Libya Revives Türkiye Sea Deal, Reigniting The Fight Over Eastern Mediterranean Waters

Libya’s House of Representatives on Tuesday unanimously approved a 2019 maritime boundary agreement with Türkiye, overturning its earlier decisions rejecting the deal and severing political relations with Ankara. The move drew immediate objections from the European Union, Greece and Egypt, which say the agreement infringes on other states’ maritime rights and conflicts with international law.

Türkiye welcomed the vote as a step towards strengthening bilateral cooperation, while Libya’s Government of National Unity described it as a positive development for relations between the two countries. The agreement, however, was not newly signed: it entered into force in December 2019 and was registered with the United Nations that month. The latest vote reverses the Libyan parliament’s earlier position but does not resolve the competing maritime claims.

The dispute centres on how maritime boundaries should be drawn in the eastern Mediterranean, where claims over offshore resources overlap with disagreements about the rights generated by islands. The EU, Greece and Egypt reject the agreement’s implications for their maritime zones, while Türkiye and Libya maintain that their bilateral arrangement is equitable and legally justified.

What Does The Agreement Actually Do?

Signed on November 27, 2019, by Türkiye and Libya’s then Government of National Accord, the memorandum seeks to delimit their maritime jurisdiction in the Mediterranean, including their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves.

An EEZ gives a coastal state rights to explore, exploit and manage resources in waters extending up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines, where geographical circumstances and overlapping claims permit. Continental shelf rights concern resources on and beneath the seabed. Where maritime claims overlap, boundaries generally have to be negotiated or otherwise resolved under applicable international law.

The Türkiye-Libya memorandum sets out geographical coordinates to define the maritime areas claimed by the two countries. It also provides for resolving disputes through diplomatic channels and allows for agreements on the joint exploitation of certain natural resources.

The agreement’s significance lies in the maritime line it establishes between the two signatories. That line intersects with wider disputes over the maritime entitlements of Greece and other eastern Mediterranean states. Those countries argue that a bilateral arrangement cannot override their own rights.

The UN Treaty Collection records the memorandum as having entered into force on December 8, 2019, by notification, and as having been registered on December 11. Registration records the treaty; it does not constitute UN approval of its legality or settle objections raised by third states.

Why Does Greece Oppose The Deal?

Greece’s principal objection is that the memorandum disregards the maritime entitlements of Greek islands, including Crete and other islands in the eastern Mediterranean.

Under Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), islands generally generate territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, although rocks unable to sustain human habitation or economic life do not generate their own EEZ or continental shelf. The extent to which an island affects the final position of a maritime boundary depends on the circumstances of the delimitation.

Greece argues that the Türkiye-Libya agreement fails to account for its islands and that Türkiye and Libya do not have opposite or adjacent coasts that provide a lawful basis for the attempted delimitation. In its Tuesday statement, the Greek foreign ministry rejected the Libyan parliament’s approval and described the memorandum as contrary to international law and an infringement of regional states’ sovereign rights. It said Greece would take appropriate action to protect those rights.

The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether islands have maritime zones. It concerns how those zones should affect the boundary when maritime claims overlap. Greece maintains that the memorandum effectively draws a line that ignores the rights generated by its islands; Türkiye and Libya defend their delimitation as an equitable arrangement.

Greece has also concluded separate maritime delimitation agreements with Egypt and Italy. Its agreement with Egypt, signed in August 2020, defines part of their EEZ boundary and reflects a different approach to the overlapping claims in the region.

Why Is The EU Opposed?

The EU’s objections extend beyond Greece’s specific arguments about its islands. Brussels says the 2019 memorandum infringes on the sovereign rights of third states, does not comply with the law of the sea and cannot produce legal consequences for countries that are not parties to it.

In a statement on Wednesday, the EU said it strongly regretted the Libyan parliament’s approval and reaffirmed its solidarity with Greece and Cyprus. It also called on countries to respect the sovereign rights of EU member states in accordance with international and European law.

This position builds on the EU’s response when Türkiye and Libya signed the memorandum in 2019. The European Council expressed concern at the time, arguing that the agreement infringed on the rights of third states and could not affect their maritime entitlements. The EU reiterated its position in June 2025.

The latest statement therefore represents a continuation of an existing diplomatic objection, rather than a new legal determination prompted solely by the October vote.

The distinction matters because the EU is not claiming that the Libyan parliament’s decision automatically changes Greece’s or Cyprus’s maritime rights. Its argument is that the bilateral agreement cannot create legal consequences for other states or override their claims.

Why Is Egypt Opposed As Well?

