A dispute over maritime jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean has entered a new phase after the European Union joined Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in formally rejecting an agreement between Turkey and Libya.

The six parties issued a joint declaration at the United Nations on 26 October, following the decision by Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives to approve a maritime delimitation memorandum originally signed with Ankara in 2019.

The declaration, delivered by Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis, argued that the agreement disregards the maritime rights of other coastal states and cannot establish boundaries affecting countries that are not parties to it.

Turkey has rejected the criticism, maintaining that its agreement with Libya complies with international law and protects the legitimate interests of both countries.

The competing positions concern more than the interpretation of a maritime boundary. They affect offshore energy exploration, relations between Turkey and its neighbours, and the political balance within Libya itself.

Why Libya’s decision changes the dispute

The original memorandum was signed in November 2019 between Turkey and Libya’s then internationally recognised Government of National Accord, based in Tripoli.

It established a claimed maritime boundary extending across part of the Eastern Mediterranean, where Greece maintains that the maritime entitlements of its islands, including Crete, must be taken into account.

The agreement was opposed by Greece, Cyprus and Egypt, while Libya’s rival eastern authorities initially rejected it.

That division appeared to weaken the political foundations of the arrangement, even though Ankara continued to defend its validity.

However, on 20 October 2026, Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives reversed its previous opposition and approved the memorandum.

The decision reflects changes in relations between Turkey and eastern Libya, where military commander Khalifa Haftar has exercised considerable influence.

Turkey has expanded contacts with authorities in Benghazi despite having previously been associated primarily with the rival administration in Tripoli.

Approval by the eastern parliament consequently gives the agreement broader political acceptance within Libya than it enjoyed in 2019, although it does not resolve the country’s institutional divisions or the objections raised by neighbouring states.

A dispute over geography and maritime rights

The central disagreement concerns the legal principles used to determine maritime boundaries.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states possess rights within exclusive economic zones, while the delimitation of overlapping claims is intended to produce an equitable solution.

Greece argues that Turkey and Libya cannot establish the maritime boundary claimed in their memorandum without disregarding the legal entitlements of Greek islands situated between their coastlines.

The Greek Foreign Ministry’s response maintains that geography and the law of the sea cannot be changed through parliamentary approval of a bilateral agreement.

Turkey takes a different position on the weight that islands should carry when continental shelves and maritime jurisdictions are delimited, and is not itself a party to UNCLOS.

The dispute therefore involves competing interpretations of international maritime law as well as disagreements over the boundaries shown on maps.

The European Union has aligned itself with Greece and Cyprus.

In a statement issued on 21 October, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described the memorandum as incompatible with the law of the sea and incapable of producing legal consequences for third states.

The latest declaration extends that position into a broader diplomatic coalition involving governments from the Gulf and North Africa.

Ankara rejects the criticism

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responded on 26 October by arguing that objections from the EU and other parties had no legitimate basis.

According to his remarks on the agreement, Turkey was not seeking an advantage at the expense of other Mediterranean countries.

Ankara’s position is that its maritime arrangements with Libya reflect the interests of two sovereign states and should not be invalidated by objections from outside parties.

This creates a diplomatic complication for the EU.

Turkey remains a NATO member and an important partner on migration, regional security and Black Sea affairs, while Greece and Cyprus are EU member states whose maritime claims Brussels supports.

The Union must therefore manage a disagreement involving a strategically important partner without retreating from its established legal position.

Energy resources and Libya’s political future

The Eastern Mediterranean contains established and potential offshore gas resources, giving maritime boundaries commercial significance.

Delimitation determines which governments may authorise exploration and exploitation in particular areas, while overlapping claims can discourage investment or provoke disputes over survey vessels and drilling operations.

Greece has already concluded maritime delimitation agreements with Italy and Egypt, including a partial agreement with Cairo in 2020 that overlaps with areas claimed under the Turkish-Libyan arrangement.

The competing agreements illustrate why the issue cannot be settled exclusively through bilateral negotiations that exclude other interested coastal states.

Libya’s internal political structure introduces another uncertainty. The country remains divided between competing institutions, and the European declaration explicitly connects maritime stability with the reunification of Libyan state authorities.

As EU Today previously examined in its coverage of Eastern Mediterranean tensions, disputes over maritime jurisdiction intersect with regional military positioning and the broader relationship between Turkey and European governments.

For the moment, the confrontation remains diplomatic.

The principal question is whether the parties can prevent overlapping legal claims from developing into renewed confrontations over exploration rights while maintaining channels for negotiations with Libya and Turkey.

