Turkey-Libya maritime boundaries deal 'remains null and void,' Greek foreign minister says

Libya’s House of Representatives recently ratified the 2019 Turkish-Libyan memorandum on delimiting maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean. Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and the European Union responded with a joint statement. They said the decision raised serious concerns for regional security and stability.

Greece’s foreign minister, Giorgos Gerapetritis, called the memorandum “null and void” and without legal effect. The statement said it cannot lawfully delimit maritime zones or create legal consequences for countries that did not sign it. It also said Libya’s later parliamentary decision did not change that legal position.

The partners’ objection reflects a wider legal principle. Maritime boundaries must follow UNCLOS, customary international law, and the rights of all relevant coastal states, including islands. They warned that accepting agreements that ignore those rules could undermine predictable boundaries, peaceful dispute settlement, and the wider international legal order.

A maritime-boundaries agreement is a pact that identifies the line separating countries’ maritime zones. Those zones can involve control near the coast and rights to resources farther offshore. Such agreements matter because a boundary can affect navigation, security, fishing, energy activity, and legal authority at sea.

The article identifies the 2019 Turkey-Libya memorandum as an agreement on the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean. It does not describe the memorandum’s exact coordinates or the full range of zones it covers. Its central function, therefore, is to claim a particular maritime division between Turkey and Libya.

The dispute arises because a bilateral line may affect other coastal states. Greece and its partners said the memorandum ignores geographical realities and the rights of all coastal states involved, including islands. They argue that UNCLOS and customary international law, rather than the memorandum alone, provide the governing framework.

The countries most clearly identified as potentially affected are Greece, Egypt, and Cyprus. Turkey and Libya are the memorandum’s parties, while Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and the European Union joined the statement rejecting its legal effect. The statement also refers more broadly to all coastal states involved.

Nearby islands are important because maritime boundaries are not drawn only by looking at mainland coastlines. The joint statement said the memorandum ignores the rights of islands in accordance with UNCLOS. If islands are relevant to the legal geography, a line agreed by two mainland states could cut across the maritime areas claimed by another country.

That is why the dispute extends beyond Turkey and Libya. Greece and its partners argue that a bilateral agreement cannot prejudice other states’ rights. They say the geographical reality of the Mediterranean and the legal status of islands must be considered when maritime zones are delimited.

UNCLOS generally allows a coastal state to claim a territorial sea extending up to 12 nautical miles from its baselines. In that zone, the coastal state has broad sovereignty, subject to rules such as passage rights. UNCLOS also allows an exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, extending up to 200 nautical miles.

The EEZ is different from full sovereignty. It gives the coastal state specific rights over resources and certain economic activities, while other countries retain important freedoms, including navigation. These distances are maximum limits, not automatic lines that apply unchanged everywhere. Baselines, geography, and nearby coasts can affect the result.

Where coasts are close, the possible zones overlap before either state reaches the maximum distance. Countries must then delimit their maritime boundary through applicable law and agreement. The article identifies UNCLOS and customary international law as the framework, but it does not give numerical zone limits or describe a specific boundary method.

When two countries’ maritime zones overlap, both may claim authority or resource rights in the same area. That can create disputes over fishing, energy resources, navigation, and legal jurisdiction. The overlap does not automatically prove that either country’s preferred boundary is valid.

Countries normally try to negotiate a delimitation agreement using the applicable rules of UNCLOS and customary international law. The line should reflect the relevant geography and the rights of affected coastal states. If negotiations fail, states may use peaceful legal or diplomatic dispute-settlement procedures, depending on the rules and consent involved.

The article presents the Turkey-Libya memorandum as an example of the controversy. Greece and its partners say it cannot lawfully delimit zones because it ignores geographical reality and third states’ rights. They warn that accepting such an approach could weaken predictable rules and peaceful settlement of disputes.

Libya’s political setting matters because the article refers to the reunification of its institutions and to the country’s ongoing political transition. It does not explain the structure of Libya’s divisions or specify how authority is shared. It does show that Libya’s institutional future remains a regional concern.

The House of Representatives’ ratification demonstrates that a Libyan institution took a position on the memorandum. However, Greece and its partners said that parliamentary action did not alter the memorandum’s claimed legal status. Their argument focuses on international law and the rights of other states, not only on Libya’s internal procedure.

The signatories reaffirmed support for reunifying Libya’s institutions and for a united, prosperous Libya. They said a stable Libya should participate actively in regional cooperation. They also stressed that Libya’s political transition and relations with neighbours must follow international law and good-neighbourly relations.

A bilateral agreement is made by two countries, so it normally creates rights and duties between those parties. It cannot, simply by being signed, impose obligations on another country that did not consent. This protects state sovereignty and prevents two governments from redrawing a third country’s maritime rights.

In this dispute, Greece and its partners said the Turkey-Libya memorandum cannot produce legal consequences for third states. They also argued that it cannot serve as a lawful basis for delimiting maritime zones because it ignores the rights of other coastal states and islands. The key mechanism is that third-country rights remain legally relevant.

The article identifies UNCLOS and customary international law as the governing framework. These rules support predictability, legal certainty, and peaceful relations. The statement warned that accepting arbitrary bilateral agreements could undermine the international legal order and weaken the principles used to settle maritime disputes peacefully.