As the onslaught on Gaza continues, Ankara is facing calls to cut off oil shipments to Israel through a pipeline it doesn’t own and oil it doesn’t produce
A general view shows pipes at the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, some 70km from Adana, in southern Turkey on 19 February 2014 (Umit Bektas/Reuters)
By Ragip Soylu in Ankara
When the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline was inaugurated in 2006, it was hailed as a crucial commercial bridge that would connect Asia to Europe.
The 1,768km pipeline, which transports oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey, carried around 30 million tonnes of crude oil in 2023, with 227 million barrels of oil lifted at the port of Ceyhan and loaded onto 313 tankers.
But in recent months, as Israel’s war on Gaza has continued to rage, the pipeline has come under fire from pro-Palestine activists who claim it’s fuelling Israel‘s war effort in the enclave, and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan must act to shut it down.
“Erdogan, turn off the oil valves,” said a banner carried by the activist group called “One Thousand Youth for Palestine” outside the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) headquarters in Istanbul last Friday.
“End your participation in Israel’s genocide.”
Amid the protests, Turkey has been forced to face legal questions as to whether it has a duty to disrupt oil shipments to Israel through a pipeline it doesn’t own and oil it doesn’t produce.
Countries shipping fuel to Israel could be complicit in war crimes, experts say
The questions are of particular importance should the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determine Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Countries such as Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan could be viewed as violating the duty to prevent genocide by supplying fuel and raw materials to Israel.
Last week, Oil Change International, an anti-fossil fuel advocacy group, reported that 28 percent of the crude oil supplied to Israel between 21 October 2023 and 12 July 2024 came from Azerbaijan.
“Azeri crude is delivered via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, majority-owned and operated by BP,” the group said. “The crude oil is loaded onto tankers at the Turkish port of Ceyhan for delivery to Israel.”
Turkish officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to government protocol, told Middle East Eye that Ankara’s responsibility was limited.
“We don’t own the pipeline, BP does,” one Turkish official said. “It is Azerbaijani or Kazakhstan oil and we don’t own them either.”
Destinations unclear
The official said that under a 2000 host government agreement, Turkey was unconditionally bound to provide the free flow of oil through the pipeline and could not stop it otherwise it would be forced to pay substantial amounts of monetary compensation.
The agreement makes Ankara liable for any construction or oil transport delays irrespective of the cause.
“On top of that, Turkey’s long-term commitment and credibility as a neutral energy provider would be at stake,” the official added.
Many in Ankara have pointed out that countries have to honour past contracts, citing examples such as Ukraine, which continues to allow Russian gas to pass through its territory to Europe.
Some have also noted that once the barrels are loaded onto tankers at Ceyhan, Turkish authorities are not aware whether they will head directly to Israel or if they will dock at its ports.
‘If there was a UN-level sanction preventing oil being delivered to Israel – could Turkey prevent it being delivered via the pipeline? The answer would be yes’
– Tayab Ali, ICJP
When it comes to shipping, some ships fly the flag of their own country, meaning it is owned, operated, and manned by nationals of that country.
International oil tankers usually register under the flags of different countries, usually small island states, for the purpose of tax avoidance and legal responsibilities.
However, ship owners can also easily and quickly change the flag of their vessel in a bid to reduce costs and avoid laws.
“The destinations of the ships departing from Ceyhan are not under our initiative or control,” Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar told reporters earlier this year.
The Turkish official told MEE: “The oil is sold to intermediary companies by BP and it has nothing to do with Ankara. The intermediary companies pick up oil with their tankers without declaring their final destination.”
The official said that in most cases, the oil would be sold to a buyer while the tanker is in the open sea.
Tayab Ali, a director at the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) and deputy managing partner at the London-based law firm Bindmans, said the Turkish government could not simply dismiss its possible liability under international law.
“The test will be whether Turkey has any control over the pipeline,” he told MEE.
The ICJ and provisional measures
Even though the Turkish government doesn’t have any direct stakes in the pipeline’s management, Turkish Petroleum Corporation, a public company, has a six percent minority share.
“The Turkish six percent company and its directors are likely to carry liability more directly than the state,” Ali added.
However, two attorneys that represent Ankara in the international courts disagree.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to speak to the media, they said that Turkish Petroleum’s six percent stake doesn’t afford them any control in the company, since BP has the majority shareholder along with the Azerbaijani state oil company.
“For instance, if there was a UN level sanction preventing oil being delivered to Israel – could Turkey prevent it being delivered via the pipeline?” Ali said.
“The answer would be yes. Why would they behave differently in the case of facilitating war crimes?”
For more than 10 months, Israel has been relentlessly bombing Gaza, with air strikes and artillery fire targeting civilian infrastructure, including schools, banks, residential towers and hospitals.
More than 40,860 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 16,825 children, following the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October.
Yusuf Akseker, a Turkish lawyer who sympathises with the pro-Palestine protesters calling for the closure of the BTC pipeline, recently argued that Ankara could stop oil shipments from heading to Israel using ICJ provisional measures as a legal justification.
“It is clear that Turkey, if it closes the valves in line with these judgements, will not face a compensation lawsuit due to BTC-related contracts,” he said.
In January, the ICJ ordered Israel to take all necessary measures to protect civilians in Gaza, including using all its power to stop incitement of genocide. In March, the court ordered Israel to take all necessary measures to ensure unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians throughout Gaza.
And in May, the body ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah that could inflict physical destruction of Palestinians in whole or in part in Gaza.
Prior to joining South Africa’s case against Israel, Turkey announced that it was suspending all imports and exports to Israel over its ongoing military action in Gaza, ending around $7bn worth of trade.
Since then, Erdogan has intensified his criticism of Israel, comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler and labelling Israel a “terror state” that threatens “all humanity”.
Still, the final question remains whether Turkey could convince Azerbaijan, which enjoys a very close relationship with Israel, to shut off the oil flow to Israel.
Turkish officials, in background conversations, have acknowledged that the Azerbaijani government also isn’t happy with the violence in Gaza, but have also said that Baku doesn’t want to shy away from commitments it has made.