O que vem sendo mais preocupante para o governo albanês é o fato de que os manifestantes não podem ser descartados como membros de algum segmento social particular.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A Albânia voltou a aparecer nas notícias nos últimos dias, com manifestações que acabaram culminando com a destruição do Ministério da Educação, mas o processo que levou a este caos se iniciou há alguns meses por causa das negociações em torno à construção de um gigantesco resort de luxo no país, num megaprojeto capitaneado pela Affinity Partners, de Jared Kushner, o agente sionista que é genro de Donald Trump e que, ocasionalmente, atua como seu diplomata ad hoc. Junto a Kushner, neste projeto, havia também capital de três petromonarquias árabes e investidores locais.

O primeiro ponto de dissenso, a fagulha, por assim dizer, deste incêndio, foi o fato de que o projeto seria construído numa área de proteção ambiental, na zona úmida pantanosa da Albânia, que é considerada um paraíso natural onde se nidificam flamingos, pelicanos e outros animais, alguns deles estando ameaçados de extinção. Ainda assim, Kushner conseguiu autorização do governo de Edi Rama para ir em frente com o projeto, bem como a classificação de investidor estratégico, o que lhe permite passar por cima dos regulamentos locais.

O projeto em si deve alcançar a soma de 4.7 bilhões de dólares e seria implementado na ilha de Sazan (outrora uma base militar), na ilha de Vjosa-Narta e na ilha de Zvernec, que também possuem características defensivas. Kushner teria tido a “ideia” e “descoberto” Sazan enquanto viajava no iate de seu amigo Nathan Rothschild, contexto no qual também conheceu o primeiro-ministro albanês.

Os outros parceiros de Kushner na Affinity Parnters são Luis Videgaray, ex-Ministro de Finanças do México, e Elad Gil, um investidor israelense, e o projeto envolve a construção de hotéis, marinas e vilas privadas, num esforço que parece apontar para uma “dubaização” da Albânia.

Desde junho, portanto, quando esses negócios escusos foram revelados, cidadãos albaneses passaram a ir às ruas protestar, com palavras de ordem (“A Albânia não está à venda”) contra Washington e Tel-Aviv e pregando a transformação de Kushner em persona non grata. Os protestos já vinham na sequência de protestos organizados em fevereiro e março por acusações de corrupção contra Edi Rama, bem como pelo fato do primeiro-ministro albanês ter começado uma campanha para que israelenses se mudassem para a Albânia.

O que vem sendo mais preocupante para o governo albanês é o fato de que esses manifestantes não podem ser descartados como membros de algum segmento social particular, sendo em vez disso uma movimentação suprapartidária de todos os setores da sociedade. E as manifestações seguiram, intermitentemente, até agora em outubro, o que aponta para uma insatisfação permanente e difícil de sufocar.

Os protestos mais recentes estão mais focados na juventude e em novos escândalos de corrupção, problemas na educação e tentativas do governo de “forçar” um ingresso na União Europeia, mas a questão do resort de luxo de Jared Kushner permanece em pauta.

É possível analisar o caso do ângulo conspiracionista da “Ilha Epstein”, ainda mais considerando os vínculos da família Rothschild com Epstein e com Kushner, mas talvez um ângulo mais interessante aponte para a geopolítica do Mediterrâneo e o projeto de poder do Estado de Israel.

Israel tem ampliado suas atividades nessa área e expandido a sua presença. Investidores israelenses, por exemplo, têm adquirido em massa propriedades no Chipre e na cidade portuária grega de Kalamata. Quando somamos essas investidas visando propriedades no Chipre, Grécia e agora Albânia percebemos claramente que há um enfoque mediterrâneo oriental nas atividades empresariais paraestatais israelenses. Chama a atenção que se trata, sempre, de ilhas e portos, o que aponta especificamente para a construção de uma estratégia talassocrática por parte do Estado de Israel.

Chama a atenção também, um tema específico da realidade político-social albanesa, que é o fato de que tornou-se prática comum que investidores albaneses, após serem legitimados como investidores estratégicos para garantir a aprovação de projetos de desenvolvimento, revendem as suas participações acionárias por valores ínfimos para outros atores mais obscuros. Em muitos casos, estamos falando aí de esquemas de “laranja” utilizados pela máfia albanesa. Não seria o caso, naturalmente, de Kushner ou das petromonarquias árabes, mas a suspeita levantada atinge os parceiros albaneses desse investimento.

