın sadece yöneticileri desteklemekle kalmayıp onların yerini almasını da sağlayacaktır. Bu sebeple bir diğer soru, bu tür bir yerini almanın yasal olarak kabul edilebilir olup olmadığıdır. Her halükarda, halihazırda şirketler hukuku tarafından benimsenen yasal stratejiler insan yöneticilere göre tasarlanmıştır. Bu bölüm, bu stratejilerin robo-yöneticilerle dolu yönetim kurulu odaları için de hala uygun olup olmadığını sınamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, şirketler hukukunun, yapay zekanın şirketlerde kullanımıyla son derece alakalı olduğu, ancak bu teknolojinin getirdiği zorluklara da uyarlanması gerekeceği sonucuna varılmaktadır. Bu anlamda yapay zeka ve şirketler hukuku arasındaki etkileşim her iki yönde de dinamik olmayı vaat etmektedir. 

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004    Tam Metin (PDF)

Robots in the Boardroom: Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Law

Florian MösleinSevda Bora Çınar

Due to its rapid technological development, artificial intelligence will enter corporate boardrooms in the very near future. This chapter explores the interplay between artificial intelligence and corporate law, and analyzes how the two fit together. Do current corporate law rules match the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, or do they need to be adapted? More specifically, the chapter focuses on the directors of corporations. We consider the extent to which human directorsshould be allowed—or required—to rely on artificial intelligence. Moreover, technology will probably soon offer the possibility of artificial intelligence not only supporting directors, but even replacing them. Another question is therefore whether or not such a replacement is legally admissible. At any rate, the legal strategies currently adopted by corporate law are tailored to human directors. This chapter tests whether those strategies would still be suitable for boardrooms filled with robo-directors. It concludes that corporate law is highly relevant for the use of artificial intelligence in corporations, but that it will also need to be adapted to the challenges posed by this technology. In that sense, the interplay between artificial intelligence and corporate law promises to be dynamic in both directions.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Agrawal A, Gans J and Goldfarb A, ‘Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence: Prediction versus Judgment’ (Working Paper 2018), < http://www.nber.org/papers/w24626.pdf > google scholar
  • Agrawal A, Gans J and Goldfarb A, ‘How AI Will Change the Way We Make Decisions’, (Harvard Business Review, 26 July 2017) < https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-ai-will-change-the-way-we-make-decisions > google scholar
  • Armour J, Enriques L et al, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2017). google scholar
  • Bainbridge S, Corporation Law and Economics (Foundation Press 2002). google scholar
  • Bahar R and Morand A, “Taking conflict of interest in corporate law seriously - direct and indirect rules addressing the agency problem” in Anne Peters and Lukas Handschin (eds), Conflict of Interest in Global, Public and Corporate Governance (Cambridge University Press 2012) 308-333. google scholar
  • Bayern S, ‘Of Bitcoins, Independently Wealthy Software, and the Zero-Member’ (2014) LLC 108(4) Northwestern University Law Review, 1485-1500. google scholar
  • Bayern S, ‘The Implications of Modern Business-Entity Law for the Regulation of Autonomous Systems’ (2015) 19 Stanford Technology Law Review, 93-112. google scholar
  • Bayern S, Burri T, Grant T, Hausermann D, Möslein F and Williams R, ‘Company Law and Autonomous Systems: A Blueprint for Lawyers, Entrepreneurs, and Regulators’ (2017) 9 Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal 135-162. google scholar
  • Bellia A, ‘Contracting with Electronic Agents’ (2001) 50 Emory Law Journal, 1047-1092. google scholar
  • Bertschinger U, ‘Aktienrecht im digitalen Zeitalter’, Rechtswissenschaftliche Abteilung der Universitat St. Gallen (ed), Recht im digitalen Zeitalter - Festgabe Schweizerischer Juristentag (Dike 2015) 167-202. google scholar
  • Bertschinger U, Arbeitsteilung und aktienrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit (Schulthess 1999). google scholar
  • Bostrom N, Superintelligence - Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford University Press 2014). google scholar
  • Böckli P, Die unentziehbaren Kernkompetenzen des Verwaltungsrates (Schulthess 1994). google scholar
  • Brynjolfsson E and McAfee A, ‘The Business of Artificial Intelligence’ (Harvard Business Review, 18 July 2017) < https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence > google scholar
