Does Turkey have a duty to turn off the taps on oil supplies to Israel?

When the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline was officially opened in 2006, it was celebrated as a vital trade route, linking Asia with Europe.

Stretching 1,768 kilometers, the pipeline carries oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey. In 2023, it transported approximately 30 million tonnes of crude oil, with 227 million barrels of oil being shipped from the Ceyhan port, loaded onto 313 tankers.

However, as Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza persists, the pipeline has become the focus of criticism from pro-Palestinian activists, who argue it is aiding Israel’s military actions in the enclave. They have called on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to take steps to halt its operations.

“Erdogan, shut off the oil pipeline,” read a banner held by members of the group “One Thousand Youth for Palestine” during a protest in front of the ruling AKP headquarters in Istanbul last Friday.

“Stop your complicity in Israel’s genocide,” they demanded.

These protests have raised legal and ethical questions for Turkey, especially about whether it has any obligations to suspend oil shipments to Israel, given that it does not own the pipeline or the oil it transports.

This issue could gain more prominence if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were to rule that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan could be seen as violating their duty to prevent genocide by providing Israel with fuel and other raw materials.

In a recent report, the advocacy group Oil Change International highlighted that 28 percent of the crude oil supplied to Israel between October 2023 and July 2024 originated from Azerbaijan.

“The Azeri crude oil is transported via the BTC pipeline, which is predominantly owned and operated by BP,” the group reported. “The oil is then shipped from Turkey’s Ceyhan port to Israel.”

Turkish officials, speaking anonymously due to government protocol, explained that Turkey’s involvement in the pipeline is minimal.

“We don’t own the pipeline—BP does,” said one Turkish official. “The oil comes from Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, and we don’t own that either.”

This agreement holds Ankara responsible for any delays in oil transportation, regardless of the reasons behind them.

“Additionally, Turkey’s long-standing role as a neutral and reliable energy transit country would be jeopardized,” the official added.

Some Turkish analysts have pointed to other countries’ commitments to uphold contracts, citing Ukraine’s continued transfer of Russian gas to Europe as an example.

Once oil is loaded onto tankers at Ceyhan, Turkish authorities often have no knowledge of where it will end up, with many tankers flying foreign flags for reasons related to tax avoidance or legal matters.

In an earlier interview, Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar explained: “The destinations of ships leaving Ceyhan are not something we control.”

Another Turkish official said the oil is usually sold to intermediary companies by BP, and these companies decide on the tankers’ final destinations, often while at sea.

Tayab Ali, a director at the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians and a deputy managing partner at Bindmans law firm in London, noted that Turkey may still bear some legal responsibility under international law.

“The key question is whether Turkey has any control over the pipeline,” Ali said.

The ICJ and Possible Legal Actions While Turkey’s direct stake in the BTC pipeline is limited, the Turkish Petroleum Corporation holds a six percent minority share.

“The liability for the Turkish company and its board members could be more direct than for the Turkish state,” Ali continued.

However, two attorneys who represent Ankara in international courts disagreed, stating that Turkish Petroleum’s minority share does not grant it any real influence over pipeline operations, as BP and the state oil company of Azerbaijan hold the majority of shares.

Ali questioned whether Turkey would act differently if UN sanctions were imposed against Israel, preventing oil deliveries.

“If it were about facilitating war crimes, why wouldn’t Turkey act similarly?” he asked.

Israel’s relentless bombing campaign in Gaza, now lasting more than 10 months, has targeted civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. Over 40,860 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 16,825 children, following the attacks initiated by Hamas on October 7th.

Turkish lawyer Yusuf Akseker, who supports the pro-Palestinian demonstrators’ calls to halt oil shipments via the BTC pipeline, argued that Turkey could use ICJ rulings as legal grounds to stop oil flows to Israel.

“By shutting down the pipeline in accordance with ICJ rulings, Turkey could avoid facing compensation claims due to BTC-related contracts,” he explained.

Earlier this year, the ICJ ordered Israel to take steps to protect civilians in Gaza, halt incitement to genocide, and ensure the uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid. The court has issued several rulings instructing Israel to cease military actions that could lead to further destruction of Palestinian life and property.

In response to Israel’s continued offensive, Turkey suspended all imports and exports with Israel, ending roughly $7 billion in trade.

Since then, Erdogan has escalated his rhetoric, comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler and condemning Israel as a “terrorist state” posing a threat to humanity.

Still, the ultimate question remains whether Turkey can persuade Azerbaijan—whose relationship with Israel is strong—to cut off oil supplies to Israel. Turkish officials have noted that while Azerbaijan is not pleased with the situation in Gaza, it is also reluctant to break its agreements.