Bünyamin Tekin
A Turkish opposition lawmaker has called for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stand trial before the country’s Supreme Criminal Tribunal over an arbitration award arising from Turkey’s loading of Iraqi crude at Ceyhan on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s instructions rather than those of Baghdad.
Deniz Yavuzyılmaz, a deputy chair of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), cited documents from an international arbitration case in which Turkey was found liable for loading Iraqi crude at Ceyhan on instructions from the Kurdistan Regional Government rather than Iraq’s federal Oil Ministry. Yavuzyılmaz described the compensation award as final and subject to interest and argued that Erdoğan should be tried before Turkey’s Constitutional Court, which acts as the Supreme Criminal Tribunal for senior officials.
Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan'ın Yüce Divan'da yargılanmasına neden olacak belgeleri paylaşıyorum!
Uluslararası Tahkim Mahkemesi'nin gizlenen dosyasına ulaştık⬇️
2014-2023 yılları arasında;
AK Parti, Irak Merkezi Hükümeti’nin onayı olmadan, Türkiye-Irak ham petrol boru hattından… pic.twitter.com/rVkLwvSPYA
— Deniz Yavuzyılmaz (@yavuzyilmazd) July 24, 2025
The award became publicly available after Iraq sought its recognition and enforcement in a US federal court. It concerns Turkey’s loading of crude from Iraq’s Kurdistan region at Ceyhan between May 21, 2014 and Sept. 30, 2018 on the regional government’s instructions rather than those of Iraq’s Oil Ministry. A separate arbitration concerns the period beginning Oct. 1, 2018.
The tribunal awarded Iraq nearly $2 billion and Turkey approximately $526.6 million on counterclaims, leaving a net principal award of $1.47 billion in Iraq’s favor. The parties later offered conflicting interest calculations in the US enforcement case. Iraq sought a judgment of approximately $601.9 million, while Turkey argued that the interest provisions instead left Iraq owing it approximately $956.9 million. The US court has not accepted either calculation as the judgment amount.
Turkey’s Presidential Communications Directorate argued in July 2025 that the compensation had not been finalized because Ankara was seeking partial annulment in France. International arbitration lawyer Hakan Kaplankaya disputed that characterization, explaining that the award was binding and capable of enforcement while the annulment application was pending.
The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Turkey’s application on March 10, 2026, leaving the award in place and ordering Turkey to pay Iraq €200,000 in legal costs. The US enforcement proceeding remains pending.
The tribunal found that Turkey violated the pipeline agreements by loading Iraqi crude at Ceyhan on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s instructions and by denying Iraqi officials access to facilities at the port for a period in 2014. It rejected Iraq’s claims that the transportation and storage of Kurdish crude and the Kurdistan Regional Government’s use of the pipeline were themselves treaty violations. Iraq asked a US federal court to recognize and enforce the award in April 2023.
Former Turkish diplomat Mustafa Enes Esen, now a researcher at the Brussels-based InstituDE think tank, said Turkey’s decision to purchase and resell Kurdish oil without Baghdad’s approval was shaped by the geopolitical conditions of the time. He described Ankara’s approach as “break it to fix it” — acting unilaterally first and then seeking retroactive settlement through diplomacy.
Esen said Turkish entities acquired Kurdish crude under the arrangement and that some of the oil was sold to Israel. The tribunal found that the Kurdistan Regional Government sold the crude below the price Iraq’s state marketer would have obtained, but it did not identify Turkey as the seller of the oil.
Following the ICC ruling in 2023, Turkey abruptly halted oil flows through the pipeline.
Esen noted that Turkey later sought to pressure Iraq into withdrawing a second arbitration case by cutting off oil flow that Baghdad relied on and proposing negotiations. He said the issue is further complicated by Iraq’s OPEC production quotas and the power struggle between Baghdad and Erbil over oil control and revenue sharing.
He added that while Turkey has officially terminated the agreement, talks for a new deal are underway.
The award is binding and may be recognized under the New York Convention, although the amount of any US judgment remains disputed because the parties disagree over the interest calculation. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Turkey’s request to partially annul the award on March 10, 2026.
Editor’s note: This article was revised on July 13, 2026 to clarify that the arbitration tribunal found Turkey liable for loading Iraqi crude at Ceyhan on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s instructions rather than Baghdad’s, not for transporting or storing the crude. It was also revised to clarify that the $1.47 billion figure is the net principal before interest adjustments and that the parties submitted competing interest calculations in the US enforcement case. An earlier version incorrectly described approximately $601.9 million as Turkey’s established financial obligation and described the Paris proceeding as the only remaining legal barrier to payment. The article was updated to include the March 10, 2026 rejection of Turkey’s annulment application.