Mediation File / Core Dossier· unwilling or unable doctrine self-defense Syria Iraq Türkiye

The Law of Force on the Southern Border: Self-Defense, Sovereignty and the 'Unwilling or Unable' Debate

How the 'unwilling or unable' doctrine, Article 51 and the necessity and proportionality tests apply to Türkiye's operations in Syria and Iraq.

By Nomos Orbis Editorial Team

Published: October 27, 2026

⏱ 17 min read (3,492 words)

The Brief — Key Takeaways

No treaty or ICJ judgment endorses the 'unwilling or unable' formula, but a growing body of state practice since 2001 treats Article 51 as covering armed attacks by non-state actors operating from another state's territory.
Türkiye grounds its cross-border operations in Article 51 of the UN Charter and in reports to the Security Council, arguing that the territorial authorities in northern Syria and northern Iraq could not or would not prevent attacks from their soil.
The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States and the European Union, and Ankara adds NATO, citing the 2022 trilateral memorandum with Finland and Sweden; Ankara treats the PYD/YPG as its Syrian branch, which the YPG and some partners dispute.
Necessity and proportionality are the real legal battleground: critics focus on the duration, territorial depth and consequences of Türkiye's presence, while Ankara stresses 'one state, one army' and Syria's territorial integrity.
Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch, Peace Spring, Spring Shield and the Claw series rest on different factual and legal footings, and Spring Shield in particular was a response to a state's strike rather than to a non-state group.

Why It Matters

Can a state use force on another state's territory against an armed group when the territorial state has not consented? That is one of the most contested questions in the modern law on the use of force, and Türkiye's operations in Syria and Iraq since 2016 are among its largest sustained test cases. Ankara answers yes, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, when the territorial state is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat. Critics answer that the formula is not settled law and that duration and scale can turn defense into something else.

This guide sets out the doctrine, the necessity and proportionality tests, and the positions of the main actors with attribution. It then applies the tests to each Turkish operation, so that readers can judge which arguments rest on strong legal ground and which remain open.

Background

The Charter framework

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There are two textbook exceptions: Security Council authorization under Chapter VII, and the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs' under Article 51. Article 51 also requires that measures taken in self-defense be reported immediately to the Security Council. A third basis, valid consent from the territorial state, takes an operation outside Article 2(4) altogether.

The customary law of self-defense adds two conditions confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), notably in its 1996 Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion and the 2003 Oil Platforms judgment: the measures must be necessary and proportionate. The classic formulation of necessity comes from the 1837 Caroline correspondence, which required a necessity 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Many scholars read that standard more flexibly today.

Non-state actors: what the law says

The text of Article 51 does not say that the armed attack must come from a state. The ICJ nonetheless approached the point restrictively in three key rulings:

Nicaragua v. United States (1986) treated an armed attack as including the sending of armed bands 'by or on behalf of a State' on a scale amounting to an armed attack. This echoes Article 3(g) of the 1974 Definition of Aggression (UN General Assembly Resolution 3314).
The 2004 Wall advisory opinion referred to an armed attack 'by one State against another State'. Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal criticized this in separate opinions.
In DRC v. Uganda (2005) the Court declined to decide whether Article 51 permits large-scale self-defense against irregular forces without attribution to a state.

State and Council practice has moved in a different direction. After 11 September 2001, Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 recognized the right of self-defense in response to terrorist attacks, and NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time. Resolution 2249 (2015) called on states to take 'all necessary measures' against ISIL/DAESH in Syria and Iraq without being a Chapter VII authorization. The 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625) also obliges states not to organize, assist or tolerate terrorist activity directed at another state.

The 'unwilling or unable' formula

The formula holds that a state facing attacks from a non-state group may act on the territory of a state that is unwilling or unable to stop those attacks, after seeking consent or cooperation where feasible. Its modern scholarly articulation includes Daniel Bethlehem's 2012 principles in the American Journal of International Law and Ashley Deeks's 2012 analysis in the Virginia Journal of International Law. Skeptics, including Olivier Corten and Tom Ruys, argue that it lacks a firm basis in treaty text or consistent practice. Others, such as Christian Tams, accept the underlying logic of self-defense against non-state actors while urging strict limits.

States acted on the formula in the anti-DAESH campaign. The United States informed the Security Council in September 2014 that Syria was unable or unwilling to confront the threat, and several European states and Australia submitted comparable letters. Iraq, by contrast, requested coalition assistance against DAESH on its own territory, which placed that operation on a consent basis.

