Israel-Lebanon sea border dispute looms over gas fields
 

A maritime border dispute is looming between Israel and Lebanon that could set off a new conflict over lucrative energy reserves.

The neighbouring countries have declared overlapping boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea.

As the two states remain formally in a state of war, the United Nations has been asked to mediate.

Israel recently discovered two gas fields off its coast which experts say could turn it into an energy exporter.

It will send its proposal for a demarcation line to the UN within the next few days after the cabinet approved it on Sunday.

"This boundary will delineate the area in which the state enjoys exclusive economic rights, including the right to exploit the sea's natural resources," the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said.

"Our goal is to determine Israel's position regarding its maritime border, in keeping with the principles of international maritime law."

The Israeli line gives it more territory than the one that Lebanon drew and submitted to the UN several months ago.

Mr Netanyahu said that the line drawn by the Lebanese conflicted both with one that Israel agreed with Cyprus and one that Lebanon agreed with Cyprus in 2007.

The Lebanese energy minister, Gebran Bassil, countered that Beirut had stuck to international law. "Lebanon has drawn its [maritime] borders based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea," AFP quoted him as saying.

He also warned that "no Lebanese will accept either the renunciation of their energy resources or their maritime rights".

Big finds:

Israel has long been dependant on energy imports in a largely hostile region. The problems that can ensue have been highlighted by recent attacks on pipelines bringing gas from Egypt, to the south.

While small commercial quantities of offshore gas had been found in the past, officials believe two recent major discoveries could eventually supply all the country's energy needs and enable it to export.

The Tamar field, 90km off (55 miles) the coast of northern Israel, was the world's largest gas find in 2009. Production is expected to begin within three years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14104695


Note: 11 July 2011 Last updated at 12:03 GMT

To determine Israels position regarding its maritime border in keeping with the principles of international maritime law means in this case they first have to have a land border to work off....damn those non existant borders eh:yep:

Actually maritime borders have existed, in fact Lebanon agreed to it with Cyprus in 2007. But now that gas fields have been discovered just outside that agreed upon border. They seem to want to claim it was a mistake and didn't really mean to agree to the southern border and are trying to work around it because their parliment didn't ratify it. :nope:

Now that the real nature and size of these gas fields are known they cry foul.


Another good example why governments sign treaties but do not ratify them.


.

Wild guess but I'd wager it will be an Iranian company who builds and operates any Lebanese offshore drilling rigs.

No need to inspect those crates, its just our drilling equipment...
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2457/web406511.jpg

If they existed then that would be valid, but they don't so they are not.
What you have are agreements between two different parties and a third party but no agreement between the two parties themselves and no joint agreement with the third party....which unfortunately puts the needed agreement between Israel and Lebanon and between Israel Cyprus and Lebanon firmly into the non existant stage.

Look at it another way, where does Israel, Lebanon and Cyprus recognise as the maritime border of the Republic of Northern Cyprus?
Same issue again especially in relation to oil exploration and pipelines but for fun it also adds two other countries into the mix as well as an occupied territory.

That's an interesting drill bit :hmmm:

I could see your point if Israel and Cyprus were the ones that drew up the borders. Lebanon would actually have a legitimate arguement if that were the case. From what I know of the treaty it was Lebanon's own government which agreed to and published these maritime borders. I think too even UNCLOS, of which both Cyprus and Lebanon are signatories, had knowledge and approved it.

IMO the border is only now being argued a 'mistake' in an attempt to keep Israel from exploiting needed resources.

The arguement is that it takes all parties to have a legitimate agreement.
You miss one key word there which makes all the difference, it comes between "these" and "maritime"

Look at the bigger picture. It is just politics, what has been in the news recently which brings in another country with its own border dispute and its own potential oil filed plus a country who is expecting a new oil terminal and refinery from any eventual pipeline out of those two countries?

The parties involved to the EEZ were signatories to UNCLOS all parties that established these borders DID agree to it. Even though Israel isn't a signatory to UNCLOS it would seem to me they also agreed by not disputing it.

It is Lebanon admitting they had made a mistake establishing and agreeing to this border of which they had all opportunity to change PRIOR to signing the treaty. Unfortunately for Lebenon even after all their whinning even UNCLOS told them to pack sand along time ago.

If I'm mistaken this is old news all the hub bub over the border happened 5 years ago. Why its news now is beyond me. I say we sack the SUBSIM news editor Vendor for publishing it.

.

As far as i can tell agreeing on sea borders is very fluid(lol)business.
I think that every country that want to have sea border dispute with its neighbour can do so easily.
Technically Israel and Lebanon are in state of war and Lebanon is simply playing a game.
Lebanon has nothing to lose here.
Border had been agreed to by both parties before the discovery of gas period.
No occupied territories are issue here because its been quite long time since Israel withdrew from south Lebanon.

Not at all, the maritime borders are fixed for cyprus (apart from what is claimed but not recognised in relation to northern cyprus and disputes over British soveriegn bases)so no proposal of any sort between either them or Israel or Lebanon is going to have any bearing on that, they are fixed between coast lines and coast lines only move by nature or by a lot of work. The only issue regarding them is that they have to accept a position where the two other parties agreed maritime border in intersects their own border. Those two parties maritime border must be based on where their agreed land border meets the sea and must be an agreed extension of that.
Since there is no agreed land border then there can be no agreed maritime border as there is nowhere to start it from.

See, UNCLOS cannot work for fixing maritime borders like this when there is nothing at the baseline for it to work off of.

But that never happened, it was never established and there was no agreement.

The hubub over the border has been going on for well over 60 years.

Like I said, look at the bigger picture and all the players involved and then look at news events this month.

That simply is not true...as usual:doh:
If a country does not recognise the existance of a state it cannot actually recognise its border with that "state".
It is as true with Cyprus/N. Cyprus as it is with Lebanon/Israel.
It is why you still have armistice lines instead of recognised borders in the north:yep:

My god/oy ve/geez so what you try to prove here lol
Its also natural and historical border.
Technically it was agreed upon period.
I'm sure though that Lebanon with current Hezbollah leadership would not mind to extend it further south lol.
But yes on some level you might be right therefore i think that Israel should claim it further north.

I don't really try to prove anything, however you prove again and again that you are a liar.

:har::har::har::har::har:what utter bollox.

Why do you lie?