Libya has recently made a significant move in its maritime territorial claims by submitting a formal note to the United Nations on May 27, 2025, outlining the external limits of its continental shelf in the Mediterranean.
The move, which is strongly guided by Turkey, aims to establish de facto boundaries that align with the controversial Turkey-Libya Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed in 2019. This new assertion directly challenges Greece and Egypt’s maritime rights, exacerbating ongoing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In its diplomatic note, Libya also dismisses several maritime agreements signed by Greece and Egypt, including their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) agreements, and the Greek maritime spatial planning initiatives. Libya contends that these actions violate its sovereign rights in the Mediterranean, particularly concerning areas that it claims as part of its continental shelf.
Libya’s position is aligned with Turkey’s stance that islands, including those of Greece, do not automatically have full rights to maritime zones. This interpretation, which disputes the full maritime jurisdiction of islands such as Crete, is critical for the ongoing dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Key points in the Libyan diplomatic note:
- Invalidation of Greece-Egypt Maritime Deal: Libya strongly rejects the Greece-Egypt EEZ agreement, which it considers invalid under international law, particularly as it relates to the Mediterranean continental shelf. Libya claims that these maritime zones infringe on its sovereign rights.
- Rejection of Greek Maritime Spatial Plan (MSP): The Libyan note specifically denounces Greece’s MSP, which it argues contradicts Libya’s recognized jurisdiction over parts of the Mediterranean Sea. The MSP, announced by Greece in April 2025, includes areas Libya claims as its own.
- Turkey-Libya MoU Support: The note reiterates that any future negotiations should take into account the Turkey-Libya MoU of 2019, a controversial agreement that bypasses Greek and Egyptian claims in the Mediterranean.
- Call for Suspension of Hydrocarbon Activities: Libya urges Greece and Egypt to halt all hydrocarbon exploration activities in the disputed maritime zones until the issue is resolved through international negotiations, including possible referral to the International Court of Justice.
Libya’s unilateral actions mark an escalation in the diplomatic and legal contest over the Eastern Mediterranean’s rich energy resources. The submission of the official coordinates, along with maps outlining the contested areas, has added a new layer of complexity to the already fraught relations between the countries in the region. Greece, in particular, faces a new diplomatic challenge, as the Turkish-backed Libyan claims aim to shrink Greek maritime zones and potentially limit its economic prospects in the region.
Potential implications for Greece and Egypt:
This move could severely impact Greece’s and Egypt’s energy exploration plans in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially regarding hydrocarbon reserves in areas such as the waters southeast of Crete. Greece will likely continue to resist Libya’s claims, but the growing alignment between Libya and Turkey, particularly in the context of the MoU, poses a complex diplomatic challenge.
Furthermore, Libya’s outright rejection of Greek maritime planning further complicates the path to a peaceful resolution. With the endorsement of Turkey, Libya’s stance threatens to alter the regional balance of power, forcing Greece and Egypt to re-evaluate their maritime strategy and possibly seek more extensive international mediation.
As tensions rise, the call for dialogue remains a potential, albeit complicated, avenue. Libya has expressed a willingness to engage in negotiations under the auspices of the UN Charter, but with the insistence that the Turkey-Libya MoU be considered as a baseline.
This geopolitical development adds urgency to the diplomatic efforts in the region, signaling that the Mediterranean’s future will be shaped not only by energy interests but also by the broader regional alliances and disputes at play.
