3.4 Territorial Integrity in Failed States
The above cases were raised in the context of functioning states and the question was whether some part of those states can seek self-determination. However, the difficult answers where the rump state from which self-determination is sought does no longer exist. Unfortunately, the international community has failed in the same manner the OAU/AU has failed, to reconcile between self-determination and the so-called territorial integrity. As discussed earlier, the UN Charter and several resolutions clearly rejected any division or secession from a member state of the UN. Those provisions did not differentiate between the dissolution of federal and the disintegration of single states. Yet we see in practice if a set of states secedes from a federal state, such act is regarded as dissolution of federation and not secession. In contrast, if a single state fails to exist, a functioning part of that state cannot claim statehood. The case of Somalia clearly illustrates this situation.
3.5 The State Failure of Somalia
Somalia does not exist today as it was between 1960 and 1991. The Republic of Somalia consisted of a union between two states; Somaliland and Somalia. For over 20 years, there has been no central government in Somalia except The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) it was formed in Kenya in 2004. The mandate of the TFG was to restore peace and reconcile between the fighting functions but the TFG could not even defend itself forget about restoration of peace. It was indeed a mockery to international law to refer the TFG as the legitimate government of Somalia while it did not control more than 10 kilometers square of the capital city; Mogadishu. The TFG controlled the Villa Somalia (the presidency house), the Mogadishu International Airport and the main seaport of Mogadishu with the assistance of the African Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) troops. The rest of the country is under the effective control of warlords except the north-eastern region of Puntland.
The totality of these scenarios tells us one fact: that Somalia is a failed state, therefore, it is unreasonable for Somaliland to join a failed State. In contrast. Somaliland is a well-functioning state. While successive warlords displace their rivalry in Somalia, a new elected president replaces the previous in every five years in Somaliland. Therefore, the question is; is it logic to invoke the principle of territorial integrity in such context?
3.6 Conclusion
This chapter discusses the dilemma of how to resolve between the rights of people to self-determination and territorial integrity. The practice of the international community regarding this issue seems contradictory)’. The practice of the international community shows the prioritization of territorial integrity. Therefore, it is clear that there is a confrontation between self-determination and territorial integrity. Two lessons emerged from our case studies. That territorial integrity is disregarded when a given is about a unique case. Secondly, when the mother state ceases to function territorial integrity cannot be invoked as a defense against self-determination. Not surprisingly, both scenarios apply to Somaliland.
[su_button url=”https://saxafimedia.com/in-depth-study-obstacles-non-recognition-somaliland-political-legal/12/” style=”soft” size=”12″ wide=”yes” center=”yes” text_shadow=”0px 0px 0px #FFFFFF” rel=”lightbox”]CONTINUE READING ON CHAPTER FOUR >[/su_button]
