The dispute over maritime border demarcation in the eastern Mediterranean escalated after Tunisia and Italy filed formal objections with the United Nations regarding lines unilaterally declared by Libya to demarcate its exclusive economic zone.
Libya opened fronts with both Italy and Tunisia after its verbal statement before the United Nations in 2025, in which it unilaterally defined its exclusive economic zone based on the Turkish-Libyan memorandum of understanding and other arbitrary interpretations of the provisions of the Law of the Sea, a statement which Greece had already rejected.
The Libyan verbal statement issued on May 27, 2025, which was accompanied by a map, provoked a strong reaction from Greece from the outset, as it reflected an attempt to impose the Turkish-Libyan memorandum of understanding south of Crete, which led to the seizure of a large part of the Greek continental shelf.
The raising of unilateral maritime boundary issues in Libya by two other neighboring countries, Italy and Tunisia, reinforces Greece’s efforts to advance the dialogue process and bring the maritime boundary dispute before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The Greek newspaper Protothema reported in its Sunday edition that the Tunisian and Italian moves strengthen Greece’s position in its dispute with Libya over maritime borders, especially since Athens had previously rejected Libyan moves based on the maritime memorandum of understanding signed between Libya and Turkey in 2019.
The newspaper says: In response to these moves by Libya, which came as a result of the signing of the Turkish-Libyan memorandum, Athens imposed a fait accompli on the ground by demarcating and licensing two pieces of land south of Crete for Chevron, in a way that overlaps with a large part of the area presented as the Libyan exclusive economic zone based on the Turkish-Libyan memorandum.
While the other two pieces lie to the west and southwest of Crete, they follow the median line, as permanently defined by Greece in the absence of an agreement with Libya, based on the provisions of the Law of the Sea and with a precise accounting of the Greek islands and islets in the area.
However, Libya's acceptance of the Greek approach to the median line in all the pieces it identified and presented to foreign companies for research has set a positive precedent for the country, according to the newspaper.
The same source adds, "However, given the lack of any hope of reaching an agreement, drafting a joint memorandum of understanding to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague is a priority for Greece, as the legitimacy of the Turkish-Libyan memorandum itself will be subject to the court's assessment."
She reported that skepticism about Libyan moves is now coming not only from Greece and Egypt but also from Italy and Tunisia, which greatly strengthens the Greek position.
Violation of rights and interests under the Law of the Sea
In a letter to the United Nations dated May 26, 2026, Italy reported the verbal communication it had with Tripoli, requesting that it be recorded in the relevant United Nations publications on the Law of the Sea.
It also denied Libya’s claims, which were contained in its letter to the United Nations dated May 27, 2025.
Rome stated in its verbal communication that "the outer limits of the continental shelf claimed by Libya in the aforementioned verbal communication violate Italy's rights and interests under the Law of the Sea, specifically east of longitude 15°10' East and west of longitude 13°50' East, as shown in the map attached to the aforementioned verbal communication."
The Italian oral statement indicates that these lines of longitude do indeed constitute the “defined boundaries” established by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in its judgment of 3 June 1985 in the case of “Libyan Arab Jamahiriya / Maltese Continental Shelf” (paragraphs 22 and 79) to define the geographical area belonging exclusively to the disputing parties and which extends east and west of the aforementioned lines of longitude.
In other words, the Libyans accepted the old borders of their exclusive economic zone with Italy, but they were also keen to expand its scope northward to include areas of Italian interest.
Tunisian rejection
For its part, Tunisia, in its verbal communication to the United Nations dated April 19, 2026, rejected the “demarcation” adopted by Libya in 2025, considering, among other things, that it violates the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the case of the “Tunisian/Libyan continental shelf” (1982).
Tunisia asserts that Libya's demarcation of borders with respect to the adjacent coasts (i.e., the lateral borders) is illegal and excessive.
Tunisia stressed that the demarcation line does not conform to the methodology established by the International Court of Justice for the demarcation of the continental shelf between Tunisia and Libya in its ruling of February 24, 1982, nor to the implementation agreement concluded between the two countries on August 8, 1988.
Tunisia also points out that the delimitation of the continental shelf does not include the delimitation of territorial waters, and that the court was not authorized to draw the delimitation line of territorial waters between Tunisia and Libya, in addition to the fact that there is no agreement between Tunisia and Libya yet regarding the delimitation of territorial waters.
However, even with regard to the point raised by Libya as the outer limit of the continental shelf delimitation line, Tunisia explains that the International Court of Justice in The Hague did not precisely determine the end of the delimitation line extending to the northeast, noting that this would depend on the delimitation agreed upon with other countries.
Tunisia also rejects Libya’s unilateral delimitation of the outer boundaries of its exclusive economic zone, as well as the boundaries of the contiguous zone, as stated in Libya’s letter to the United Nations dated May 26, 2025.
They called on Tunisia and Libya to engage in a serious and good-faith dialogue to address these issues.
Infringement on national sovereignty and rights in the continental shelf
For its part, the Greek City Times published a report on the recent diplomatic moves, explaining that both Tunisia and Italy sent official letters to the UN Secretary-General to express their categorical rejection of the unilateral maritime claims announced by Libya.
According to the source, these countries consider the Libyan move to expand the exclusive economic zone to be an infringement on national sovereignty and acquired rights in the continental shelf, stressing that these claims lack any legal basis consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The article explained that Italy and Tunisia insist on the need to resolve any maritime disputes through multilateral dialogue and direct negotiations, rather than unilateral decisions.
The newspaper also reported that Italy sees these Libyan steps, based on the 2019 memorandum of understanding with Turkey, as an attempt to destabilize vital maritime routes, while Tunisia, according to the article, affirms its strict commitment to the 1982 rulings of the International Court of Justice as the sole legal reference for demarcating its borders with Libya.
In conclusion, Grace City Times noted that the two countries aim, through these international communications, to protect their strategic and energy interests in the Mediterranean basin.
The same source stressed that Tunisia and Rome reject turning maritime areas into arenas of conflict, and are pushing for recourse to international laws to guarantee the rights of future generations and freedom of navigation, considering that any agreement that ignores the geographical rights of coastal states will remain legally unrecognized in international forums.
It is worth noting that on November 27, 2019, Türkiye and Libya signed two memoranda of understanding relating to security and military cooperation and the determination of maritime jurisdiction areas, with the aim of protecting the rights of the two countries arising from international law.