Egypt’s objection concerns its own claimed maritime jurisdiction. Cairo argues that the memorandum infringes on its sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and conflicts with the principles of international law governing maritime delimitation.

In a statement on Wednesday, Egypt rejected the Libyan parliament’s approval, describing the memorandum as legally void and saying the vote could not create legal consequences for Egypt. It also recalled that it had formally objected to the agreement in 2019.

Egypt’s position is related to Greece’s but is not identical. Greece has emphasised the maritime entitlements of its islands, while Egypt has focused on the overlap it claims between the Türkiye-Libya arrangement and its own maritime zones.

The Egypt-Greece EEZ agreement of August 2020 is central to this regional context. Cairo and Athens have established a bilateral boundary that reflects their own approach to maritime delimitation. The Türkiye-Libya memorandum rests on a competing configuration of maritime claims, creating a dispute over how the different boundaries relate to one another.

Egypt’s objections predate the latest parliamentary vote. Its renewed rejection shows that Libya’s change of position has not persuaded neighbouring states to accept the agreement’s implications for their maritime rights.

How Do Türkiye And Libya Defend The Deal?

Türkiye argues that the memorandum safeguards the mutual rights and interests of both countries, is based on international law and equity, and strengthens bilateral cooperation.

In its statement, the Turkish foreign ministry welcomed the Libyan parliament’s decision and said the agreement had been in force since 2019. Ankara said it would continue working with partners to promote trust, stability and peace in the Mediterranean.

The Government of National Unity in Tripoli also welcomed the parliamentary approval, saying it would strengthen relations with Türkiye and support regional cooperation. The Libyan House of Representatives said the agreement was based on specific geographical coordinates and included provisions for resolving disputes and potentially exploiting natural resources jointly.

Libya’s explanatory note to the United Nations has defended the arrangement as an equitable delimitation and disputed the claims made by Greece and Egypt over the areas covered by the memorandum.

The legal context is important. Neither Türkiye nor Libya is a party to UNCLOS: Libya signed the Convention in 1984 but did not ratify it, while Türkiye has not joined it. Both governments nevertheless invoke international law and equity in defending the deal. Greece and Egypt, meanwhile, cite UNCLOS and the law of the sea in challenging its validity.

The disagreement cannot be resolved merely by noting the parties’ treaty status. The parties differ over the applicable legal principles and how they should be applied to overlapping maritime claims. Their public statements present competing legal positions, not a judicial ruling that has settled the dispute.

Does Offshore Energy Add Another Layer?

Yes. The maritime boundary dispute has practical implications for offshore exploration and the development of potential energy resources.

In June 2025, Libya’s National Oil Corporation signed a separate memorandum with Türkiye’s Petroleum Corporation for geological and geophysical studies of four offshore areas. The agreement included discussions on a two-dimensional seismic survey covering 10,000 kilometres, with data processing expected within nine months.

This 2025 arrangement is separate from the 2019 maritime delimitation memorandum. The earlier agreement concerns the maritime areas claimed by the two countries; the later one concerns surveys intended to improve knowledge of offshore geology and potential resources.

Egypt objected to the 2025 exploration arrangement in a note to the United Nations, arguing that one of the areas overlapped with its claimed maritime boundary. That objection illustrates how disagreements over jurisdiction can extend into practical questions about surveying, licensing and possible resource development.

The prospect of energy exploration adds economic stakes to a dispute already shaped by geography and competing legal claims. But an agreement to conduct surveys does not establish that commercially viable deposits have been found, or that the parties have resolved who holds the rights to develop resources in disputed areas.

What Does The Latest Vote Change?

Libya’s decision reverses the House of Representatives’ 2020 rejection of the memorandum and its call to sever political relations with Türkiye. The Government of National Unity welcomed the vote, and Ankara said it would deepen bilateral cooperation.

The decision strengthens the agreement’s political backing within Libya, but the wider dispute remains unresolved. Greece, Egypt and the EU continue to reject the memorandum’s implications for their maritime rights. None has accepted that the Libyan parliament’s approval settles the competing claims.

The agreement’s future significance will depend on how the parties pursue their maritime claims, whether offshore activity moves ahead and how the diplomatic dispute develops. Any final settlement would need to address the competing claims and the rights of affected states, rather than relying only on the agreement between Türkiye and Libya.

The central issue remains how maritime boundaries should be drawn in a region where coastlines, islands and potential energy resources overlap. Libya’s vote has renewed the dispute, but it has not settled the legal and diplomatic questions that have divided the eastern Mediterranean since 2019.