by Fuchs

...any more violations of foreign nation's sovereignty by specific countries...

...such a low-ranking reason like pursuit of some irregular fighters...
1. For discussion purposes, what "specific countries" (besides Turkey and Israel) ?

2. Are there "middle-ranking" or "high ranking" reasons that (IYO) allow either self-defense (Article 52) or hot pursuit reactions ?

BTW: the general Turkish position on PKK seems to be this:

COUNTERING TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE TURKISH EXPERIENCE
Sadi CAYCI
.....
(pp 141-142)
Rules of Engagement

The legal basis for using armed force is different in law enforcement and combat operations. Because the Turkish Government did not recognize the existence of a state of armed conflict in countering PKK terrorism, security forces had to operate within a limited authority. As a rule, use of force was limited to self-defence, execution of a legitimate mission and enforcing the law. Military necessity, use of minimal force, and proportionality were the other relevant criteria.
.....
For cross-border military operations, troops must be educated on the nuance between a self-defence operation and hot pursuit, and in the context of hot pursuit, operations in international spaces or a foreign territory. Any operation in foreign territory requires a special agreement, arrangement, or permission by the State in which it occurs. In all other cases, where the territorial State is either unable / unwilling or itself the enemy, the legal basis for using armed force will be self-defence.
from TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (2002)

http://www.michaelschmitt.org/images/4996terr.pdf

As I understand it, they claim an executive agreement with Saddam as justifying hot pursuit. Generally, a successor government takes on its predecessor's international agreements. They also claim self-defense (Article 51) because of PKK intrusions, etc. Since the PKK are "irregular fighters", the Turks' actions would seem to be based on "such a low-ranking reason" - nicht wahr ?

PS: In general, I do believe that cross-border intrusions are often "not worth it"; and, in many cases, are illegal or of questionable legality. Also, legal experts do have biases - for and against.