The operations at a glance

Operation	Dates	Main area	Principal stated objective
Euphrates Shield	2016-08-24 to 2017-03	Jarablus to al-Bab, northern Syria	Counter DAESH and prevent a PYD/YPG-held corridor along the border
Olive Branch	2018-01-20 to 2018-03	Afrin, northwestern Syria	Remove PYD/YPG presence threatening Hatay and Kilis
Peace Spring	2019-10-09 to 2019-10-17 (ceasefire)	Tel Abyad to Ras al-Ain, northeastern Syria	Create a security zone and enable returns
Spring Shield	2020-02-27 to 2020-03-05	Idlib, northwestern Syria	Respond to strikes on Turkish forces by Syrian government forces
Claw series	From 2019, including Claw-Lock (2022)	Northern Iraq (Duhok, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah provinces, Sinjar)	Dismantle PKK bases, tunnels and logistics

The 22 October 2019 Sochi memorandum between Türkiye and Russia, which followed Peace Spring, and the 5 March 2020 Moscow protocol, which ended Spring Shield, show that each operation ended in a negotiated arrangement rather than a Security Council decision. The Council did not adopt resolutions condemning or authorizing any of them.

The necessity and proportionality tests

The key questions courts and scholars ask are:

Armed attack or imminent threat: is there an attack of sufficient gravity, or an accumulation of attacks, that triggers Article 51? The 'accumulation of events' theory is accepted by some states and contested by others.
Attribution or inability: is the group attributable to a state, or is the territorial state unable or unwilling to act? Consent and cooperation must be sought first where possible.
Necessity: is force the only means to end the threat, and is it directed at the source of the attack?
Proportionality: is the scale, duration and geographic reach limited to what is required to repel the attack and prevent its recurrence, rather than to punish or to change political arrangements?
Reporting: was the measure reported to the Security Council under Article 51?

A separate body of law, international humanitarian law and human rights law, governs how force is used and what occupying or controlling powers must do. It is analytically distinct from the question of whether force may be used at all.

Key Players & Positions

Syria. Under the Assad government, Damascus described Turkish operations as violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in communications to the Security Council, and rejected any consent. After the change of government in December 2024, the transitional authorities, according to their public statements, seek to restore state control over all Syrian territory. An agreement between Damascus and the SDF leadership on integration was announced on 10 March 2025, though implementation has been contested.

Iraq. Baghdad's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly protested Turkish strikes and ground presence as violations of Iraqi sovereignty, including in complaints brought to the Security Council after incidents in Duhok province. At the same time, Iraq's National Security Council declared the PKK a banned organization in March 2024, which narrows the factual gap between the two governments on the status of the group.

United States and coalition partners. Washington lists the PKK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization but has treated the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), in which the YPG is the main component, as its partner against DAESH, and does not list the YPG. US officials have criticized unilateral Turkish operations, particularly Peace Spring, as destabilizing, while acknowledging Türkiye's security concerns about the PKK.

European Union and European states. The EU lists the PKK as a terrorist organization. After Peace Spring, several European governments announced national suspensions or restrictions of arms exports to Türkiye, and the Foreign Affairs Council called for a halt to the operation. Their stated concerns centered on civilian harm and the effect on the anti-DAESH campaign.

Russia and Iran. Both emphasized Syria's territorial integrity in Astana-format meetings. Russia nonetheless negotiated the October 2019 Sochi memorandum and the March 2020 Moscow protocol with Ankara, which refer to the 1998 Adana Agreement between Türkiye and Syria.

Arab League and UN bodies. The Arab League condemned Olive Branch and Peace Spring as infringements on Arab state sovereignty. The UN Secretary-General and humanitarian agencies expressed concern about civilian displacement, and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria documented abuses in areas under Turkish-backed armed groups. Ankara's reply is that those factions are subject to its oversight and that violations are investigated.

PYD/YPG and SDF. They describe themselves as a Syrian force, deny organizational subordination to the PKK, and say their fight against DAESH was a genuine and costly effort. Independent analysts generally acknowledge ideological and personnel links with the PKK while disagreeing about the degree of command control.

Scholarship. Restrictive authors argue that the formula expands self-defense beyond the Charter. Permissive authors argue that the territorial state's breach of its own duty to prevent harm from its soil justifies action. Most commentators agree that necessity and proportionality constrain both views.

