Border conflicts, maritime outlets, and their impact on regional security
While the seas have been and continue to be an important source of national income for countries, whether in terms of their natural resources or their important shipping lanes, as well as the possibility of establishing ports and maritime outlets on their shores, they are also a source of conflict and disputes that have sometimes escalated into wars. One example is the recent crisis between the Republic of Iraq and the State of Kuwait, caused by Iraq’s submission of new maps and coordinates for its maritime border with Kuwait to the United Nations, which Kuwait protested because it included parts of its territorial waters and infringed on its sovereignty. This was supported by many countries in the region, as this crisis was not the first or the last of its kind in terms of border disputes. In fact, the roots of this crisis were one of the reasons behind Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, under the pretext that it was seeking greater access to the Arabian Gulf, among other reasons for the invasion.
Regionally, Ethiopia sought to gain access to the Red Sea through Somaliland, as Ethiopia had become a landlocked country since 1993 after Eritrea gained its independence. Ethiopia then resorted to relying on the port of Djibouti for most of its trade with the outside world. However, Ethiopia’s quest for access to the Red Sea faces regional opposition, including from Egypt, amid disputes between the two countries over the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. The eastern Mediterranean has also been a third arena for maritime border disputes, witnessing the demarcation of the Egyptian-Greek and Turkish-Libyan maritime borders, among other disputes.
Some countries have been able to demarcate their maritime borders, including the demarcation of the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel through US mediation in October 2022, as well as Lebanon’s demarcation of its maritime border with Cyprus in November 2025 in accordance with international law. However, there are still disputes that carry regional threats, including the Dorra offshore field, which lies within the maritime border between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Iran claims that it has a right to this field on the grounds that the part rich in natural gas lies within its exclusive economic zone. This issue has been the subject of major Gulf-Iranian disputes between officials from both sides at some conferences.
These are just a few examples. The reality is that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, despite its delayed ratification, the seas have existed since time immemorial, this detailed convention represented an important international basis for regulating maritime borders between states and accurately describing them in a manner consistent with the geographical nature of the states. The agreement stipulates that waters be divided into five types: internal waters, which fall under the full sovereignty of the state; territorial waters, which extend to approximately 12 nautical miles; the contiguous zone, which extends to 24 nautical miles; and the exclusive economic zone, which extends to 200 nautical miles. States have rights and obligations in these zones, including allowing the passage of foreign ships under certain conditions (the “right of innocent passage”). Then there is the high seas, where navigation is a common right for all states, but which still faces challenges such as the dumping of nuclear waste by some major powers.
However, there are dilemmas facing the implementation of this agreement. First: border disputes between the countries themselves, and then their own interpretation of their borders. An example of this is Iran’s continued occupation of the three Emirati islands located near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. From Iran’s perspective, the waters between these islands and the Iranian coast are territorial waters, and it therefore claims that most of the Strait of Hormuz lies within its territorial waters. Second: Oil discoveries in some areas of conflict, including the eastern Mediterranean, which have led to the emergence of arrangements and partnerships in that region to exploit these marine resources. Third: Some countries are described as maritime, while others are described as landlocked, and their quest for access to the sea remains an obsession, leading to conflicts that may lead to wars. Under this agreement, they cannot obtain maritime borders. Fourth: the controversy surrounding the signing and ratification of this agreement. Some countries have signed the agreement, but their authorities have not ratified it, which means that they are not bound by its provisions.
In my opinion, these disputes and conflicts over borders and maritime access points pose a serious threat to regional security, because conflicts at sea are fundamentally different from those on land and are based on each country’s ability to assert its maritime control. However, these disputes must be settled through technical committees tasked with studying each case individually, based on history and guided by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with a view to preserving the seas as a source of wealth rather than an arena for conflicts and disputes whose beginnings may be known, but whose end remains uncertain, posing a threat to regional security, especially in light of the consequences of these conflicts in terms of redrawing the regional geopolitical landscape.
Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.
Dr. Ashraf Mohammed Keshk, Head of Strategic & International
