BIAnet.org, Turkey
Oct 15 2012
`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 land while it was bound for Damascus over Turkish air space
on Oct. 11. Turkish officials also ordered another Armenian passenger
plane bound for Aleppo to land in the northeastern province of Erzurum
today. Such moves are legal but hostile acts that are not in
conformity with regular aviatian practices, according to Assistant
Prof. Volkan Günel.
Ayça SÃ-YLEMEZ
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 Ã-zyeÄ?in 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 DavutoÄ?lu 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)