  • Burridge N, ‘Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom’, (Nikkei Asian Review, 10 May 2017) < http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Artificial-intelligence-gets-a-seat-in-the-boardroom > google scholar
  • Cahn A and Donald D, Comparative Corporate Law (Cambridge University Press 2010). google scholar
  • Chittur K, ‘The Corporate Director’s Standard of Care: Past, Present, Future’ (1985) 10(2) Delaware. Journal of Corporate Law, 505-543. google scholar
  • Chopra S and White L, ‘Artificial Agents and the Contracting Problem: A Solution Via an Agency Analysis’ (Fall 2009) University of Illinois Journal of Law Technology & Policy, 363-403. google scholar
  • Cuende L and Izquierdo J, ‘Aragon Network - A Decentralized Infrastructure for Value Exchange’, (White Paper, 20 April 2017) < https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper/blob/master/Aragon%20 Whitepaper.pdf > google scholar
  • Diedrich H, Ethereum (CreateSpace 2016). google scholar
  • Easterbrook F and Fischel D, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (Harvard University Press 1996). google scholar
  • Eidenmüller H, ‘The Rise of Robots and the Law of Humans’ (2017) 25 Zeitschrift für Europaisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 765-775. google scholar
  • Eisenberg M, ‘The Duty of Good Faith in Corporate Law’ (2006) 31(1) Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 1-75. google scholar
  • Featherstone T, ‘Governance in the new machine age’, (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 24 March 2017) < https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/advocacy/governance-leadership-centre/governance-driving-performance/governance-in-the-new-machine-age > google scholar
  • Fischel D, ‘The Business Judgement Rule and the Trans Union Case’ (1985) 40(4) The Business Lawyer,1437-1455. google scholar
  • Fleckner AM, ‘Regulating Trading Practices’, in Niamh Moloney, EiHs Fenan and Jennifer Payne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Financial Regulation (Oxford University Press 2015) 596, 619-23. google scholar
  • Fleischer H, ‘Die ‘Business Judgment Rule’ im Spiegel von Rechtsvergleichung und Rechtsökonomie’, in Festschrift for Herbert Wiedemann (Beck 2002) 827-849. google scholar
  • Fleischer H, ‘Zur Leitungsaufgabe des Vorstands im Aktienrecht’ (2003) 1 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 1-10. google scholar
  • Fleischer H, ‘Vorstandsverantwortlichkeit und Fehlverhalten von Unternehmensangehörigen - Von der Einzelüberwachung zur Errichtung einer Compliance-Organisation’ (2003) Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 291-300. google scholar
  • Forstmoser P, Meyer-Hayoz A and Nobel P, Schweizerisches Aktienrecht (Stampfli 1996). google scholar
  • Freitag R and Korch S, ‘Die Angemessenheit der Information im Rahmen der Business Judgment Rule (§ 93 Abs. 1 S. 2 AktG)’ (2012) Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 2281-2285. google scholar
  • Gehrlein M, ‘Leitung einer juristischen Person durch juristische Personen?’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 566-568. google scholar
  • Gevurtz F, Corporation Law (2nd edn, West Publishing 2010). google scholar
  • Granelli C, ‘La responsabilitâ civile degli organi di gestione alla luce della riforma delle societâ di capitali’ (2003) Le Societâ 1565-1571. google scholar
  • Grass A, Business Judgment Rule (Schulthess 1998). google scholar
  • Gruber MC, ‘Was spricht gegen Maschinenrechte?’, Jochen Bung and Sascha Ziemann (eds), Autonome Automaten (Beck 2015) 11-14. google scholar
  • Grundmann S, European Company Law (2nd edn, Intersentia 2012). google scholar
  • Informal Company Law Expert Group (ICLEG), ‘Report on digitalisation in company law’ (March 2016) < http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/company-law/icleg-report-ondigitalisation-24-march-2016_en.pdf > google scholar
  • Hadji-Artinian S, La faute de gestion (Litec 2001). google scholar
  • Hallevy G, Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems (Springer 2014). google scholar
  • Halpern P, Trebilcock M ve Turnbull S, ‘An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability in Corporation Law’ (1980) 30(2) University of Toronto Law Journal 117-150. google scholar
  • Hansmann H and Kraakman R, ‘The Essential Role of Organizational Law’ (2000) 110(3) Yale Law Journal, 387-440. google scholar
  • Hansmann H, Kraakman R and Squire R, ‘Law and the Rise of the Firm’ (2006) 119(5) Harvard Law Review, 1333-1403. google scholar
  • Harari Y, Homo Deus: A BriefHistory of Tomorrow (Random House 2016). google scholar
  • Hassanien AE et al (eds), Big Data in Complex Systems: Challenges and Opportunities (Springer 2015). google scholar
  • Herzel L and Katz L, ‘Smith v. Van Gorkom: The Business of Judging Business Judgment’ (1986) 41(4) The Business Lawyer, 1187-1193. google scholar