Talvez por isso a repressão violenta dos protestos tenham chamado menos atenção do que em outros lugares. Parece se tratar da autêntica erupção de insatisfação popular num país que há décadas tem sido vitimado por líderes corrupções, máfias perigosíssimas e terroristas brutais.

The European Union and Turkey are preparing high-level talks before the end of October in an attempt to revive negotiations over Cyprus, following an initiative by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides announced the planned meeting on 16 October during the European Council summit in Brussels, saying discussions would address both the resumption of negotiations over the island’s division and the possibility of improving relations between Ankara and the EU.

The initiative follows diplomatic contacts in New York involving Guterres, European institutional leaders and the Cypriot government. However, renewed differences over the conditions for negotiations have already cast doubt on whether the process can produce substantial progress.

On Sunday, 18 October, Christodoulides accused Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhürman of imposing preconditions before formal negotiations could resume, particularly concerning arrangements for a rotating presidency in a reunited Cyprus.

The disagreement underlines the difficulties facing an initiative intended to reconnect the UN peace process with the EU’s broader relationship with Turkey.

Brussels seeks a negotiating role

Christodoulides said the planned meeting between the EU and Turkey would examine how to establish the necessary conditions for negotiations to restart within the previously agreed UN framework.

He indicated that any improvement in EU–Turkey relations would be linked to progress over Cyprus.

The president’s announcement in Brussels follows months of diplomatic consultations involving the Commission, European Council and UN.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to support the renewed peace initiative.

Turkey’s relationship with the EU encompasses trade, customs cooperation, migration and regional security. Ankara remains an EU candidate country, although accession negotiations have been effectively stalled for years.

Cyprus remains one of the principal obstacles to any substantial improvement in that relationship.

The island has been divided since Turkey’s military intervention in 1974. The internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus joined the EU in 2004, but EU law remains suspended in areas where its government does not exercise effective control.

The self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey.

Disagreement over political equality

The UN has traditionally sought a settlement based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities.

Negotiations collapsed at Crans-Montana in Switzerland in 2017 amid unresolved disputes over security guarantees, political representation, territory and the presence of Turkish troops.

Erhürman, who became Turkish Cypriot leader in 2025, has expressed support for renewed negotiations within a federal framework. However, he wants assurances about political equality and the structure of future talks.

The latest dispute concerns whether the principle of a rotating presidency between the two communities should be accepted before negotiations resume.

Christodoulides rejected that demand on 18 October, arguing that substantive questions should be negotiated together rather than settled in advance.

The Turkish Cypriot leadership regards rotating executive power as an essential element of political equality, while the Greek Cypriot side objects to making agreement on that arrangement a prerequisite for restarting discussions.

The disagreement has emerged despite recent efforts by the United Nations to improve relations between the communities.

In a statement issued on 13 October, the UN confirmed that Christodoulides and Erhürman had met in Nicosia and agreed to continue discussions, including participation in bicommunal initiatives.

The two leaders subsequently attended a joint event in Pyla, although their public differences persisted.

Turkey’s position remains decisive

A Cyprus settlement would require agreement not only between the island’s communities but also on Turkey’s military presence and the system of security guarantees established at independence.

Ankara has long maintained that Turkish Cypriots require effective political equality and credible security arrangements.

Greek Cypriot leaders argue that the continuation of foreign intervention rights and Turkish military deployments would be incompatible with a fully sovereign and reunited state.

The EU cannot resolve those differences independently of the UN process, but it can influence the economic and institutional framework within which a settlement might operate.

A comprehensive agreement would affect property ownership, trade, customs arrangements, border administration and the application of European law throughout the island.

The European Commission has sought a greater role in supporting the UN-led peace process, reflecting Brussels’ interest in progress towards a settlement.

Negotiations face immediate test

The UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy, María Ángela Holguín, has warned that the opportunity for renewed negotiations may be narrowing.

Disagreements over diplomatic representation, contacts with foreign missions and the status of Turkish Cypriot institutions have complicated relations between the two communities.

Christodoulides has also referred to a series of proposals intended to advance discussions, including the future of the fenced-off area of Varosha. Their full contents have not been publicly disclosed.

The proposed EU–Turkey meeting offers a separate diplomatic channel through which Brussels can assess Ankara’s willingness to support renewed negotiations.

No final date, detailed agenda or list of participants had been publicly confirmed by 18 October.

The immediate test will be whether the parties can agree on the basis for formal talks without attempting to settle disputed constitutional questions before negotiations begin.