Chapter One
Background of the Study
1.1 Introduction
On 26 June I960, Somaliland gained its independence from Britain after 80 years of colonization with the name, the ‘British Protectorate of Somaliland’ After 5 days of independence. Somaliland united with Somalia or the “Italian Protectorate’, which fought for her independence from Italy on 1 July I960. During these 5 days, Somaliland was recognized as an independent state. For reasons explained below, Somaliland compromised its sovereignty and united with Somalia with the condition that the two nations create a more viable state based on equal justice of wealth and power-sharing.
Because of the ill-treatment, which they met due to the unification with Somalia and with the failure of Somalia to function as a state, Somalilanders decided to rebuild their nation within the British boundaries during the colonial era. Consequently, Somaliland declared its separation from Somalia in 1991. The main reason why Somaliland hastily compromised her sovereignty was the dream of ‘Great Somalia’ or what is referred as ‘Somali irredentism’. This dream aimed to unite the five Somali regions in the Horn of Africa and subsequently establish a Somali empire. Apart from Somalia and Somaliland, the other three regions were the Somali region in Ethiopia (Ogaden), French Somaliland (now Djibouti) and the Northern Frontier District of Kenya (NFD). In I960, only Somaliland and Somalia gained their independence and together formed what was known as the Somali Republic. On July 1, the legislatures of the two newly independent states met at Mogadishu in a joint session and proclaimed the establishment of the Somali Republic. The Republic was declared a unitary state, consisting of two regions, the Northern and the Southern state. The two legislatures merged into one and became the National Assembly of the Somali Republic.
The unification of British Somaliland and the trust territory of Somalia created problems economic, political, and administrative. Seventy years of British and Italian rule had imparted to each territory a distinct character and accentuated whatever regional differences might have existed before. Besides, different economic, political, and administrative patterns had developed. Due to their distinct colonial experiences, the Northerners and Southerners, also members of different clans were distinguished by language and dialect, clan loyalty, and level and orientation of economic development. Consequently, the Northerners were not able to fully assimilate into Somalia, precipitating the North’s eventual bid for autonomy.
In Africa, self-determination emerged as a result of the struggle against colonialism. However, immediately after their independence, African countries have realized that self-determination itself can be destructive for the existing border. Responding to this problem, African leaders shifted their minds from self-determination to territorial integrity and therefore recognized the existing borders during the colonization era as the foundation of the African state. From here appears the inherent differing principle between self-determination and territorial integrity. The former entails the right to peoples to determine their destiny both politically and economically. The latter protects countries from fragmentation and ensures order and stability. The paradox is how to ensure that all peoples achieve their right to self-determination and at the same time, national states are protected from disintegration. The case of Somaliland is a good example. On 18 May 1991, the resistance movement and important groups in the former northern British colony dissolved the union and declared the formation of the Republic of Somaliland. It has since existed bearing characteristics generally attributed to a ‘state’ but without international recognition.
The study will allow us a deeper grasp of the Somaliland situation by illustrating its uniqueness and peculiarities. An important difference between the legitimate and illegitimate claims to self-determination is recognition. In other words, new States enter into the system largely as a result of their external acceptance. As the Westphalian order demands, the interstate system depends upon mutual sovereign recognition among States.
The mere existence of a territorial entity which is also constitutionally independent is one thing…the extent to which it participates in international life is another matter….It depends on the number of other states which are wanting and willing to enter into relations with the state concerned’
Recognition by other States then, rather than simple de facto control and authority, is an important initial distinction between successful and failed self-determinations in the international system. Secessionist regimes universally seek other states’ formal recognition. Indeed, a ‘critical mass’ of external recognition must be achieved before any secessionist actor is considered a full member of the international society. Yet Statesmen often disagree about what distinguishes a legitimate from an illegitimate claim to sovereign independence.
Common wisdom within the International Relations literature asserts States will act on their political motives when questions of sovereignty arise. Such interest-based explanations raise more questions than they answer. Which self-interests guide States’ recognition decisions? What happens when domestic motives conflict with geostrategic imperatives? Do all States confer recognition based upon similar criteria or do different States use different criteria? What, if any, influence do international norms have upon States’ decisions? Generally, what accounts for the variance between the few actors that are formally recognized and deemed sovereign independent States and the many that receive little or no formal recognition and are not allowed equivalent participation in the interstate system?
The study argues that that individual States’ political motives insufficiently explain why potential members are accepted or rejected by the international community. Instead, the Strategic interactions among States must also be considered. States do not make their recognition decisions in a vacuum, they are interdependent and they rarely recognize unilaterally.
[su_button url=”https://saxafimedia.com/in-depth-study-obstacles-non-recognition-somaliland-political-legal/3/” style=”soft” size=”12″ wide=”yes” center=”yes” text_shadow=”0px 0px 0px #FFFFFF” rel=”lightbox”]CONTINUE READING ON THE NEXT PAGE >[/su_button]
