Egypt has restated its opposition to the 2019 maritime memorandum between Turkey and Libya, placing the disagreement at the centre of talks between the two countries’ foreign ministers in Istanbul. The latest exchange concerns a long-running dispute over sea jurisdiction in the eastern Mediterranean, revived after Libya’s eastern House of Representatives ratified the agreement.
Egypt sets out its position in Istanbul
On 24 October, Egypt said Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty had told his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, that Cairo regarded the memorandum as having no legal effect. Egypt also said the Libyan parliament’s ratification would not change its position or create legal consequences for Egypt.
The memorandum was signed in 2019 between Turkey and the Tripoli-based government then led by Fayez al-Sarraj. It concerns the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean. Egypt’s position is that the arrangement conflicts with its rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. That is Egypt’s stated legal view; the talks did not produce a jointly agreed assessment of the memorandum.
Abdelatty and Fidan met in Istanbul during a visit that also included ministerial discussions involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. France, Germany and the United Kingdom also took part in a separate joint ministerial meeting with that group. The maritime issue nonetheless remained a significant bilateral point during the visit.
Egypt said it had pressed for respect for the principles governing maritime zones and continental shelves. It has also repeated its objection to actions based on the 2019 memorandum where they conflict with Egypt’s declared maritime boundaries. Fidan, in the Egyptian account of the meeting, acknowledged Cairo’s concerns about developments in Libya and the need for continued consultation and coordination.
Why the dispute has returned
The House of Representatives in eastern Libya approved the memorandum this month. The eastern authorities had previously withheld their approval for years, even though the 2019 agreement had remained a major point of disagreement in the region. The vote has brought fresh attention to competing claims over Mediterranean sea boundaries and the possibility of future offshore energy exploration.
Egypt had already objected to the ratification before the Istanbul meeting. Its latest statement therefore reinforces an existing position rather than announcing a new maritime settlement or a change in Egypt’s declared boundaries. Cairo’s emphasis has been that ratification by the Libyan legislature does not alter the effect of the agreement from Egypt’s perspective.
Turkey takes a different view. Turkish officials have described the agreement as legitimate and have said the Libyan parliamentary step formalised an arrangement Ankara already considered to be in force. That difference is central to the present disagreement: Egypt says the memorandum is invalid as it applies to Egyptian interests, while Turkey maintains that it is legally sound.
The issue has implications beyond the two governments because the memorandum concerns a part of the Mediterranean where several states have overlapping views on maritime entitlement. Greece and Cyprus, alongside Egypt, have opposed the arrangement. The disagreement has therefore continued to draw regional attention after the Libyan parliamentary vote.
Consultation continues
For now, the Istanbul exchange shows that Egypt and Turkey are continuing to discuss the issue directly despite their disagreement. Egypt’s account indicated that both sides saw value in further consultation, particularly in relation to Libya and regional stability. It did not set out a timetable for further talks or identify any step that would resolve the dispute.
The immediate development is therefore a restatement of Egypt’s position after the Libyan parliamentary vote, delivered directly to Turkey’s foreign minister. The underlying 2019 memorandum remains contested. Egypt’s objections and Turkey’s defence of the agreement should be understood as the positions of the respective governments, not as a settled legal ruling on the status of the deal.
