Earlier this week a Syrian mortar strike on Turkish territory killed five civilians. Turkey retaliated with shelling of Syrian targets, and the Turkish parliament authorized further military action against Syria. Yesterday the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Syrian attack, and referring to the impact the crisis was having on "international peace and security". Russia blocked language which would have indicated that the crisis was "a threat to international peace and security."
We will turn to the law governing the use of force in a couple of weeks, when these issues will become clearer; but in preparation consider:
1) Was the Turkish response with shelling lawful under international law? If so, under what principle?
2) On what legal basis, if any, could Turkey continue to escalate military intervention in Syria, as parliament seems to have authorized?
3) Why was Russia concerned about the language "threat to international peace and security"? What would such language have triggered, if anything?
You may want to take a stab at answering these questions now, and then returning to see how your thinking might have changed after we study the use of force material.
I’m going to attempt answering the following questions.
ReplyDelete1) Was the Turkish response with shelling lawful under international law? If so, under what principle?
•The UN Charter reads in article 2(4): “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. In this case, the question is whether Syria’s shelling was a legitimate threat and risk to Turkey’s national security (threating their territorial integrity or political independence). If yes, then Turkey has a right to self-defense and the retaliation was justified. If no, then the question would turn to whether the self-defense was an attempt to head off a future threat of attack on their national security. Under the Carolina test, if the Syria shelling was an imminent threat, then Turkey’s retaliation (use of force) is necessary if there was no other peaceful alternative and it was proportionate to the threat.
•In the case at hand, it could easily be argued both ways. There are a lot of factors playing into this situation. For example, there have been previous tensions between Turkey and Syria. One of those tensions was the report of a Turkey military reconnaissance jet being shot down by Syria (According to Turkey, the jet was shot down after it left Syrian airspace). Another tension resulted in the wounding of three Turkey citizens and the closure of schools in the border town of Turkey. On the other hand, there is also a possibility that Turkey might be supplying Syrian rebels with weapons. Nevertheless, I think it is in Turkey’s best interest to keep the peace considering Turkey now has many Syrian refugees and their trade with Syria has already suffered. As for Syria, in the words of a popular American Hip-hop song, “Syria has 99 problems and Turkey ain’t one” nor should it become one.
2) On what legal basis, if any, could Turkey continue to escalate military intervention in Syria, as parliament seems to have authorized?
•I’m not sure what the correct name of the legal basis would be, but I would say, “Self-defense”. I attempted to explain it above. I read a short bit about the Carolina case and the test that is applied when there is pre-emptive force.
3) Why was Russia concerned about the language "threat to international peace and security"? What would such language have triggered, if anything?
•Russia is allies with Syria and is involved in an extensive gun trade with the Syrian government. This is a huge shot in the dark, but I would say that Russia wouldn’t want that language because that language would allow the UN and member countries to intervene in the internal affairs of Syria.
Russia's involvement appears to be more apparent with Wednesday's news out of Turkey. A commercial airliner traveling from Moscow to Damascus was "escorted" to the ground by Turkish fighter jets. Turkey claimed to have grounded the plane on suspicion of carrying weapons. Military communications equipment was said to have been found. Russia and Syria are both clearly upset and claimed "air piracy" and assault and mistreatment of the Russian and Syrian nationals on board the flight.
ReplyDeleteRussia's softening of the language in the original post may have been an attempt to deflect attention from the brewing conflict. Russia has tried to maintain civility with Turkey on their differences with Syria, but that may not be the case for long if Turkey continues to ground Russian flights and hold their nationals against their will. Turkey clearly believes Russia is supplying Syria with military equipment, including weapons, using their airspace. It will be interesting to see how Russia reacts and if their role increases as the conflict between Turkey and Syria continues.