“Forced Landing of Syrian Plane is a Legal But Hostile Act”

Turkish air force jets forced a Syrian passenger plane en route from Moscow to Damascus to land in an airport while it was passing through Turkish air space on Oct. 11 on the grounds that the plane was carrying arms to Syria. Turkish officials also ordered another Air Armenia passenger plane to land today while it was bound for the city of Aleppo in the neighboring Arab country.

Such conduct is legal from the perspective of international law but constitute a hostile act that is out of line with regular aviation practices, according to Assistant Prof. Volkan Günel, an expert on international law from Istanbul's Özyeğin University.

Moreover, forcing a civilian plane to land with fighter jets also threaten the passengers' lives which also amounts to a legal error, he also added.

"There are no examples of such conduct in practice. Civilian planes do not get 'pulled over' like this. The Convention on International Civil Aviation has very strict rules. [Forcing] a plane to land is a hostile act that is extremely inimical to [established] practice," Assist. Prof. Günel said, adding that interrupting with the flow of civilian aviation would also have negative repercussions for a country in the long term as well.

The Air Armenia plane that was forced to land in the northeastern province of Erzurum today was carrying humanitarian aid, according to reports.

Bound for Aleppo, the plane took off from Armenia at 11:30 and bore a cargo of some 1,500 plastic bottles of sunflower seed oil, 1,500 plastic bottles of vegetable oil, 3,000 boxes of jam, 1,500 boxes of peas, 1,500 boxes of caviar, 1,500 packages of rice, 1,500 kilograms of sugar, 3,000 kilograms of cereals and 1,500 kilograms of pasta.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry had already announced that the plane would not be allowed to fly directly through Turkish air space and would be subject to a search.

Those circumstances did not apply to the Syrian passenger plane that was forced to land on Oct. 11, however.

After Turkey announced that it had sealed its airspace to Syria in wake of the incident, the Arab country then responded by reciprocating Turkey's move and announced that it had also shut Syrian air space to civilian Turkish planes as well.

A Russian backlash?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also announced after the incident that Turkish-Russian relations would not be affected by this matter, but Assist. Prof. Günel said Lavrov's statement bore a deeper meaning:

"This statement from Russia could mean that Turkey may soon receive a response because by forcing the plane to land, Turkey ended up saying that it did not trust Russia and did not believe in its sovereignty," he said.

"Buffer zone a threat of force"

Assist. Prof. Günel also elaborated on the prospects of the establishment of a buffer zone inside Syria, a move which Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had also recently voiced his support for.

"Even the announcement of a buffer zone [in an area] under Syrian sovereignty without Syria's permission is tantamount to a violation of international law. Besides, at the moment we cannot say that Syria would issue such a permit either," he said.

"A buffer zone is established through military force, an armed offensive. To say that one is going to establish a buffer zone is to threaten the use of force, according to international law. Making such a threat is legally prohibited," Assist. Prof. Günel added.

Assist. Prof. Günel also spoke about the recent motion which passed through Parliament to authorize the Turkish government to deploy troops abroad:

"The motion bears no practical meaning. International law already recognizes the right to legitimate self-defense. This motion represents a threat to use force and does not employ the language of peace. They are trying to get the people to [assume responsibility] for an intervention," he said.

The authority to use force rests with the Security Council of the United Nations without whose consent even NATO cannot roll into action, he said, adding that "legitimate self-defense" constituted the sole exception to this rule. (AS)