The entire section covered by Article IV and its detailed breakdown of the disputed clauses are not familiar with a typical agreement and indicate once again that the text is more serious than it is to Libyan public opinion. In Libya, in addition to the House of Representatives (HOR, the Libyan National Army (LNA), boycotting members of the Presidential Council, think tanks such as the Libya Institute for Advances Studies (LIAS) and many institutions and celebrities from all over Libya added their voices in protest and the GNA strongly denounced the fact that it signed the agreement with Turkey , thus threatening national sovereignty and Libya`s peace and stability in the Mediterranean. After reviewing the document, diplomatic sources in Libya, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus and other countries said that the maritime border agreement signed between Turkey and the Tripoli-based national agreement had no legal basis. The content of the document is contrary to the provisions of international law of the sea. As an agreement, it is not binding, and if it is an agreement that claims to be more than just an agreement and takes on all its legal strength, it violates established Libyan and international standards. On the basis of this agreement, Turkey would be able to send troops to assist Libya in launching joint maritime exploration activities and gaining a position of strength in decisions regarding pipelines crossing these sections of the seabed. This provocative and illegal agreement is contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and ignores not only the sovereign rights of Cyprus, but also other neighbouring countries in the region. The legitimacy and legal consequences of the agreement have been challenged by a number of states in the region as well as by the European Union. According to the European Union, the agreement „violates the sovereign rights of third countries, is not in accordance with the law of the sea and cannot have legal consequences for third countries.“  Cyprus and Egypt both considered the agreement „illegal“, while Greece considers it „unconfessed“ and „geographically absurd“ because it ignores the presence of the islands of Crete, Kasos, Karpathos, Kastellorizo and Rhodes between the Turkish and Libyan coasts.  Article IV states, for example, that „any dispute between the parties arising from the interpretation or implementation of this joint declaration of intent is settled through diplomatic means, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.“ A declaration of intent is a serious agreement, but it is never legally binding unless they become comprehensive legal agreements that comply with all the necessary provisions for its implementation. It is interesting to note that Article 33 provides that any dispute that could jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security should first be dealt with through negotiation, mediation or other peaceful means, and that the Council may ask the parties to use such means to resolve their disputes.