The Case For The Independent Statehood Of Somaliland

II. Arguments for Independence Under Contemporary International Law

The state of Somaliland and its people existed as sovereign international persons until the Act of Union, at which time Somaliland sought unification with Southern Somalia. The unification effort, however, fell short of the legal requirements mandated by domestic and international law. With nothing more than the recognition of other states to testify to the existence of Somalia as a unified state, it is necessary to consider the legal grounds on which Somaliland can reassert itself on the international plane.

A. VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

An accepted, enduring maxim in legal and political theory is that the deprivation of basic human rights justifies rebellion. Although international law justifies rebellion, domestic law does not, and indeed cannot, entertain such possibilities. Domestic law, however, is not dispositive of the existence of such a right under international law. International law lacked a theoretical and normative basis for the articulation and expression of the right to secede until the development of the human rights jurisprudence in general, and more specifically self-determination. Self-determination is the only norm which can simultaneously destroy and build.

Be the first to know – Follow us on [wp-svg-icons icon=”twitter-2″ wrap=”i”] @Saxafi

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to rebel against a government guilty of egregious violations of human rights. Various international instruments enumerate international human rights. These include the International Bill of Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, several regional instruments, and pieces of national legislation.

These documents clearly set forth certain rights such as freedom from torture, detention without charges or trial, and rights to life, liberty and security of persons; these rights are not to be violated under any circumstances because they constitute rules of jus cogens. Accordingly, if the political establishment engages in violating these rights on a genocidal scale, the people may claim a right to self-determination through secession.

In addition, this right to secede acquires greater legitimacy if the pattern of human rights violations indicates an attempt by the state to decimate a distinctly identifiable group.

Siyad Barre’s regime killed, tortured and imprisoned thousands of Somalis over the years. His government looted and destroyed private property through the security apparatus established with the help of the former German Democratic Republic and the KGB. Barre unleashed the full fury of his regime’s thuggery against the wealthier and independent Isaq clan in Somaliland.

The human rights violations included summary executions, rape, torture, imprisonment, or detainment without charges or trial, and the theft of private property. The genocidal attack on the Isaq clan intensified with the military bombing and shelling of the northern cities, Hargeisa and Burao. The government staged a selective campaign to bum down Isaq towns. During the course of the 1988 civil war, 50,000 people were killed and another 500,000 were forced to flee to Ethiopia.’

Government forces also laid over a million unmarked land mines in the North. These acts flagrantly violated not only human rights norms but also humanitarian norms relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. The attempt to annihilate the Isaq also had economic dimensions. The government diverted development investment and livestock trade from the north.

[su_button url=”https://saxafimedia.com/the-case-for-the-independent-statehood-of-somaliland/4/” style=”soft” size=”12″ wide=”yes” center=”yes” text_shadow=”0px 0px 0px #FFFFFF” rel=”lightbox”]CONTINUE READING ON THE NEXT PAGE >[/su_button]