Somalia and Somaliland: Between De Facto Independence and International Law

By Omar M. Elmi, Djiboutian Economist And Geological Analyst
Sunday June 21, 2026

More than three decades after Somaliland’s unilateral declaration of independence in May 1991, one of Africa’s most enduring political and legal dilemmas remains unresolved. Somaliland has established functioning institutions, maintained relative stability, conducted elections, and exercised effective control over its territory. Yet despite these achievements, it remains unrecognized by any member state of the United Nations, except the pariah State of Israel.

This paradox lies at the heart of the Somaliland question. While Somaliland operates as a state in practice, international law continues to regard it as an integral part of the Federal Republic of Somalia. As authorities in Hargeisa increasingly engage in diplomatic outreach, economic partnerships, and security cooperation with foreign actors, a critical question emerges: what options are available to Somalia to defend its sovereignty within the framework of international law?

A Political Reality Without International Recognition

Few observers would dispute that Somaliland has achieved a degree of political stability and institutional development that distinguishes it from many conflict-affected regions. Since 1991, it has built administrative structures, maintained security, and cultivated an image of responsible governance.

However, effective governance alone does not automatically confer statehood under international law.

To this day, the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, IGAD, and every internationally recognized state continue to recognize Somalia’s sovereignty over Somaliland. The territory therefore occupies a unique position: politically separate in practice, yet legally part of Somalia.

This position is rooted not only in Somalia’s internationally recognized sovereignty but also in one of the foundational principles of post-colonial Africa: the preservation of inherited colonial borders.

Since the establishment of the Organization of African Unity in 1963, African states have generally adhered to the principle that borders inherited at independence should not be altered through unilateral secession. This doctrine was adopted to prevent the fragmentation of newly independent states and to avoid the proliferation of territorial disputes across a continent where colonial boundaries often divided ethnic, linguistic, and cultural communities.

For many African governments, the Somaliland question therefore extends beyond Somalia itself. Recognition of Somaliland would not simply affect the Horn of Africa; it could establish a precedent with implications for other separatist movements across the continent.

The Vulnerabilities of a De Facto State

The absence of international recognition continues to impose significant constraints on Somaliland’s ambitions.

The first vulnerability is diplomatic. More than three decades after its declaration of independence, Somaliland remains excluded from the United Nations and most international organizations. It lacks access to the full rights and privileges enjoyed by sovereign states.

The second vulnerability is political and territorial. Recent tensions in Las Anod and the Sool region have highlighted unresolved disputes concerning territorial control, local loyalties, and political legitimacy. These developments demonstrate that state-building remains an ongoing and contested process.

The third vulnerability is legal.

As Somaliland expands its external engagements, questions inevitably arise regarding the legal status of agreements signed with foreign governments, corporations, or security partners. Can a territory lacking international recognition legally commit itself to arrangements involving sovereignty, defense, strategic infrastructure, or foreign military presence?

Such questions are particularly sensitive in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, where geopolitical competition among regional and global powers continues to intensify.

Somalia’s Legal and Diplomatic Options

Faced with these developments, Somalia possesses several instruments consistent with international law.

The first is diplomacy.

Mogadishu can continue to reinforce its position through the United Nations, the African Union, IGAD, and the Arab League. As long as these institutions maintain their recognition of Somalia’s territorial integrity, the federal government retains significant international legitimacy.

The second option is legal and diplomatic contestation.

Whenever Somaliland concludes agreements that Mogadishu considers inconsistent with Somali sovereignty, the federal government can formally object through diplomatic channels and challenge the legitimacy of such arrangements. This approach enables Somalia to defend its legal position without resorting to confrontation.

A third, less frequently discussed option lies within Somalia’s domestic legal framework.

From the perspective of Somali constitutional law, Somaliland remains part of the Somali state. Consequently, Somali authorities could argue that certain actions undertaken by Somaliland officials—particularly the negotiation of diplomatic, military, or security agreements with foreign governments—fall within powers reserved exclusively for the federal government. By undertaking such actions, they are breaking the law and could be prosecuted for treason.

In this regard, the experience of Spain following Catalonia’s 2017 independence referendum offers an instructive example. Spanish authorities initiated legal proceedings against several Catalan leaders on the grounds that they had acted outside the constitutional order of the Spanish state.

The comparison is not exact. Somaliland has exercised effective control over its territory for more than thirty years and has developed institutions that function independently of Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the broader legal principle remains relevant: until international recognition occurs, Somaliland continues to be regarded under international law as part of Somalia

The practical effectiveness of any such legal proceedings would undoubtedly be limited by the absence of federal authority within Somaliland. However, their symbolic and legal significance could reinforce Somalia’s claim that sovereignty over the territory remains vested in the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Somalia’s Strongest Asset: International Legitimacy

Perhaps Somalia’s greatest advantage lies neither in coercion nor in military power, but in the continued support of international law and African diplomatic doctrine.

Mogadishu’s position is strengthened by the enduring African commitment to the inviolability of inherited colonial borders. This principle has served as a cornerstone of continental stability for more than six decades and remains one of the principal reasons why the African Union has refrained from endorsing Somaliland’s independence.

By grounding its strategy in law, diplomacy, and continental consensus rather than confrontation, Somalia preserves the legitimacy of its claims while avoiding actions that could further destabilize an already fragile region.

Between Legal Principles and Political Realities

Yet legal arguments alone cannot resolve a dispute of this magnitude.

For Somalia, the challenge is not merely to defend its territorial integrity but also to demonstrate that a unified Somali state can address the aspirations and concerns of somali people in the north and the south

For Somaliland, the challenge is equally significant. While it has successfully established many of the attributes of statehood, international legitimacy ultimately depends not only on effective governance but also on political acceptance by neighboring states, regional organizations, and the broader international community. 

Conclusion

More than three decades after its declaration of independence, Somaliland remains suspended between political reality and legal uncertainty.

Few observers would deny its achievements in governance, security, and institution-building. Yet statehood in international law depends not only on effective control but also on recognition and legitimacy.

For Somalia, the challenge is not simply to assert sovereignty, but to do so through the instruments of law, diplomacy, and political engagement rather than confrontation. The continued support of the international community for Somalia’s territorial integrity—and the African Union’s commitment to the inviolability of inherited colonial borders—provides Mogadishu with a strong legal foundation.

The Somaliland question remains one of the most complex tests of contemporary international law: a territory functioning as a state, yet lacking the recognition and the internal cohesion and unity required to become one.

Until a mutually acceptable political settlement emerges, Somaliland will continue to occupy a legal and diplomatic grey zone, while Somalia retains both the right and the responsibility to defend its sovereignty through peaceful and lawful means.

Omar M ELMI