Turkey’s legal justification for its recent attacks against the Kurds and ISIS/ISIL

The official notification by Turkey concerning its attacks against ISIS/ISIL in Syria can be found here: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2015_563.pdf

Similar to the US and its allies, Turkey relies on the right to self-defence and, more specifically, the„unwilling or unable“-doctrine, as the legal basis for striking against ISIS/ISIL inside Syria. Most interestingly, however, the letter to the Security Council does not refer to the threat emanating from Kurdish fighters but only ISIS/ISIL (Daesh):

The terrorist attack that took the lives of 32 Turkish citizens in Suruç on 20 July 2015 reaffirms that Turkey is under a clear and imminent threat of continuing attack from Daesh. Most recently, on 23 July 2015, Daesh attacked the border military post in Elbeyli and killed a Turkish soldier.
It is apparent that the regime in Syria is neither capable of nor willing to prevent these threats emanating from its territory, which clearly imperil the security of Turkey and the safety of its nationals.
Individual and collective self-defence is our inherent right under international law, as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
On this basis, Turkey has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions against Daesh in Syria, including in coordination with individual members of the Global Coalition, in order to counter the terrorist threat and to safeguard its territory and citizens.

The legal basis for its military strikes against Iraq, then, is the consent given by the Iraqi government:
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-220_-31-july-2015_-press-release-regarding-the-statement-of-the-iraqi-government-about-turkey_s-operations-towards-the-pkk-targets.en.mfa:

His Excellency called on the Turkish government to coordinate with the Iraqi government about any military operation in those areas, stressing Iraq’s keenness on Turkey’s internal security and its people’s safety, praising the Turkish decision which allowed the use of its airbases by the international coalition to attack the terrorist Daesh organization.

Regarding the attacks against Kurdish fighters located in Iraq, however, the Iraqi government has voiced harsh criticism which comes close to a (partial) withdrawal of its consent, or at least a threat of doing so, denouncing these as „a dangerous escalation and an assault on Iraqi sovereignty“ and calling on Turkey to avoid further escalation and seek a resolution to the crisis.

As a reaction, Turkey has stated that Iraq was not fulfilling its duty to prevent any attacks/not to harbor such „terrorists“. All in all, it seems as if Turkey is stretching the Iraqi acceptance to conduct attacks against ISIS/ISIL and the Kurds on its territory quite far; however, as long as Iraq does not expliticitly withdraw its consent, there is a legal basis for the Turkish attack:

[…] the negative attitude adopted by the Iraqi Government regarding the steps taken by Turkey within the framework of international of law towards the terrorist attacks faced by our country and the operations conducted by Turkey, in this context, against the PKK terrorist organization located within the borders of Iraq has caused disappointment.

Although the Iraqi Government emphasizes its commitment for not allowing any attack towards Turkey from the Iraqi territories, it is clear that this commitment has not been fulfilled and numerous armed PKK militants have continued to harbor in the Iraqi territory for years. Therefore it is not possible to comprehend or accept that those, who cannot fulfill their commitments, do not have the possibility to keep their borders under control, and one-third of whose territories are under the control of the terrorist organization, have taken a stance against Turkey in its fight against the PKK terrorist organization perpetrating armed attacks towards its citizens and security forces.

That being said, although there is indeed a (somewhat shaky) legal justification – in line with those which have been invoked by other states in attacking ISIS/ISIL in the past, the problem is that Turkey does not restrict its attacks against this group. It is obvious that the balance between striking against ISIS/ISIL and, simultaneously, against the Kurds, the most reliable allies of the West and the US in particular, will cause political and, relatedly, perhaps also legal problems in the near future. Until now, however, Iraq would only withdraw or explicitly restrict its consent for military strikes by Turkey if the US allows it to do so (which seems highly unlikely for the time being).

