This is the third delimitable sea agreement signed by Egypt, which had already signed an agreement with its Mediterranean neighbour Cyprus in 2013, and another in 2016 with Saudi Arabia to demarcate their maritime borders in the Red Sea. First, the border clarifies the maritime areas that correspond to the maritime jurisdiction of Greece and Egypt, as well as the applicable delimitation principles, which are in accordance with the convention and customary international law. Shortly after the conclusion of the Greece-Egypt agreement, the Turkish Foreign Minister said that the agreement “supports the Turkish thesis that the islands do not have a continental shelf”. This view hardly convinces anyone, even vaguely, anyone who knows, even vaguely, Article 121 of UNCLOS, which has customary law status (Nicaragua/Colombia 2012, point 139), and who is familiar with Turkey`s delimitation practices. Turkey cannot and will not deny that the islands produce the full range of maritime zones. The “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and Turkey (the only country it recognises) concluded a “continental delimitation agreement” in 2011 (see Ioannides analysis). The text and corresponding map of the Greece-Egypt agreement indicate that the Greek islands were taken into account in the delimitation of the maritime border. The border on the Greek side was based exclusively on the coasts of the islands. This can be seen in the points from which the border was drawn along Crete and partly from Rhodes. After the long-standing situation of Greece: because the islands create their own maritime zones, because they are closely engineered and form groups that constitute a geographical entity, it follows that the islands can be used as base points for the maritime border, because it is an average line between the Greek islands and the opposite continental coasts. Greece only expects that certain low water heights and other uninhabitable island features can be ignored in the delimitation process. However, in the Greece-Egypt agreement, the border is not a strict middle line, which is Greece`s basic position, but an adequate median. The resulting maritime area, which is allocated to each state, is about 9:11 in egypt`s favour.
Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science at Cairo University, said the signing of the agreements preserves Egypt`s rights in the region. “Egypt was not able to launch oil and gas exploration offers before these agreements were signed, as this could lead to border disputes and huge financial losses for companies,” the expert said. “The signing of agreements to demarcate maritime borders brings many economic benefits to Egypt as part of improving its oil and gas resources,” Medhat Youssef, an oil expert, told Xinhua. Below, the U.S. Maritime Border Treaties and related international agreements are listed at the U.S. Department of State. Other contract documents can be made in our archives: 2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/c28187.htm. Greece`s main opposition party, Syriza, has criticized the ruling New Democracy party for advancing its agreement with Egypt under pressure and argued in a statement that the pact was a dangerous precedent for the country`s national interests in delimiting maritime areas.