Italy and Tunisia contest Libya’s sea claim

Italy and Tunisia have both written formally to the United Nations rejecting Libya's unilateral claim to an exclusive economic zone in the central Mediterranean. An EEZ gives a coastal state rights over fishing, seabed minerals and energy up to 200 nautical miles from its coast, but it is not sovereignty over the sea itself.

Until now, Greece and Cyprus were the two states that had formally challenged the 2019 Turkey-Libya maritime memorandum, the deal that drew lines through waters Athens and Nicosia say overlap with their own claims. Italy and Tunisia now widen the opposition from both sides of the Mediterranean.

What a UN Protest Letter Does — and Doesn't Do

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states facing or bordering each other cannot settle overlapping maritime boundaries simply by lodging a map with the UN. Articles 74 and 83 require boundaries to be agreed with an equitable outcome in mind (UNCLOS full text). The UN records a state's position; it does not validate it. A unilateral filing cannot bind other states whose rights may be affected (UN DOALOS Libya file).

A protest letter matters because it puts non-acceptance on the record. Silence can be politically useful to the other side; an objection removes that ambiguity. It tells energy companies, diplomats and courts that the boundary is disputed. According to Pentapostagma, Libya submitted its note on 27 May 2025, Tunisia objected on 19 April 2026 and Italy followed on 26 May 2026. The exact UN texts have not been independently verified.

The European Council, where EU leaders set the bloc's political direction, said in December 2019 that the Turkey-Libya memorandum "infringes the sovereign rights of third States, does not comply with the Law of the Sea and cannot produce any legal consequences for third States" (European Council conclusions). Italy and Tunisia have now added national objections to that EU position, giving it weight from a different part of the sea.

Different Countries, Different Legal Ground

Italy and Tunisia are not making identical arguments. Italy reportedly relied on maritime limits linked to the 1985 International Court of Justice ruling on Libya and Malta's continental shelf (ICJ Libya/Malta case), arguing that Libya's claim prejudices Italian rights. Tunisia pointed to its own 1982 ICJ case with Libya (ICJ Tunisia/Libya case), presenting its objection as the defence of an existing bilateral legal baseline rather than as support for Greece or Cyprus.

Those distinctions matter politically. Rome is objecting in law while keeping the Libyan relationship alive. Italy needs Libya for migration management on the central Mediterranean route, and for energy partnerships under Giorgia Meloni's Mattei Plan, which casts Italy as a bridge between North Africa and Europe through gas and infrastructure (Renewable Matter). Tunis moved more quietly, with its public diplomacy focused on support for a Libyan-led political solution rather than a maritime confrontation (La Presse de Tunisie). The legal file and the diplomatic language are not saying quite the same thing.

The Enforcement Gap

The objections do not cancel Libya's claim. They make it harder to pretend the boundary is settled, but that is not the same as forcing a change in conduct.

There are three limits to what these letters can do. The UN does not arbitrate maritime boundaries; it stores the paperwork. Courts need jurisdiction. Turkey, which backs Libya's maritime position, is not a party to UNCLOS and frames its own arguments through customary international law. Ankara has recently sent letters to the UN challenging Greek, Cypriot and Egyptian maritime positions (Greek News on Demand). No court has ruled on the current lines, and UNCLOS dispute mechanisms cannot be imposed on Turkey without its consent.

The real test is whether energy companies decide the contested zone is too risky for exploration licences, and whether Libya or Turkey can keep advancing claims through contracts and armed presence off the Libyan coast. Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Malta deepened maritime cooperation at a recent summit in Rome (CDE News). France and Italy also endorsed navigation arrangements compliant with the law of the sea at Antibes on 25 June (Élysée joint statement). These are signs of alignment. They are not enforcement mechanisms.

The legal record against Libya's claim is getting heavier. The machinery to enforce that record remains limited.