Lastly, here are some good articles on the Syria/Iraq/ISIS/ISIL/Kurds-quagmire:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33747980 (scroll down for some helpful infographics)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/31/turkey-goes-to-war-syria-rebels/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-conflict-with-kurds-was-approving-air-strikes-against-the-pkk-americas-worst-error-in-the-middle-east-since-the-iraq-war-10417381.html
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/29/whats-behind-turkeys-u-turn-on-the-islamic-state-kurds-syria/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/28/has-the-u-s-just-sold-out-the-kurds/
http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/4785757/Analyse_Warum-Erdogan-die-PKK-angreift?_vl_backlink=%2Fhome%2Findex.do (in German)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-kurds-idUSKCN0Q52OH20150731

zum Völkerrechtssubjekt "Deutsches Reich"

Immer wieder sorgt die Frage, ob das deutsche Reich juristisch/völkerrechtlich noch existiert und ob die BRD ihr Rechtsnachfolger ist für Unruhe; so unter anderem aufgrund einer Anfrage der Linken, die damit beantwortet wurde, dass das Deutsche Reich mit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland völkerrechtlich identisch ist. So verstörend es auch klingen mag: Völkerrechtlich ist die Sache eigentlich klar und wenig aufregend. Ein Staat bleibt schließlich auch aufgrund eines Regierungs- oder Systemwechsels (mag das Vorgängersystem auch noch so manifest menschenverachtend sein) dasselbe Völkerrechtssubjekt.

Weiterlesen „zum Völkerrechtssubjekt "Deutsches Reich"“

Russian soldiers in Ukraine?

Ever since the end of the Second World War, most armed conflicts have been non-international in character, with major powers often being involved indirectly by providing funds, weapons, training, and similar assistance to local forces. We have seen this pattern in Syria and, so it seemed, in Eastern Ukraine. To frame it in legal terms: States use indirect force (which is of course also covered by the prohibition of the use of force, cf the good old Nicaragua judgment), but refrain from direct force, i.e. sending their own troops. However, concerning Ukraine, the New York Times reported on the direct involvement Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine as early as April 2014:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?_r=0

Prompted by these reports, VICE News tried to find the soldier shown on the picture and proving that the allegations were not correct, at least not in the sense as described by the New York Times:

On the diplomatic plane, allegations indicating direct involvement in the sense of Russian soldiers themselves being present were voiced by France during Security Council Meeting 7165 from 29 April 2014:

We are witnessing a a subversive operation that has been planned, barely disguised and orchestrated by Russia. Russian special forces do not even hide anymore. Some time ago, our Russian colleague denied their involvement in Crimea, while his President recognized it a few days later. No doubt, he will do the same with respect to current events in Ukraine. France strongly and unequivocally condemns those unacceptable attempts by Russia to destabilize Ukraine.

However, Russia has consistently denied at least direct involvement in the sense of sending its own troops to Ukraine at the same Security Meeting for instance (and throwing a verbal punch at the US and its large number of military bases abroad):

With regard to armed forces, our armed forces are on Russian territory. American forces are hardly at home. They are in Australia, Lithuania, Poland and on the Black Sea, where an American vessel has remained longer than it was invited to do. Yes, our troops do conduct training exercises. But they do so in a transparent manner and while upholding all existing international agreements. We do not have any aggressive intentions towards Ukraine. They Kyiv Government should keep a cool head and not engage in reckless activities with respect to the people in the south-east of the country, where there are many Russian citizens as well.

While Russia hasn’t changed its official position until fairly recently at least (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-denies-russian-troops-are-in-ukraine-decrees-certain-deaths-secret/2015/05/28/9bb15092-0543-11e5-93f4-f24d4af7f97d_story.html), it seems to become harder to maintain every day. As a recent video by VICE News shows, everyone with a computer can determine that it seems very likely that Russian soldiers are present on Ukrainian territory. After all, they themselves, while not wearing official insignia, seem to have posted revealing pictures on Russian social network sites. Web 2.0 indeed does have some strange side effects.

why working conditions in International Organizations are so bad

In a brand new article in IOLR, the legal adviser of NATO explains why bad working conditions are necessary for their functioning. Worth read for all those eager to pursue a career in this field:

„the notion of precarious employment within international organizations is inherent in their evolving nature and, therefore, necessary for the survival of international organizations.
[…] We have seen that many international organizations’ employment practices are very similar, and that they often provide only relative, non-permanent employment guarantees. However, these apparently negative practices seem to benefit the overall functioning of these institutions. Nevertheless, the pursuit of precarious employment practices affects one of the core elements of international organizations’ esprit de corps — loyalty. The pernicious effects of weak or non-existent allegiance among international staff members create vulnerabilities for international organizations, which may reach the point that the relevant organization’s constitutional
objectives cannot be met.“

Andrés Muñoz Mosquera, ‚On the Notion of Precarious Employment in International Organizations‘ 11  International Organizations Law Review (2014), 294-317