3 Spring 2023 ntroduction On October 11, 2022, Lebanon and Israel reached an agreement to delimit their maritime zones, specifically the territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), and utilize marine resources in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (the agreement).1 The legal instrument that governs this agreement is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).2 While Israel is not a party to the Convention,3 it is considered as customary international law, which obligates all states.4 This is a unique agreement since the parties do not have diplomatic relations. The agreement was reached through a mediation process led by the United States and concluded as dual MOUs between Israel and the United States and between Lebanon and the United States.5 Despite the unique form of the agreement(s), it can still be considered an international treaty governed by international law in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).6 In addition, it is the first maritime delimitation agreement between adjacent states in the Eastern Mediterranean. Other delimitation agreements were between opposite states, for example Greece–Egypt,7 Cyprus-Egypt,8 Cyprus-Israel,9 and Cyprus-Lebanon.10 This article examines the maritime agreement between Israel and Lebanon and its compliance with Israeli law and international law, and specifically the Law of the Sea (LOS), while highlighting some challenges and issues that did not receive much attention during the negotiations and the public discussion concerning the agreement. Compliance with Israeli Law The main challenge with respect to Israeli law is whether there is a requirement to conduct a referendum or obtain approval of a 2/3 majority of the Knesset prior to signing the agreement. If there is such a requirement, then Israel’s signature was without jurisdiction, breaching Israeli law. Israeli law obligates the government to secure approval through a referendum or by a majority of 80 members of the Knesset before signing or ratifying an agreement that states that the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel shall no longer apply to a territory in which Challenges Concerning the Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Israel and Lebanon: Israeli Law and International Law Perspectives I Shani Friedman 1. See press release, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, available at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/ israel-and-lebanon-reach-historic-agreement-11-oct2022#:~:text=PM%20Lapid%3A%20This%20is%20 an,the%20maritime%20dispute%20with%20Lebanon 2. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (UNCLOS). 3. See list of parties, United Nations Treaty Collection (UNTC) website, available at https://treaties.un.org/pages/ ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en 4. See for example, Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment [1985], I.C.J Rep. 13, para. 34; Donald R. Rothwell and Tim Stephens, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA 86-87 (2nd ed., 2016); D. P. O’Connell, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA, Vol. 1, 476 (I. A. Sheare, ed., 1982). 5. Constantinos Yiallourides, Nicholas A. Ioannides and Roy Andrew Partain, “Some Observations on the Agreement between Lebanon and Israel on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone,” EJIL:TALK! BLOG (Oct. 26, 2022), available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/some-observationson-the-agreement-between-lebanon-and-israel-on-thedelimitation-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone/. See also advisory opinion of Israeli Ministry of Justice, materials submitted for the Israeli government decision concerning the agreement (Hebrew), Knesset website (Oct. 2022), p. 23, para. 6, available at http://main.knesset.gov.il/ Activity/Documents/LebanonMBLAgreement.pdf 6. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (VCLT), Art. 2(1)(a); see also Yiallourides et al., supra note 5.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=