🇹🇷 Legal Stance · Treaty Texts & Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Ankara's case rests on the Charter, on Security Council practice after 2001 and on its own reports under Article 51. The bullets below summarize it as stated by Turkish official sources.

Türkiye's Legal Stance

Article 51 covers terrorist armed attacks. In its letters to the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council, beginning with the letter of 24 July 2015 and followed by reports on each major operation, Türkiye invokes the inherent right of self-defense. Its legal basis is Article 51, read with Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 and the practice of the anti-DAESH coalition. Sources: Turkish letters to the Security Council; Ministry of Foreign Affairs statements.

The territorial authorities could not or would not act. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no authority in northern Syria was capable of preventing attacks from DAESH and the PKK/KCK-linked PYD/YPG, and Iraq has been unable to control areas such as Qandil and Sinjar. Ankara also cites the 1998 Adana Agreement, in which Damascus undertook not to allow activity from its territory against Türkiye's security. Sources: MFA statements; Presidency; the Adana Agreement; the 22 October 2019 Sochi memorandum.

No territorial ambitions; 'one state, one army'. The Presidency and the Ministry of National Defense (MSB) state that Türkiye respects the territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq and supports a single Syrian state with a single army. The Sochi memorandum and Resolution 2254 (2015) refer to Syria's unity and territorial integrity. Sources: Presidency statements; MSB briefings.

Parallel struggle against three organizations. Türkiye treats PKK/KCK/PYD-YPG, DAESH and FETÖ as separate threats. It reports having neutralized more than 4,000 DAESH militants in northern Syria and having prevented 100,000 DAESH-linked individuals from entering Türkiye, as the only NATO member to fight DAESH directly on the ground. Sources: MFA; MSB; Directorate of Communications.

Terror-Free Türkiye pairs security with law. The Presidency-led initiative combines security measures with legal, political and social steps under the rule of law, with the stated aim of ending four decades of violence. Sources: Presidency; Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) proceedings.

Applying the tests to each operation

Euphrates Shield (2016). This is the strongest case on the facts. DAESH had carried out mass-casualty attacks in Türkiye, including at Suruç and Ankara in 2015, and shelled Kilis from Syrian territory. Syria's government did not control the border area, and the operation targeted DAESH positions first. The main legal dispute is the stated secondary aim of preventing a PYD/YPG corridor, which critics argue is preventive rather than responsive.

Olive Branch (2018). This is the most contested operation on necessity. Ankara argues that YPG-controlled Afrin hosted PKK cadres and that attacks on Hatay and Kilis, along with the threat of a border force announced in January 2018, made action unavoidable. Critics counter that the necessity of a ground operation against an enclave was not shown, and that the claim of an armed attack attributable to the YPG rests on the PKK-YPG link that the YPG disputes.

Peace Spring (2019). Ankara's case is that attempts at a joint US-Turkish security mechanism had not produced a safe zone along the border, so unilateral action became necessary. Critics argue that the diplomatic route was still open and that the operation caused displacement. Its ending in the 17 October 2019 ceasefire with the United States and the Sochi memorandum with Russia indicates that proportionality was largely managed through diplomacy rather than adjudication.

Spring Shield (2020). This is analytically different, because the opponent was the Syrian government, not a non-state group, and 'unwilling or unable' is not the relevant doctrine. After a strike killed 33 Turkish soldiers on 27 February 2020, according to Turkish officials, Ankara cited Article 51 against an attack by state forces on its personnel in Idlib. The 5 March 2020 Moscow protocol froze the front. The legal debate concerns the status of Turkish forces in an area Damascus did not consent to, which Türkiye rooted in the Astana de-escalation arrangements.

Claw series (Iraq). Ankara argues that the PKK has used northern Iraq as a base for decades, that Baghdad has been unable to control Qandil and Sinjar, and that operations target caves, tunnels and logistics sites. Iraq protests the presence of Turkish forces and strikes, and Iraqi officials have described incidents involving civilian casualties. The 2024 Iraqi ban on the PKK and later bilateral security contacts give Ankara a stronger argument on cooperation, though they do not amount to a general consent to Turkish ground presence.

