Amid the profound transformations brought about by globalization and the growing international competition over resources, innovative legal and economic instruments have emerged, aiming to reshape the developmental landscape of states – whether through the exploitation of maritime spaces or the design of flexible, investment-attractive terrestrial environments. Among the most prominent of these instruments are the: Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Despite the geographical and legal differences between the two, they represent complementary facets of a development policy centered on maximizing resource utilization and enhancing a state’s integration into the global economy.
The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is considered one of the most significant innovations of the international law of the sea. It was established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a zone that lies beyond the territorial sea and extends up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. This zone grants the coastal State sovereign rights over both living and non-living resources – in the water, on the seabed, and beneath it – including fishing, oil and gas exploration, and the use of renewable energy sources. However, it does not constitute full sovereignty, as the freedoms of navigation, overflight, and the laying of submarine cables remain guaranteed to other States. This makes the EEZ a distinct legal regime that lies between full sovereignty in the territorial sea and complete freedom on the high seas. UNCLOS also imposes obligations on the coastal State, most notably the preservation of environmental balance, the prevention of overexploitation of resources, and cooperation with neighboring or landlocked States to ensure the sustainability of benefits. Thus, the EEZ is not merely a framework for exploitation, but also a platform for the regulation of international rights and obligations.
As for the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), it is a purely domestic instrument, established by a national decision and governed under local legislation. Its purpose is to attract investment and encourage economic activities by offering tax and customs incentives, simplifying administrative procedures, and providing a flexible legal environment. This instrument has achieved remarkable success since the 1980s, particularly in China, which used the Shenzhen experiment as a transformative platform to shift its economy from isolation to openness. The city evolved from a fishing village into a global industrial and technological hub. The significance of Special Economic Zones lies in their ability to serve as laboratories for economic reforms, accelerators for attracting capital, and testing grounds for policies that could not be applied to the entire economy all at once.
It is thus clear that there is a distinction between the two types of economic zones – exclusive and special. The former is an international framework, maritime in location, aimed at the exploitation of natural resources under strict rules set by the Law of the Sea Convention, where the coastal State enjoys limited sovereign rights. The latter, by contrast, is a domestic, land-based framework intended to stimulate investment and local development by facilitating economic activities and is fully subject to the authority of the State. Nevertheless, both types converge on a common essence: the use of a specific legal instrument to promote economic development through a geographically defined zone of special nature, and the formulation of an economic strategy that yields tangible returns for the State and society.
This convergence opens the door to a productive integration between the two regimes. A coastal state can exploit its marine resources – such as gas, oil, or renewable energy – in its Exclusive Economic Zones and directly link them to industrial and logistical projects established within coastal Special Economic Zones, thereby creating an integrated value chain that begins with the marine resource and ends with industrial export. Moreover, both zones can work together to enhance the State’s strategic security – one by reinforcing maritime sovereignty and controlling maritime boundaries, and the other by providing an economic environment that strengthens internal resilience and generates local employment opportunities.
Despite their economic importance, both regimes face legal challenges. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) suffer from issues related to delimitation and maritime disputes, as seen in the South China Sea or the Eastern Mediterranean, where international legal texts alone have proven insufficient to deter violations. Meanwhile, some local actors attempt to undermine Special Economic Zones (SEZs), perceiving them as tools that grant exceptional privileges at the expense of the broader economy, or as openings for unregulated tax and environmental practices in the absence of proper oversight.
What about the Lebanese experience?
The Lebanese situation presents a rich model for the simultaneous application of these two systems. On land, Lebanon established the Tripoli Special Economic Zone under Law No. 18/2008 as a tool to develop the marginalized north and open horizons for industrial and logistical investment. Additionally, proposals have been made to create multiple zones in Tyre, Sidon, Batroun, and other coastal cities as well as inland areas, specifically the Bekaa Valley…
At sea, Lebanon adopted the Petroleum Resources Law for Maritime Waters No. 132/2010, which established the legal framework for managing its Exclusive Economic Zones. After years of dispute with the Israeli entity over maritime delimitation, a negotiated agreement was reached in 2022 under U.S. mediation, allowing Lebanon to secure as many of its maritime rights as possible and opening the door for a consortium of international companies (Total Energies, Eni, Qatar Energy) to explore its resources.
From this perspective, it can be said that Lebanon today possesses a unique opportunity to integrate the EEZ and SEZ. The potential gas resources at sea can be invested in and processed through industrial and logistical infrastructure in coastal cities in both the north and south of the country, transforming these cities into pivotal centers for national development. However, this integration requires two essential conditions: first, strengthening the legal and institutional framework to ensure transparency and accountability; and second, managing revenues in a fair developmental manner that guarantees their reflection on infrastructure and public services.
In conclusion, the greater a country like Lebanon succeeds in reconciling these two systems and leveraging their integration, the more it will be able to transform its maritime boundaries and terrestrial zones into platforms of production and growth that enhance its economic independence and strengthen its resilience against crises.