  • Hilb M, ‘Toward an Integrated Framework for Governance of Digitalization’, in id (Ed), Governance of Digitalization (2017) 11-20. google scholar
  • Jain L and Martin N, (eds), Fusion of Neural Networks, Fuzzy Sets and Genetic Algorithms (CRC Press 1999). google scholar
  • Jain L and Wilde PD (eds), Practical Applications of Computational Intelligence Techniques (Springer 2001). google scholar
  • Jensen M and Meckling W, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure’ (1976) 3(4) Journal of Financial Economics, 305-360. google scholar
  • Kammerer A, Die unübertragbaren und unentziehbaren Kernkompetenzen des Verwaltungsrates (Schulthess 1997). google scholar
  • Kaplan J, Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press 2016). google scholar
  • Kenshaw D, Company Law in Context (Oxford University Press 2012). google scholar
  • Knapp V, ‘What are the issues relating to digitalisation in company law?’ (June 2016) <http://www. europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/556961/IPOL_IDA(2016)556961_EN.pdf > google scholar
  • Knepper W and Bailey D, Liability of Corporate Officers and Directors (7th edn, Lexis 2002). google scholar
  • Kudyba S, Big Data, Mining, and Analytics - Components of Strategic Decision Making (CRC Press 2014). google scholar
  • Kühn R and Grünig R, Successful Decision-making: A Systematic Approach to Complex Problems (2nd edn, Springer 2009). google scholar
  • Lessig L, ‘The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw What Might Teach’ (1999)113 Harvard Law Review, 501-546. google scholar
  • LoPucki L, ‘Algorithmic Entities’ (2018) 95 Washington University Law Review, 887-953. google scholar
  • Macey J, ‘Smith v. Van Gorkom: Insights About C.E.O.s, Corporate Law Rules, and the Jurisdictional Competition for Corporate Charter’ (2002) 96(2) Northwestern University Law Review, 607-630. google scholar
  • Manne H, ‘Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economics’ (1967) 53(2) Virginia Law Review, 259-284. google scholar
  • Manning B, ‘Reflections and Practical Tips on Life in the Boardroom after Van Gorkom’ (1985) 41(1) The Business Lawyer, 1-14. google scholar
  • Mantysaari P, Comparative Corporate Governance (Springer 2005). google scholar
  • McCarthy J, Minsky M, Rochester N and Shannon C, ‘A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence’ (1955) < http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html > google scholar
  • Möslein F, Grenzen unternehmerischer Leitungsmacht im marktoffenen Verband (De Gruyter 2007). google scholar
  • Möslein F and Lordt A, ‘Rechtsfragen des Robo Advice’ (2017) Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 793-803. google scholar
  • Müller R, ‘Digitalization Decisions at Board Level’, Michael Hilb (ed), Governance ofDigitization (Haupt 2017) 43-50. google scholar
  • Noyes J, Cook M and Masakowski Y (eds), Decision Making in Complex Environments (CRC Press 2007). google scholar
  • Paolini A (ed), Research Handbook on Directors’ Duties (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014). google scholar
  • Peters K, ‘Angemessene Informationsbasis als Voraussetzung pflichtgemaBen Vorstandshandelns’ (2010) Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 811-817. google scholar
  • Philipps-Wren G and Jain L, ‘Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making’ in Bogdan Gabrys, Howlett RJ and Jain L (eds), Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (Springer 2006) 531-536. google scholar
  • Philipps L, ‘Gibt es ein Recht auch für ein Volk von künstlichen Wesen, wenn sie nur Verstand haben?’, in Festschrift for Arthur Kaufmann (CF Müller 1989) 119-126. google scholar
  • Rodewalt J, ‘Informationsmanagement im Unternehmen als Instrument zur Vermeidung von Organhaftung’ (2014) GmbH-Rundschau (GmbHR) 639-644. google scholar
  • Popper N, ‘A Venture Fund With Plenty of Virtual Capital, but No Capitalist’ (New York Times, 21 May 2016) < https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/cryptoether-bitcoin-currency.html > google scholar
  • Popper N, ‘A Hacking of More Than $50 Million Dashes Hopes in the World of Virtual Currency’ (New York Times, 17 June 2016) < https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/business/dealbook/hacker-may-have-removedmore-than-50-million-from-experimental-cybercurrency-project.html > google scholar
  • Rao A, ‘AI everywhere / nowhere part 3 - AI is AAAI (Assisted-Augmented-Autonomous Intelligence)’ (20 May 2016) < http://usblogs.pwc.com/emerging-technology/ai-everywhere-nowhere-part-3-ai-is-aaaiassisted-augmented-autonomous-intelligence/ > google scholar
  • Roth M, Unternehmerisches Ermessen und Haftung des Vorstands (Beck 2001). google scholar
  • Schneider SH, Informationspflichten und Informationssystemeinrichtigungspflichten im Aktienkonzern (Duncker and Humblot 2006). google scholar
