International law gives Türkiye the right to defend itself against PKK

Turkish Defence Minister Yasar Guler announced the neutralisation of 13 more PKK terrorists as Türkiye struck multiple targets in northern Iraq and Syria. This came in retaliation for the deadly attack on a Turkish military base in Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of nine soldiers.

As per the Defence Ministry, the attacks targeted 29 locations including bunkers, caves, oil installations and shelters belonging to the outlawed PKK and its Syrian branch, the YPG.

It can hence be argued that while Article 51 of the UN Charter justifies Türkiye’s legitimate acts of self-defence, other variables strengthen the right to respond, particularly against a terrorist organisation responsible for more than 40,000 deaths, including women, infants and children.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's resolve towards tackling the PKK threat through continued attacks in Syria and Iraq is based on the principle that incontrovertible evidence exists of PKK’s sanctuaries and ability to conduct operations in both countries. On the PKK, he was unequivocal in stating:

"Observing the principle of one nation, one flag, one homeland, one state – the guarantee of our national survival – is our red line."

As previously reported by Bloomberg, energy assets of the PKK, or rudimentary oil wells and refineries owned by them in northern Syria, continue to exist and provide terrorists with the ability to sustain themselves and carry out operations against Turkish soldiers and the civilian population with impunity.

In the aftermath of the Turkish base attack in Iraq, Turkish intelligence targeted a large compound where the French cement company Lafarge is located, in Aleppo’s Ayn el Arab district in northern Syria. The company Lafarge was used by the PKK as their headquarters since 2015 and the French cement makers also pleaded guilty to providing funds to Daesh in 2013-14.

In addition to the incontrovertible evidence, Türkiye's response is also backed by precedents in international law. On the inherent right to carry out cross-border attacks in another state to neutralise threats, both customary international law and conventional international law allows for a nation to be reactive and responsive in factual contexts.

The PKK is known to engage in guerilla warfare, deploy improvised explosive devices, perform kidnap operations, operate unmanned aerial vehicles and conduct suicide bombings against the Turkish civilians, its armed forces and infrastructure. This demonstrates the factual context through which self-defence can be justified under international law.

Take the targets in December 2023 for example, where Türkiye’s National Intelligence Organisation neutralised Omer Abdullah al Dahham. Dahham held a purported leadership position in the PKK’s intelligence unit in the city of Tabqa in Syria and his activities spanned six years of attacking Turkish military bases in areas where operations Peace Spring and Euphrates Shield were conducted.

Similarly, a senior member of the YPG in Syria, Remziye Altig was also neutralised. She was responsible for financing the PKK and engaging in terrorist activities both within Türkiye and in Syria’s Qamishli city.

Then comes the question of abiding by international conventions on terror financing. It should be noted that on the PKK, the Syrian government has not promoted the requirements under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999.

These entered into force in 2002 and requires states that have ratified it to review domestic legislation and initiate adequate criminalisation of offences related to terror financing within their countries. Syria has ratified the agreement, but its inability to comply with the 1999 convention remains a major roadblock to eliminating the PKK.

The PKK’s ability to carry out terror attacks in Iraq and Syria with impunity will remain a matter of concern.

Such harrowing realities are precisely why in 2016, Turkiye launched three operations across its border in northern Syria in the form of Euphrates Shield in 2016, Olive Branch in 2018 and Peace Spring in 2019. In 2017, amid a power vacuum, the Qandil and Sinjar Mountains as well as the Makhmur Camp in Iraq have become homes to PKK operatives.

In Qandil, there were 13 camps located in different parts of the mountain while in the Makhmur refugee camp, the PKK exploited the retreat of UN employees from Iraq and then forced young ethnic Kurds to join their activities. Again, this presents Türkiye with an existential challenge and a factual context to launch attacks.

Then comes the subject of "imminence" in international law. The fact that Turkiye neutralised more than 70 terrorists in northern Iraq and Syria demonstrates the "imminent" threat of terrorism.

In a 2022 article on the subject, University of Exeter law lecturer Chris O’ Meara makes an important observation about when countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia need to provide further clarity on the concept of "imminent" threat before exercising self-defence. Yet at the same time, he states how certain states understand imminence more flexibly based on various contextual indicators.

Based on evidence of the PKK’s activities, O’Meara’s latter observation applies to Türkiye, which has been under attack for decades. Amid the presence of the PKK in both Iraq and Syria and the failure of the governments in both Baghdad and Damascus to curb the PKK’s activities and abide by the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999 to uproot it, Türkiye has a clear right to respond.

As a result, the Turkish Armed Forces’ successful neutralisation of over 70 terrorists in northern Iraq and Syria is both proportional and a legitimate act of self-defence.

Calls to continue operations are also on merit.