Iraq and Kuwait have entered a new and contentious phase in their decades-long maritime border dispute, sparking political backlash in Baghdad after the two countries held renewed talks on demarcation beyond the final boundary point established by the United Nations in 1993.
The meeting, held on 17 July in Kuwait City, marked the tenth session of the Joint Kuwaiti-Iraqi Technical and Legal Committee. Discussions focused on the maritime boundary beyond marker 162—a sensitive point near the strategic Khor Abdullah waterway.
The maritime dispute stems from UN Security Council Resolution 833 (1993), which demarcated Iraq-Kuwait land and partial maritime borders following Iraq's 1990 invasion. That demarcation stopped at marker 162 near the mouth of Khor Abdullah. The boundary beyond that remains undefined.
Kuwait's Foreign Ministry confirmed the session via its official X account, announcing that Deputy Foreign Minister Sheikh Jarrah Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah led the Kuwaiti side. The Iraqi federal government has yet to issue any formal statement on the talks.
Outcry in Iraq
The negotiations triggered swift condemnation from Iraqi lawmakers, judges and former officials, many of whom view any movement beyond marker 162 as a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and maritime rights. The controversy also reignited longstanding concerns over access to infrastructure like the Grand Faw Port and territorial integrity in the oil-rich south.
Wael Abdullatif, a former judge and parliamentarian from Basra, told The New Arab that Iraq had mishandled the demarcation process from the outset.
"This started under former Iraqi PM Ibrahim Al-Jaafari's government in 2005, when the demarcation was rushed and poorly negotiated," he said. Abdullatif accused former Iraqi negotiators of lacking the experience to counter Kuwait's claims and said the process created a long-term legal and territorial tangle.
He said the talks cannot be separated from wider political interference, especially concerning the judiciary. Abdullatif referenced the recent resignation of the top judge at Iraq's Supreme Federal Court, Jassim Mohammed Aboud al-Omairi, who left office in June for "health reasons".
He argued that the chief justice had rejected two legal appeals filed by Iraq's president and prime minister—both aimed at reviving the controversial maritime treaty—and that his departure was politically engineered.
"After he ruled against them, most of the court's judges resigned, and he was eventually pushed out," Abdullatif said. "This was an unprecedented campaign targeting the independence of the judiciary."
He criticised the Iraqi parliament's role in the process, asserting that the legislature had no authority to revisit the treaty following the Supreme Federal Court’s ruling.
"A ruling from the Constitutional Court is binding on all institutions; it should not be up for political debate," he said.
Abdullatif said the Iraqi delegation negotiating with Kuwait was now "overstepping its mandate" by discussing points beyond the established 162nd land marker, that is, the end of the Iraq-Kuwait land boundary. He further noted that under international maritime law, Iraqi waters start from the point and stretch by 24 nautical miles, reaching into the economic zone that is free for international navigation.
He also invoked Iraq's historical maritime claims, citing former prime minister Abdul Karim Qasim's 1958 assertion of territorial control extending 24 nautical miles past al-Faw.
"At that time, Iraq claimed 12 miles of territorial waters and an additional 12-mile contiguous zone. Kuwait didn’t even file its territorial claim until 1976 and was only granted seven nautical miles," he said. "Now they want Iraq to give up waters as well as land—land that includes oilfields like Upper Sajid and Zubair, and naval assets like Umm Qasr."
Abdullatif asserted that Iraq had suffered a "systematic loss" of land and sea rights to Kuwait since the early 1990s, and accused successive governments of allowing it to happen.
"This issue is deeply tied to Iraq's ports and the 1993 Khor Abdullah demarcation. The Grand Faw Port is Iraq's key to global trade, and Kuwait built Mubarak Port in a location that violates international maritime law," he said. "If Iraq had taken the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), it would have won."
Abdullatif concluded: "There are corrupt figures and foreign agents who treat Iraq as something to be sold off. But your homeland is like your mother—you don't bargain over your mother."
Meanwhile, Fayaq Zeydan, the head of Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council yesterday, claimed that the Iraqi Supreme Federal Court's decision on revoking Khor Abdullah maritime treaty lacks legal and constitutional bases, leading to fierce reactions from lawmakers and activists, who threatened that they will head to the streets and protest.
A treaty in limbo
The heart of the controversy lies in a 2012 maritime agreement between Iraq and Kuwait, ratified by Iraq's parliament in 2013 as Law 42. In 2023, Iraq's Supreme Federal Court ruled the law unconstitutional due to the lack of a two-thirds majority during its passage—triggering Kuwaiti outrage and a surge in diplomatic tensions.
On 8 July 2025, Iraq's president, prime minister and parliament speaker met to resolve the stand-off. They agreed to withdraw two legal appeals and called on lawmakers to re-ratify the treaty via constitutional procedures.
The three leaders reaffirmed Iraq's commitment to international obligations and warned against politicising the issue, which they said could damage the country's global standing.
Critics argue that Kuwait has used this legal vacuum to expand its maritime footprint. Former Iraqi negotiator Jamal al-Halbousi previously told TNA that Iraq has a legitimate claim to 84 nautical miles under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), including parts of the contested Durra-Arash gas field.
The dispute has sparked grassroots mobilisation, with activists launching a campaign declaring Khor Abdullah to be Iraqi territory. They are urging parliament to reject the treaty and threatening mass protests if lawmakers proceed.
As negotiations continue and public pressure mounts, the future of the treaty remains uncertain. For many Iraqis, the outcome could redefine the country's legal and territorial standing in the Gulf for decades to come.