Greece today finds itself at a crossroads in foreign policy—one marked by a visible imbalance that threatens its credibility as a principled international actor. On one hand, Athens fervently upholds the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to defend its sovereign rights in maritime disputes with Turkey. On the other, it takes a cautious, arguably inconsistent stance on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, casting doubt on its commitment to international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights.
This imbalance is more than a diplomatic anomaly; it reflects deeper tensions between legal ideals and geopolitical pragmatism—shaped by security concerns, energy interests, and strategic alliances. Addressing this contradiction is crucial for Greece to retain moral authority within the EU and on the global stage.
Greece has historically embraced international legal frameworks. It was among the first to incorporate UNCITRAL Model Law-based arbitration and has consistently pursued legal channels to resolve disputes, as seen in its 1976 appeal to the International Court of Justice following Turkish seismic activity in contested waters. This illustrates a tradition of favoring legal over unilateral solutions. Still, this legalist posture coexists with practical considerations. While Athens invokes international law in maritime disputes, it sometimes prioritizes national security over treaty obligations—particularly in the context of the Aegean islands.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan meet on the sidelines of NATO Summit, in Washington, United States, July 10, 2024. Dimitris Papamitsos/Greek Prime Minister’s Office/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY
Though some treaties contain demilitarization clauses, Greece maintains that its defensive posture is permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for self-defense. Supporters of this view argue that regional tensions and Turkey’s military posture near the islands justify Greece’s
measures.
This dual approach—balancing legal fidelity with strategic necessity—has long defined Greek foreign policy. It reflects the struggle between Greece’s self-image as a law-abiding state and the geopolitical realities of its region. A similar dynamic shapes its Gaza policy, where security and energy ties to Israel affect how international norms are applied. Understanding this context shows Greece’s current inconsistency is not a new departure but part of an ongoing pattern where legal principles sometimes yield to national interest.
Acknowledging this legacy is key to reforming Greek diplomacy into a more coherent and credible force in global affairs. Maritime Law Advocation Greece’s reliance on UNCLOS in the Eastern Mediterranean is well established.
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has repeatedly underscored this position, notably at the recent UN summit on oceans. Greece has signed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) agreements with Italy and Egypt and consistently seeks arbitration in disputes with Turkey. This legal strategy is essential to counter Ankara’s expansive claims and has garnered support from the EU and the U.S. The region is strategically vital, rich in gas reserves and energy routes.
Projects like the EastMed pipeline, connecting Israeli, Cypriot, and Greek resources to Europe, tie Greece’s legal positions to economic security and energy policy. However, Greece’s actions in the Aegean remain a point of contention. Though Athens argues that defensive deployments on certain islands are necessary due to nearby Turkish forces, some legal scholars question whether this stance aligns fully with existing treaty obligations. This illustrates how even its maritime legal advocacy includes complex trade-offs.
Silence on Gaza: A Question of Priorities
This contrast becomes starker with Greece’s muted response to the Gaza crisis. Amid widespread international calls for ceasefire and humanitarian relief, Greece abstained from a recent UN General Assembly resolution advocating both. Unlike EU partners such as France and Spain, Greece has avoided condemning Israel’s operations, despite massive civilian casualties.
Trilateral meeting of Greece’s Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, President of Cyprus, Nikos Anastasiadis, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu on the margin of the signing ceremony for the EastMed Pipeline Agreement in Athens, Greece on January 2, 2020. / Τριμερής συνάντηση του πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη με το πρόεδρο της Κύπρου Νίκο Αναστασιάδη και τον πρωθυπουργό του Ισραήλ, Μπέντζαμίν Νετανιάχου στο περιθώριο της υπογραφής της συμφωνίας για τον αγωγό Ιστ Μεντ, στο Ζάππειο, στις 2 Ιανουαρίου 2020.
This silence is strategic. Athens’ deepening defense and energy relations with Israel—illustrated by EastMed and other joint ventures—create dependencies that appear to inhibit criticism. Maintaining strong ties with Israel serves national interests, particularly in defense and energy. Greek officials emphasize a mediating role in the region.
Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias has expressed Greece’s aim to facilitate dialogue while acknowledging all sides’ security concerns. Yet this diplomatic tightrope risks undermining its credibility as an impartial actor guided by humanitarian axioms.
A Pattern of Selective Engagement
This isn’t a one-off contradiction. When security or economic interests are at stake, Athens often “cherry-picks” its legal commitments. Its Gaza policy and Aegean deployments both reflect a pattern of selective engagement with international law. This puts Greece’s EU identity and democratic values at odds with certain aspects of its foreign policy.
