Tensions have once again risen over maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have expressed opposition to the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya. These countries say the agreement could affect regional security, international law and their rights in the sea. Turkey, on the other hand, has defended the agreement saying that the objections raised against it have no solid basis.

A major source of this dispute is the rights over the maritime areas of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the oil and gas reserves found there. A country’s rights in the sea affect projects such as natural resource exploration, gas extraction and pipeline laying. In such a situation, the agreement between Turkey and Libya is not only about the maritime border of the two countries, but also concerns the strategic and economic interests of Greece, Cyprus and Arab countries.

1. What agreement has been reached between Turkey and Libya?

Turkey and Libya reached an agreement on maritime boundaries in 2019. At the time, the internationally recognized government, present in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, agreed to this agreement with Turkey. Last week, Libya’s eastern parliament also approved it. With this, the agreement has once again come to the center of regional politics.

The purpose of this agreement is to delimit the maritime areas between Turkey and Libya in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. To the extent that a country has rights in the sea, it can have rights for fishing, natural resource exploration and oil and gas related activities. Turkey’s geographical position gives it an important role in the Eastern Mediterranean. At the same time, Libya is located on the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea in North Africa. As the maritime boundary between the two countries is fixed, Turkey wants to strengthen its maritime rights.

Besides, the deal with Libya could give it a strategic edge in oil and gas exploration activities in the region. However, Greece and Cyprus consider the agreement to be against their maritime claims. They say that their rights and the status of the islands cannot be ignored while demarcating the boundaries in the sea. For this reason, the dispute continues after the agreement reached in 2019.

2. Who is opposing this agreement?

Greece is the most opposed to the agreement. Apart from this, Cyprus, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have also objected to this. These countries have different concerns, but their interests are intertwined in maritime rights, regional stability and international law.

1. Greece: Greece says the agreement between Turkey and Libya affects its maritime rights. Many of Greece’s islands are located in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, including Crete. Greece claims maritime rights around these islands. In such a situation, the maritime border determined the conflicts between Turkey and Libya with its claim. Greece is also concerned that future oil and gas exploration projects based on this agreement may be affected.
2. Cyprus: Cyprus is also an important party regarding maritime rights and energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean. Gas reserves in the region and projects related to its exploration have long been a matter of controversy. Cyprus fears that the Turkey-Libya agreement could exacerbate already existing disputes over maritime boundaries in the region.
3. Egypt: For Egypt, the dispute is a matter of maritime rights as well as interests related to regional security and energy. Egypt wants to become an important center of gas production and energy trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. The demarcation of maritime areas between Turkey and Libya may affect future energy projects in the region and cooperation between the countries.
4. Bahrain and UAE: Both these Arab countries have also criticized the agreement with Greece. The joint statement called it a matter of concern for regional security and stability. An important point of contention of these countries is that maritime boundary disputes should be resolved under international law, so that the rights of the other countries are not affected by the agreement of any two countries.

3. Why is this agreement being opposed?

There are three major reasons behind this controversy. First, rights over maritime boundaries. Second, the oil and gas resources present in the Eastern Mediterranean. Third, there has been a long-standing strategic conflict between Turkey and Greece in the region.

Rights over maritime boundaries

Under international maritime law, coastal states have rights in certain maritime areas adjacent to their coasts. These rights may also include the exploration and use of natural resources present in the sea. But when the maritime claims of two countries collide, determining the maritime boundary becomes difficult.

This dispute has been going on for a long time between Greece and Turkey. Greece says its islands should also have maritime rights under international law. On the other hand, Turkey has challenged some of Greece’s maritime claims. The agreement between Turkey and Libya exacerbates this dispute, as Greece believes that its rights may be affected.

Oil and gas reserves

Natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean and projects related to their exploration are economically important for many countries. Establishing maritime boundaries helps determine which countries can explore and produce resources in which areas.

Following a 2019 deal, Greece awarded a license to a Chevron-led consortium to explore for gas near the island of Crete. Greece is also trying to reach a separate agreement with Libya to delimit maritime areas. In such a scenario, the dispute related to the Turkey-Libya agreement could have an impact on future energy projects and investments.

If two or more countries claim an offshore area, finding oil and gas there can be legally and diplomatically difficult. Companies also worry that their future projects may be affected if they invest in disputed areas.

Strategic confrontation between Turkey and Greece

Turkey and Greece are members of NATO, but the two countries still have many disputes over maritime boundaries, airspace and influence in the eastern Mediterranean. Both countries want to protect their economic and strategic interests in the region.

For Turkey, the agreement with Libya is a way to strengthen its position in the Eastern Mediterranean. At the same time, Greece considers it a challenge to its maritime rights. If this agreement receives strong support in the region, Turkey’s position on maritime boundaries and energy projects could be strengthened in the future.

Internal Politics of Libya

Libya has long experienced political instability. After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the country went through civil war and political conflict. After this, the country remained divided between the Eastern and Western centers of power.

In 2019, the maritime agreement was agreed to by the Tripoli-based government in western Libya, but the eastern administration did not approve it for several years. Now with the approval of the Eastern Parliament, the political situation regarding the agreement has changed. However, Parliament’s approval does not automatically prove that the agreement has become applicable to all countries under international law.

These developments also indicate that the political equations within Libya are changing. Relations with Turkey have also improved in recent years between eastern administration leader Khalifa Haftar and his allies. This has given Turkey an opportunity to strengthen its ties with both Libyan power centers.

4. Will this agreement increase tensions in the region?

Currently, the agreement has refocused the ongoing dispute over maritime rights and energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean. On the one hand, Turkey and Libya want to strengthen their maritime claims, while on the other, Greece, Cyprus and their allies are questioning the agreement.

If the two sides are not able to negotiate a negotiated settlement of disputes over maritime boundaries and energy resources, diplomatic tensions in the region could escalate. It may also affect future gas projects, foreign investment and regional cooperation. Therefore, the real significance of this agreement is not only limited to determining the maritime boundary, but also who will have a stronger economic and strategic influence in the Eastern Mediterranean in the future.