The Unassailable Case: How Somaliland’s 1960 Treaties Cement Its De Jure Statehood Under International Law

The treaties executed by Somaliland upon its independence on June 26, 1960, constitute irrefutable legal proof of its sovereign statehood under international law.

Deposited at the United Nations under Article 102 of the UN Charter, these instruments—including the sovereignty-transferring Exchange of Letters (UNTS No. 1492), defense pacts, and nationality agreements—demonstrate Somaliland’s fulfillment of the Montevideo Convention’s statehood criteria: a defined territory, permanent population, functional government, and treaty-making capacity.

This analysis establishes how these documents conclusively validate Somaliland’s de jure statehood prior to its contested union with Somalia, creating a foundation for its contemporary claim as a restored—not seceding—state.

Introduction: The Forgotten Sovereignty

On June 26, 1960, the State of Somaliland emerged as a fully sovereign nation after 76 years as a British protectorate. This independence was not merely symbolic but legally substantive, formalized through treaties deposited at the United Nations and recognized by over 30 sovereign states. Yet, six decades later, the international community treats Somaliland as a breakaway region rather than a state restoring its sovereignty. This analysis examines how Somaliland’s foundational treaties provide irrefutable evidence of its de jure statehood under established international legal principles, creating obligations the world has neglected at its peril.

1. Historical Context: Birth of a Sovereign State

• Legal Foundations of Independence

The Royal Proclamation of June 24, 1960, issued by Queen Elizabeth II, terminated British protection and confirmed Somaliland’s independence effective June 26, 1960. The Somaliland Order complemented this in Council 1960, enacted on June 23, which established Somaliland’s constitutional framework and severed judicial ties to Britain. Crucially, these instruments were not unilateral acts but rather products of negotiated decolonization, as affirmed in UN Resolution 1514 (XV), which recognized the right to self-determination.

• International Recognition at Birth

Contrary to modern misconceptions, Somaliland’s sovereignty received immediate international validation:

• 35 sovereign states extended diplomatic recognition, including all UN Security Council permanent members and regional powers like Egypt, Ghana, and Israel.
• Recognition notes explicitly referenced “the State of Somaliland,” affirming its sovereign status under international law.
• The UK Foreign Office circulated memoranda confirming Somaliland’s independence to all diplomatic missions, establishing formal notification under customary international law.

2. Treaty Framework: Conclusive Evidence of Statehood

• Core Independence Treaties (All UN-Registered Under Article 102)

• Legal Implications Under the Montevideo Convention

These treaties collectively satisfy all four statehood criteria under the seminal 1933 Montevideo Convention:

1. Permanent Population: Citizenship treaty defined Somaliland’s citizenry.
2. Defined Territory: Colonial boundaries preserved via independence instruments.
3. Effective Government: Constitution established PM, legislature, judiciary.
4. Capacity for Foreign Relations: Treaty-making with the UK and recognition by 35 states.

Critical Precedent: UN registration under Article 102 confirms these were interstate agreements—the UN Secretariat only accepts instruments from sovereign entities.

3. The Defective Union: Illegitimate Extinguishment of Sovereignty

• Legal Irregularities in the 1960 Merger

Somaliland’s sovereignty was never lawfully dissolved due to fatal flaws in the union process:

• Somaliland’s Act of Union (Law No. 1) passed June 27, 1960, required reciprocal ratification by Somalia, which never occurred.
• Somalia instead imposed a unilateral constitution on July 1 via acclamation, bypassing Somaliland’s agreed terms.
• The 1961 Retroactive Act of Union (passed January 31, 1961) illegally purported to dissolve Somaliland’s sovereignty backdated to July 1960, violating the nullum tempus principle against retroactive legislation.

• Evidentiary Significance of Treaty Succession

Article 11(4) of Somaliland’s Union Law stipulated:

“All rights lawfully vested in or obligations lawfully incurred by the independent Government of Somaliland… shall be transferred to the Somali Republic”.

This clause proves Somaliland entered the union as a pre-existing sovereign entity—obligations cannot transfer from a non-state actor. The provision implicitly acknowledges Somaliland’s statehood.

4. Documentary Evidence: Archival Preservation & Legal Validity

• Current Status of Foundational Documents

Note: Somaliland’s internal administrative records were largely destroyed during Somalia’s civil war (1988-1991), but treaties preserved externally remain intact.

5. Contemporary Implications: Restoration vs. Secession

• The State Continuity Argument

Somaliland’s 1991 declaration of independence constitutes restoration of pre-existing statehood—not secession—based on:

1. Defective Union Doctrine: The absence of a mutually ratified union treaty means sovereignty reverted to Somaliland upon the Somali Republic’s collapse.
2. Montevideo Compliance: Somaliland maintains defined territory, population, government, and foreign relations capacity since 1991.
3. Prior Recognition: States recognizing Somaliland in 1960 need not “re-recognize” but rather acknowledge continuity.

• International Law’s Failure to Adapt

Despite satisfying statehood criteria, recognition remains obstructed by:

• Political Hypocrisy: The African Union rejects Somaliland while accepting Eritrea’s secession—an inconsistency lacking legal basis.
• Misplaced Precedent Fear: Claims that recognizing Somaliland would encourage secessionists ignore its unique history of prior sovereignty.
• Systemic Inertia: UN organs continue recognizing Somalia’s “territorial integrity” despite its implosion and inability to govern Somaliland.

“The international community privileges an existing state littered with problems over a functional democracy due to rigid adherence to outdated norms.” – Journal of Modern Law and Policy (2024)

6. Legal Pathways Forward: Asserting Existing Rights

• Strategic Utilization of Treaty Evidence

Somaliland’s diplomatic efforts should pivot to:

• Judicial Advocacy: File ICJ advisory proceedings on the validity of the 1960 union using archived treaties
• Treaty Compliance Claims: Demand UN enforcement of Article 102 deposits as binding evidence of statehood
• Damages Litigation: Seek reparations from Somalia for illegal annexation (1988 bombing campaigns constitute war crimes).

• Proposed “Unable or Unwilling” Doctrine

International law should adopt a new standard permitting recognition when:

1. A region demonstrates prior sovereignty (Somaliland’s 1960 statehood)
2. Somalia fails functionally for ≥20 years (Somalia’s collapse since 1991).
3. The country stably meets Montevideo criteria (Somaliland’s 34-year record).
4. Peaceful coexistence exists (Somaliland-Somalia border stability).

Conclusion: The Sovereignty Debt

“Somaliland is not separating from Somalia – it is exiting an illegal annexation and restoring its original statehood. This is about state continuity, not a breakaway.”

Somaliland’s treaties are not historical curiosities but active legal instruments confirming its statehood. The Exchange of Letters remains lodged at the UN; Somaliland’s citizenship provisions still define its people; its borders remain those recognized in 1960. The international community’s refusal to acknowledge this constitutes a violation of its own Charter – particularly Article 102’s treaty registration system and UN Resolution 1514’s decolonization principles.

As Somaliland forges new partnerships with Ethiopia, Taiwan, and UAE, its 1960 treaties stand as unassailable proof that it is not seeking independence but resuming a sovereignty unlawfully interrupted. The world’s continued denial of this reality undermines the very international legal order it purports to defend. Recognition is not an act of charity but a correction of historical injustice – one that grows more urgent with each passing year of Somaliland’s demonstrable statehood.