Rally at Syntagma square as part of the Global Day of Action for Palestine, in Athens on June 15, 2025. / Συγκέντρωση στο Σύνταγμα στα πλαίσια της Ημέρας Παγκόσμιας Δράσης για την Παλαιστίνη, στην Αθήνα στις 15 Ιουνίου, 2025
The EU promotes human rights and rule-based conflict resolution. Greece’s divergence, especially on Gaza, exposes tension between collective EU principles and national interests. For example, at the 2022 European Humanitarian Forum, Greece emphasized compliance with IHL. Yet its abstentions and limited humanitarian support for Gaza seem misaligned with this message. Such contradictions weaken Greece’s authority as a consistent advocate for justice and peace.
Economic and Defense Imperatives
Economic and defense goals heavily shape Greece’s diplomacy. Strategic alliances with the U.S., France, and the UAE, along with energy cooperation with Israel and Cyprus, define its current foreign policy framework. The EastMed pipeline and the Greece-Cyprus-Israel electrical interconnector are not just infrastructure projects—they represent a geopolitical alignment designed to ensure European energy security and reduce dependence on Russian
gas.
Trilateral meeting of Greece’s Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, President of Cyprus, Nikos Anastasiadis, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu on the margin of the signing ceremony for the EastMed Pipeline Agreement in Athens, Greece on January 2, 2020. / Τριμερής συνάντηση του πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη με το πρόεδρο της Κύπρου Νίκο Αναστασιάδη και τον πρωθυπουργό του Ισραήλ, Μπέντζαμίν Νετανιάχου στο περιθώριο της υπογραφής της συμφωνίας για τον αγωγό Ιστ Μεντ, στο Ζάππειο, στις 2 Ιανουαρίου 2020.
Greece’s joint military exercises with Israel and increased defense collaboration further illustrate this strategic partnership. Critics argue these interests deter Greece from taking firm stands on rights violations. Compared to countries like Spain, Athens has been subdued on Gaza. Its stated mediator role lacks weight without firm humanitarian advocacy.
The EU Context and Greece’s Mediator Role
Within the EU, Greece’s Gaza stance has drawn criticism. Many member states support a two-state solution and humanitarian relief. By abstaining from ceasefire votes and avoiding strong condemnations of Israel, Greece deviates from this consensus. The EU emphasizes a unified foreign policy grounded in international law and human rights. France, Spain, and Germany have taken strong positions in support of Gaza relief. Greece’s divergence risks marginalizing it within the bloc.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Jerusalem, October 23, 2023. Dimitris Papamitsos/Greek Prime Minister’s Office/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY REFILE – CORRECTING LOCATION FROM “TEL AVIV” TO “JERUSALEM
Foreign Minister Dendias has defended Greece’s approach as an effort to balance relationships with both Israel and Arab nations. However, to credibly claim the role of mediator, Greece must consistently uphold international law. Its limited humanitarian aid to Gaza—though including medical supplies and WHO donations—has not matched the crisis’s scale. Meanwhile, Greece’s silence on illegal settlements, home demolitions, and raids in the occupied West Bank contrasts with its vocal maritime advocacy. Simultaneously, Greek-Israeli military cooperation continues to deepen through defense deals and joint
programs, further complicating its neutrality.
Towards an Epoch of Balanced, Coherent and Principled Foreign Policy
Greece’s foreign policy contradictions jeopardize its ability to serve as a bridge for peace in a turbulent region. A more coherent strategy is needed—one applying international law consistently in both maritime disputes and humanitarian crises. This would involve upholding UNCLOS while also backing ceasefires and humanitarian initiatives in Gaza. Greece should consider reviewing its positions, including in the Aegean, with greater transparency and engagement with treaty dialogue. It must also harmonize more closely with the EU’s collective voice on human rights. Such alignment would boost Greece’s reputation as a principled actor and effective mediator. It would reflect its democratic ethos and reinforce its position within international
institutions.
As a current non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Greece faces a historic opportunity. Its foreign policy can either embody a steadfast commitment to international law or continue to reflect selective pragmatism that undermines its authority. To truly act as a mediator, Greece must resolve its foreign policy contradictions. Advocating a two-state solution in a more amplified tone, supporting Gaza aid, and defending maritime rights under
UNCLOS should not be mutually exclusive. A consistent, law-based approach would expand its influence and open doors to new strategic partnerships, launching a new era of ethical diplomacy.
*Christos Ioannou is a member of ELIAMEP’s EU Youth Hub and graduate in Business Law, European and International Trade Law from Lund University.
This op-ed is part of To BHMA International Edition’s NextGen Corner, a platform for fresh voices on the defining issues of our time.
