Would US have right of hot pursuit in Syria?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry told senators last week that a "right of hot pursuit" could provide a basis for military forces to move across the border between Iraq and Syria to strike at Islamic State militants.

But does Kerry's legal theory — which has little grounding in international law — provide firm precedent for Monday night's massive U.S. airstrikes in Syria and for future military actions?

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly in recent days that U.S. troops will advise Iraqi forces but will not be used for combat directly against the Islamic State group. During a hearing last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry said the same, but then unexpectedly explained the hot pursuit doctrine, which had not previously been cited by anyone in the Obama administration to legally justify any part of a new war.

"So, Iraq is asking us to help them," Kerry said. "And as a matter of right, if they're being attacked from outside their country, you have a right of hot pursuit. You have a right to be able to attack those people who are attacking you as a matter of self-defense."

International law experts said there is a recognized right of hot pursuit to pursue ships escaping in international waters, but there is no clear global legal authority that would allow one nation to violate another nation's border to apprehend an opposing force on land. Even without that precedent, numerous nations have repeatedly taken action across borders — including raids by U.S. troops in recent years pursuing militants from Afghanistan into Pakistan.