A senior Somaliland adviser rejects Somalia’s legal claims, arguing under the UN Charter that Somaliland’s sovereignty is legally distinct as Israel ties deepen
NAIROBI — A senior adviser at Somaliland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a forceful legal rebuttal to Somalia’s objections over Somaliland’s diplomatic engagement with Israel, arguing that Mogadishu’s claims of “territorial integrity” lack any binding foundation under international law.
Nasteexo Adan, a senior adviser within Somaliland’s foreign ministry, said Somalia’s position reflects “a profound misunderstanding of the most elementary principles of international law,” as tensions rise following Israel’s recognition of the Republic of Somaliland and the appointment of an ambassador to Hargeisa.
“I categorically reject the statement issued by the Federal Government of Somalia regarding Somaliland’s diplomatic engagement with the State of Israel,” Adan said. “Somalia’s remarks are not only legally baseless — they reveal a profound misunderstanding of international law.”
Dispute over sovereignty and legal foundations
At the center of the dispute is the question of whether Somaliland’s sovereignty is legally distinct from Somalia — and whether Mogadishu has standing to challenge its foreign relations.
Somaliland declared independence on June 26, 1960, and later entered into a union with Somalia. Adan argued that no legally binding, internationally registered treaty exists to substantiate that union under the requirements of the United Nations.
Citing Article 102 of the UN Charter, she emphasized that international agreements must be formally registered to be invoked before UN bodies.
“A political declaration is not a treaty. A unilateral act is not a union,” Adan said. “You cannot merge two sovereign states without consent and legal authority. That never happened.”
She added that Somalia “has never produced a single binding, ratified, or internationally registered document” demonstrating a lawful claim over Somaliland — calling the absence “a decisive legal failure.”
Territorial integrity challenged
Adan directly contested Somalia’s repeated invocation of territorial integrity, arguing that the principle applies only to states with established and legally substantiated borders.
“Territorial integrity protects legally established states, not political claims built on unlawful foundations,” she said. “It cannot be invoked retroactively, selectively, or without a lawful basis.”
According to Adan, Somalia’s territorial claims derive from the former Italian-administered territory and do not automatically extend to Somaliland, which she described as a separate sovereign entity whose independence “has never been extinguished, transferred, or legally superseded.”
Defense of Somaliland’s foreign policy
The adviser framed Somaliland’s engagement with Israel as a legitimate exercise of sovereign rights, consistent with international norms and state practice.
“Our foreign engagements are an exercise of our sovereign rights,” she said. “They are conducted fully in line with international law.”
Somaliland’s relationship with Israel has become a flashpoint in regional diplomacy, particularly given the territory’s proximity to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait — a strategic maritime corridor linking the Red Sea to global shipping routes.
Somalia has condemned the relationship as a violation of its sovereignty, warning of potential consequences, including restrictions related to the Red Sea passage.
A broader legal and political argument
Adan’s statement extends beyond immediate diplomatic tensions, advancing a broader argument about the nature of sovereignty and statehood in international law.
“For more than three decades, Somaliland has governed itself effectively within its internationally defined borders,” she said, pointing to democratic elections, internal stability and cooperation on maritime security as evidence of functioning statehood.
“These are the hallmarks of responsible statehood — not theoretical constructs, but lived realities.”
She dismissed Somalia’s objections as political rather than legal.
“Political statements that ignore legal standards do not alter the facts on the ground,” she said. “They do not erase history, and they do not create sovereignty where none exists.”
Rising diplomatic tensions
The exchange underscores deepening tensions in the Horn of Africa, where questions of recognition, sovereignty and strategic alignment are increasingly intersecting with broader geopolitical rivalries.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland has introduced a new dimension to the dispute, prompting strong reactions from Mogadishu while opening new diplomatic avenues for Hargeisa.
For Somaliland officials, however, the issue is not merely political — but legal.
“Somaliland’s sovereignty is not up for negotiation,” Adan said. “It is a legal reality, a historical fact, and a political truth. Our foreign relations are determined solely by our sovereign will.”
