As hostilities intensify between the US-Israeli coalition and Iran, a leading Syrian human rights organization is urging Damascus to take swift legal and diplomatic action to defend its sovereignty and protect its civilian population. The appeal comes as Syrian territory and airspace are repeatedly transformed into an involuntary arena for the ongoing confrontation, resulting in civilian casualties and deepening economic strain.
Fadel Abdul Ghany, founder and director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, argues in a new analysis that Syria—despite being a non-belligerent state—is bearing the direct costs of a conflict waged above its skies. Since the latest escalation began on February 28, 2026, Syrian civilians have been killed or injured by falling debris from intercepted missiles, while the country’s airspace has been violated by both warring parties.
At the heart of the analysis is the international law of neutrality, codified in the 1907 Hague Convention V. The convention establishes a reciprocal obligation: neutral states must refrain from participating in hostilities, and in return, belligerents must respect their territorial integrity. Abdul Ghany argues that this foundational principle is now being systematically eroded.
According to the report, Israel has effectively converted Syrian airspace into an interception zone, engaging Iranian missiles and drones without Syrian consent. Iran, for its part, has launched projectiles through Syrian airspace toward Israeli targets. In both cases, debris from intercepted or malfunctioning weapons has landed in populated areas inside Syria.
“Both operations are legally impermissible and effectively impose a battlefield on Syrian territory,” the analysis states. It notes that while the tactics differ, both parties are violating Article 1 of the Hague Convention and Article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which affirms a state’s complete and exclusive sovereignty over its national airspace.
The report classifies the situation as an international armed conflict, triggering the full application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It highlights three core principles being breached: distinction, proportionality, and the obligation to take precautions in attack. Intercepting missiles over populated Syrian areas—rather than over open seas or the territory of the belligerents themselves—shifts the risk of harm onto neutral civilians. This may constitute a failure to take all feasible precautions to minimize incidental civilian casualties, as required under Article 57 of Additional Protocol I and customary IHL.
Beyond the immediate physical danger, the analysis raises the issue of state responsibility. Iran may be liable for damage caused by debris from its launches, while Israel’s interceptions over Syria are compounded by its prior destruction of Syrian air defense systems, which limits Syria’s ability to protect its own airspace.
Abdul Ghany stresses the critical importance of a formal diplomatic response. Under customary international law, a state’s silence in the face of repeated sovereignty violations can be construed as tacit acceptance. Official condemnations and diplomatic protests—properly documented and submitted to bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and potentially the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—are essential to preserving Syria’s legal claims and preventing any inference of consent.
The economic consequences of the airspace violations are equally severe. The repeated closure of Syrian airspace amounts to a form of economic suffocation: international airlines have suspended flights, insurance premiums have skyrocketed, time-sensitive exports are losing access to global markets, and supply chains for medicine and medical equipment are being disrupted.
The report concludes that a sustained, multi-layered legal and diplomatic strategy—combining systematic documentation, formal protests, and appeals to institutions such as the ICJ and ICAO—offers the most viable path toward accountability.
“The international community’s response will set a precedent not only for Syria, but for the protection of neutral states in an era of globalized armed conflict,” the analysis warns. “It will determine whether sovereignty remains a universal principle or becomes an expendable formality.”
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