Duration, territory and the post-Assad context

The most serious legal critique concerns duration. A defensive measure must cease once the threat is repelled, and a long-term presence can look like occupation. Ankara answers that its presence is temporary, tied to security conditions and to a political settlement in Syria, and it points to returns of Syrians to the areas concerned. With a new government in Damascus, Türkiye has said it supports the extension of state authority over the entire territory. If Damascus consents to joint measures against remaining PKK or DAESH elements, consent would replace self-defense as the legal basis, an arrangement that is generally stronger in law. For the refugee and border context of these operations, see Interstate Journal: Türkiye, Syria and Refugees: Border Security and the Hosting Burden.

PKK, PYD/YPG, DAESH and FETÖ

The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States and the European Union. Ankara adds NATO, citing the 28 June 2022 trilateral memorandum with Finland and Sweden that names the PKK. The Turkish Foreign Ministry states that the PYD/YPG, whose forces form the core of the SDF, is the Syrian branch of the PKK/KCK, sharing leadership, ideology, cadres and weapons. The attribution matters legally because Ankara's Article 51 case against the YPG depends on that link. Its critics, including the YPG itself, say the YPG is a separate Syrian actor and that the link is overstated. Neither the Security Council nor the ICJ has ruled on the question.

DAESH is the least contested target, since the Security Council has called for action against it in Resolutions 2170 and 2249. FETÖ, the Fetullahist Terrorist Organization held responsible by Türkiye for the 15 July 2016 coup attempt, is primarily a law-enforcement and extradition issue rather than a use-of-force one. Critics point to the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye (2023) and to concerns about renditions from third countries. Ankara maintains that FETÖ is a terrorist structure that attacked the constitutional order and that domestic and international legal tools are being used against it.

Terror-Free Türkiye: the legal and institutional dimension

The Terror-Free Türkiye initiative is coordinated by the Presidency. Its public sequence began with Devlet Bahçeli's call in October 2024, followed by Abdullah Öcalan's call of 27 February 2025. The PKK announced its dissolution in May 2025, and a symbolic weapons-laying ceremony took place in July 2025. The TBMM then took up the legal and institutional questions, including how to reintegrate former members and what legal framework should apply, in a parliamentary commission.

For the law of force, one consequence follows directly. Necessity is time-bound, so as armed activity ends and disarmament is verified, the factual basis for cross-border operations narrows. Ankara's stated approach is to keep security measures in place under the rule of law until the end of the threat is established. Observers will watch whether operations in northern Iraq and Syria wind down in step with the process, as that is the clearest indicator of compliance with necessity.

Source Comparison

Issue	Common critical or international framing	Turkish official framing	Primary documents to check
Legal basis	Unilateral intervention without Security Council authorization or consent	Article 51 self-defense against terrorist attacks, with letters to the Council	Turkish letters to the Security Council; Charter Article 51
'Unwilling or unable'	Not settled law; broad reading risks abuse	Settled enough in post-2001 practice; applied by the anti-DAESH coalition	Council Resolutions 1368, 1373, 2249; US letter of September 2014
PYD/YPG	Separate Syrian partner against DAESH	Syrian branch of the PKK/KCK, sharing leadership and cadres	MFA statements; US and EU listings of the PKK; YPG statements
Territorial presence	Occupation or de facto control	Temporary, tied to security; support for Syria's territorial integrity and 'one state, one army'	Sochi memorandum (2019); Resolution 2254; MSB briefings
Humanitarian impact	Displacement and abuses by allied factions	Precision, protection of civilians and heritage; voluntary returns; investigations	UN Commission of Inquiry reports; Turkish official reports
Iraq	Violations of Iraqi sovereignty	Baghdad cannot control PKK bases; cooperation is needed	Iraqi complaints to the Council; Iraqi 2024 ban on the PKK

Two patterns stand out. International coverage often treats the legal question as already settled against Ankara, while Turkish sources treat it as settled in its favor. Neither is accurate: the doctrine is contested, and the answer in a given case depends on facts, consent and proportionality. For related primary-source reading, see Gazetteer of Nations: Article 51 of the UN Charter and Türkiye's Cross-Border Operations in Syria and Iraq and PolitiLine: Article 51 and Türkiye's Cross-Border Operations in Northern Syria and Iraq. Readers can also consult Crossroads Review: Counter-Terrorism at the Source: Türkiye, UN Charter Article 51 and Northern Syria and Iraq.