  • Schneider SH, ‘“Unternehmerische Entscheidungen” als Anwendungsvoraussetzung für die Business Judgment Rule’ (2005) Der Betrieb (DB) 707-712. google scholar
  • Scholastique E, Devoir de Diligence des administrateurs de societes - Droits français et anglais (LGDJ 1998). google scholar
  • Scholz L, ‘Algorithmic Contracts’ (2017) 20 (2) Stanford Technology Law Review, 128-169. google scholar
  • Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO’, Release No. 81207, 25 July 2017, < https://www. sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf > google scholar
  • Semler J, ‘Entscheidungen und Ermessen im Aktienrecht’ in Festschrift for Peter Ulmer (De Gruyter 2003) 627-642. google scholar
  • Senior J, ‘Review: ‘Homo Deus’ Foresees a Godlike Future. (Ignore the Techno-Overlords)’ (New York Times, 15 February 2017) < https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/books/review-homo-deus-yuval-noah-harari.html > google scholar
  • Smith A, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth ofNations (Clarendon Press 1976). google scholar
  • Solum L, ‘Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence’ (1992) 70 North Carolina Law Review, 1231-1287. google scholar
  • Stout L, ‘In Praise of Procedure: An Economic and Behavioral Defense of Smith v. Van Gorkom and the Business Judgment Rule’ (2002) 96 Northwestern University Law Review 673-761. google scholar
  • Strine L, Hamermesh L, Balotti RF and Gorris J, ‘Loyalty’s Core Demand: The Defining Role Of Good Faith in Corporation Law’ (2010) 93 Georgetown Law Journal, 629-696. google scholar
  • Swan M, Blockchain: Blueprintfor a New Economy (O’Reilly Media 2015). google scholar
  • Teubner G, ‘Elektronische Agenten und groBe Menschenaffen: Zur Ausweitung des Akteurstatus in Recht und Politik’ (2006) 27 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 5-30. google scholar
  • Qudrat-Ullah H, Spector JM, Davidsen P (eds), Complex Decision Making: Theory and Practice (Springer 2010). google scholar
  • Wile R, ‘A Venture Capital Firm Just Named an Algorithm to its Board of Directors’ (Business Insider, 13 May 2014) < http://www.businessinsider.com/vital-named-to-board-2014-5?IR=T > google scholar
  • Wright A and Filippi PD, Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia, (Working Paper 2015) < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2580664 > google scholar
  • Zolfagharifard E, ‘Would you take orders from a Robot? An artificial intelligence becomes the world’s first company director’ (Daily Mail, 19 May 2014) < http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ sciencetech/article2632920/Would-orders-ROBOT-Artificial-intelligence-world-s-company-director-Japan.html > google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Möslein, F., & Bora Çınar, S. (2021). Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 79(2), 699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


AMA

Möslein F, Bora Çınar S. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2021;79(2):699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


ABNT

Möslein, F.; Bora Çınar, S. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 79, n. 2, p. 699-728, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Möslein, Florian, and Sevda Bora Çınar. 2021. “Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79, no. 2: 699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


Chicago: Humanities Style

Möslein, Florian, and Sevda Bora Çınar. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79, no. 2 (Jun. 2022): 699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


Harvard: Australian Style

Möslein, F & Bora Çınar, S 2021, 'Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 699-728, viewed 30 Jun. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Möslein, F. and Bora Çınar, S. (2021) ‘Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 79(2), pp. 699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004 (30 Jun. 2022).


MLA

Möslein, Florian, and Sevda Bora Çınar. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 79, no. 2, 2021, pp. 699-728. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


Vancouver

Möslein F, Bora Çınar S. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 30 Jun. 2022 [cited 30 Jun. 2022];79(2):699-728. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004


ISNAD

Möslein, Florian - Bora Çınar, Sevda. Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Odasındaki Robotlar: Yapay Zeka ve Şirketler Hukuku”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79/2 (Jun. 2022): 699-728. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0004



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim01.09.2020
Kabul12.04.2021
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma25.05.2021

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.