A new legal analysis argues Somaliland’s statehood claim to recognition is grounded in colonial-era treaties, defined borders and international law principles, as debate intensifies over its status in the Horn of Africa
HARGEISA — A growing body of legal scholarship is sharpening the case for international recognition of Somaliland, with analysts arguing that its claim to statehood rests on an unusually clear combination of colonial-era treaties, defined borders and post-independence legal continuity.
In a detailed analysis, Horn of Africa political writer Abdi Ali Barkhad contends that Somaliland’s territorial status is “rooted in a uniquely clear and well-documented colonial boundary regime” established during the British administration of the territory from 1884 to 1960.
Colonial boundaries and legal clarity
Unlike many African states whose borders emerged from loosely defined colonial arrangements, Somaliland’s frontiers were delineated through formal agreements between imperial powers, including Britain’s treaties with Ethiopia, France and Italy. These accords established precise territorial limits, reinforced by cartographic records and boundary commissions.
“These were not abstract or retrospective geographic descriptions,” Barkhad writes. “They were operational boundaries reflected in diplomatic correspondence, official cartography and physical demarcation efforts.”
When Somaliland gained independence on June 26, 1960, it entered the international system with borders that corresponded directly to those treaty-based limits — a factor analysts say distinguishes its case from more contested territorial claims.
International law and uti possidetis juris
Central to the argument is the doctrine of uti possidetis juris, a legal principle widely applied in post-colonial Africa and endorsed by the Organization of African Unity in its 1964 Cairo Resolution.
The doctrine holds that newly independent states inherit the administrative boundaries that existed at the moment of independence. Applied to Somaliland, Barkhad argues, it reinforces the continuity of its territorial claims and underscores its distinction from the former Italian-administered Somalia.
Separate colonial trajectories
The analysis emphasizes that British Somaliland and Italian Somalia developed along entirely separate administrative, legal and political paths. Britain governed Somaliland through protectorate arrangements with local authorities, while Italy administered Somalia under a different colonial system.
“At no point did Britain and Italy administer Somaliland and Italian Somalia as a unified territory,” Barkhad writes. “They remained distinct colonial entities with separate international identities, boundaries and administrative systems.”
This divergence, he argues, is critical in assessing the legal nature of their later union.
Independence and contested union
Upon independence in 1960, Somaliland received recognition from more than 30 countries, including several permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Days later, Italian Somalia also achieved independence, forming a separate sovereign state.
The two territories voluntarily united shortly afterward, but Barkhad argues the legal foundation of that union was flawed from the outset.
“The Acts of Union adopted in Hargeisa and Mogadishu were not identical and were never properly harmonized or jointly ratified,” he writes, describing the arrangement as a political merger rather than a legally binding integration.
He compares the union to other short-lived political unions, such as the United Arab Republic, where member states retained distinct legal identities despite formal unification.
Collapse and reassertion of sovereignty
The collapse of the Somali state in 1991 marked a turning point. With central authority disintegrating, Barkhad argues that the legal basis for the union effectively ceased to exist.
“In line with principles of state continuity and post-union dissolution practices, Somaliland reasserted its sovereignty within the borders it held at independence in 1960,” he writes.
Since then, Somaliland has operated with its own governing institutions, elections and security structures, positioning itself as a relatively stable polity in a volatile region.
Implications for recognition
The analysis concludes that Somaliland’s case aligns with established norms of international law and African Union principles regarding inherited borders.
“Recognition of Somaliland’s status would align with established principles of international law,” Barkhad writes, arguing that such a move could also contribute to regional stability by clarifying legal ambiguities that have persisted for decades.
The question of recognition, however, remains politically sensitive. The African Union and most international actors continue to support Somalia’s territorial integrity, wary of setting precedents that could encourage secessionist movements elsewhere on the continent.
Still, as geopolitical competition intensifies in the Horn of Africa and global powers reassess strategic alignments, Somaliland’s legal argument is gaining renewed attention in diplomatic and policy circles.