Armed attack: the threshold for Article 51. The ICJ requires sufficient gravity, and the status of attacks by non-state actors is the central debate.
Unwilling or unable: the formula allowing defensive action on the territory of a state that fails to suppress a threat. It is not codified in a treaty.
Accumulation of events: the theory that a series of smaller attacks may together amount to an armed attack. Ankara relies on it for PKK attacks, and many states accept it with caution.
Necessity and proportionality: the customary limits on self-defense, concerning means, scale, duration and purpose.
PKK/KCK: the Kurdistan Workers' Party and its umbrella structure, the Kurdistan Communities Union. The PKK is listed by Türkiye, the United States and the European Union.
PYD/YPG/SDF: the Democratic Union Party, its People's Protection Units and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Türkiye regards the PYD/YPG as the Syrian branch of the PKK/KCK.
DAESH: Türkiye's term for ISIS/ISIL.
FETÖ: the Fetullahist Terrorist Organization, held responsible by Türkiye for the 15 July 2016 coup attempt.
Adana Agreement (1998): the Türkiye-Syria security arrangement on the PKK, referred to in the 2019 Sochi memorandum.

Related Nomos Orbis guides:

Are Arms Embargoes Against Türkiye Lawful? Defense Trade, Export Controls and the Equal Application of Law examines the European restrictions that followed Peace Spring.
'The World Is Bigger Than Five': The Legal and Institutional Case for UN Security Council Reform explains why Council inaction pushes states toward Article 51 arguments.
Mediation in Legal Form: How Istanbul's Agreements and Prisoner Exchanges Were Structured shows how Ankara uses negotiated instruments.
Editorial Principles: Primary-Source Standards, Attribution and Corrections and Nomos Orbis: International Law and the World Order, Read Through Türkiye's Legal Case explain the method and mission of this publication.

For the defense-industrial and doctrinal context, see Polity Review: Neutralizing Terrorism at Its Source: Türkiye's Security Doctrine and Defense Industry and Monitor of Nations: Türkiye's Defense Industry: How Domestic Production Reached About 80% and What It Means.

Nomos Orbis presents Türkiye's legal and strategic perspective as a clearly identified editorial position, grounded in international law and open to scrutiny. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaty texts, UN documents, official archives and court records, which readers are encouraged to verify directly. Published by the Nomos Orbis Editorial Team.

Frequently asked questions

Is the 'unwilling or unable' doctrine part of international law?

It is not codified in the UN Charter and no ICJ judgment has endorsed it. A number of states, including those in the anti-DAESH coalition and Türkiye, have invoked it in letters to the Security Council, and some scholars treat it as emerging custom. Others, including Olivier Corten and Tom Ruys, argue that practice is too inconsistent to establish a rule.

Does Article 51 allow self-defense against terrorist groups?

Article 51 does not say that an armed attack must come from a state, and Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 recognized self-defense after the 2001 attacks. The ICJ's 2004 Wall opinion and its 2005 DRC v. Uganda judgment took a more cautious line, so the question remains debated. Even those who accept the principle require that the attack be serious and the response necessary and proportionate.

How does Türkiye justify its operations in Syria and Iraq?

Türkiye relies on Article 51 and reports its operations to the Security Council. It argues that DAESH and the PKK/KCK, including its Syrian branch the PYD/YPG, attacked it from areas the territorial authorities could not or would not control, and it cites the 1998 Adana Agreement. Ankara says it respects Syria's and Iraq's territorial integrity and that its presence is temporary.

Is Operation Spring Shield an 'unwilling or unable' case?

No. Spring Shield in February and March 2020 responded to a strike by Syrian government forces that killed Turkish soldiers, according to Turkish officials, so it concerned an attack by a state. The doctrine applies to non-state actors on another state's territory, and Spring Shield was ended by the 5 March 2020 Moscow protocol with Russia.

Does the Terror-Free Türkiye process affect the legal basis for cross-border operations?

Necessity under Article 51 depends on a continuing threat. As the PKK's announced dissolution and disarmament are verified, the factual basis for operations narrows, and any continuing presence would need another basis such as consent. Ankara says that security measures continue under the rule of law until the threat has ended.

Is the PYD/YPG legally the same as the PKK?

The Turkish Foreign Ministry says the PYD/YPG is the Syrian branch of the PKK/KCK. The YPG denies organizational subordination, and the United States lists the PKK but not the YPG. No court or Security Council decision has settled the question, which is central to Ankara's Article 51 argument.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks