Before colonial powers arrived in the Horn of Africa, the Somali people lived under traditional and clan-based systems, and there was no single centralized nation-state uniting all Somali-inhabited territories. This fact has been clearly documented by many historians specializing in the Horn of Africa.
As noted by I. M. Lewis, one of the most prominent scholars of Somali studies, “The Somali people shared a common language, religion and culture, but they never formed a single centralized state before colonial rule.” This reality dispels the argument that colonialism dismantled a pre-existing Somali nation-state. What was divided was a culturally unified people, not a previously unified state.
When colonial powers arrived, Somali territories were divided into five separate administrations under France, Britain, Italy, Ethiopia, and Kenya. This division later became internationally recognized legal borders, reinforced by the principle known as uti possidetis juris.
Both the United Nations and the African Union adopted the principle of maintaining colonial borders to prevent instability. As stated in the 1964 Resolution of the Organization of African Unity: “All Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.” This legally affirms that Somaliland, as defined during British colonial rule, possesses clear and legitimate territorial boundaries.
Somaliland’s Independence (26 June 1960): A Legal Reality
On 26 June 1960, Somaliland became an independent state and was recognized by multiple countries nearly 35 countries recognized as independent state. It possessed all the attributes of statehood: a government, a parliament, a national flag, and international recognition. This reality is recorded in United Nations documentation.
According to Article 4 of the United Nations Charter, a state eligible for recognition must be capable of fulfilling its international obligations. At that time, Somaliland met these requirements. Therefore, Somaliland was not a region seceding from an existing state; rather, it was a sovereign state that voluntarily entered into a union.
The union between Somaliland and Somalia in 1960 was initiated voluntarily by Somaliland but was not based on a popular referendum, nor was it supported by a comprehensive legal agreement. This weakness was clearly exposed by the 1961 constitutional referendum, in which the majority of Somaliland voters rejected the proposed constitution.
The primary motivation behind the union was the aspiration to create a single Somali state uniting all Somali-inhabited territories. As international legal scholar Gary N. Wilson observes. “A union that is entered into voluntarily can also be dissolved when its fundamental terms are violated.” When inequality, abuse of power, and systemic violations occurred within the union, the political contract underpinning that unity collapsed.
The Failure of the “Greater Somalia” Ideology
The ideology of Greater Somalia led the Somali Republic into continuous external conflicts, most notably the wars with Ethiopia in 1964 and 1977. These wars resulted in economic devastation and institutional collapse but failed to achieve territorial unity.
The agreements of 1967 with Kenya, and of 1978 and 1988 with Ethiopia, formally ended the ambition of uniting all Somali territories into a single state. As former Somali Prime Minister Abdirizak Haji Hussein stated: “The dream of Greater Somalia cost the Somali Republic more than it could afford.” This demonstrates that the forced union with Somaliland did not even achieve the objective for which it was created.
During the 1980s, the Somali government committed widespread atrocities amounting to mass killings against the civilian population of Somaliland, particularly through the bombardment of Hargeisa and Burao. Human Rights Watch described these actions as: “A campaign of collective punishment that amounted to crimes against humanity.” When a state commits mass atrocities and genocide against a segment of its population, it forfeits the legitimacy upon which political unity rests.
The Collapse of Somalia and the 1991 Burao Conference
Following the complete collapse of the Somali republic in 1991, Somalia descended into protracted civil war. In the same year, the Burao Conference was convened in the former British Somaliland territories. The conference concluded that, since the united Somali Republic had collapsed and the union had resulted in grave human rights violations against Somaliland’s population, it was necessary to restore Somaliland’s independence of 1960.
Accordingly, Somaliland formally declared the re-establishment of its sovereign state. The 1991 Burao Conference was inclusive of all northern clans and was based on consultation and consensus. The principle of self-determination is clearly articulated in the United Nations Charter, and the Burao decision represented a lawful exercise of that right.
More Than Three Decades of Functioning Statehood
It is important to clearly distinguish between the Somali Republic (1960–1991) and the Federal Republic of Somalia, which was established years after the collapse of the former state. Somaliland was never part of the Federal Republic of Somalia, nor did it participate in the process that led to the creation of the post-1991 federal system. Somaliland’s union was exclusively with the Somali Republic, a state that ceased to exist following its total collapse in 1991. Consequently, Somaliland cannot be considered a seceding entity from the Federal Republic of Somalia, as it never consented to, nor was represented in, the formation of that state. Similarly, Somaliland was not a party to what is sometimes described as the “third Somali statehood”, meaning the post-collapse political reconfiguration of Somalia. From a legal and political standpoint, Somaliland restored its sovereignty after the dissolution of the Somali Republic, rather than withdrawing from a continuing or successor state.
For over thirty-four years, Somaliland has built effective state institutions, conducted free and fair elections, and maintained internal security. The United Nations has repeatedly acknowledged Somaliland’s stability and peace, despite the absence of formal recognition.
As international law scholar James Crawford stated, “Statehood is a question of fact, not recognition.” Somaliland therefore qualifies as a de facto state, and the absence of recognition does not negate its existence.
Over the past 34 years, Somaliland and Somalia have followed sharply divergent paths. While Somalia has struggled with insecurity, civil conflict, and institutional fragility despite recent signs of recovery, Somaliland has consolidated governance institutions, upheld the rule of law, and maintained lasting peace. Somaliland has held multiple democratic elections, monopolized the legitimate use of force through state institutions, and avoided clan warfare and militia politics.
Regional Security and Strategic Importance
Somaliland occupies a strategically vital location along key international trade routes. Its recognition would enhance maritime security and regional stability in the Horn of Africa. As noted by the International Crisis Group, Somaliland represents a valuable opportunity for broader regional peace and cooperation.
Recognition would also create a safe investment environment for Somalis and international partners alike. Somaliland’s experience in peacebuilding and reconciliation could make a meaningful contribution to Somalia’s long-term recovery.
Furthermore, recognition would strengthen security along the Berbera corridor and the Gulf of Aden, ensuring the safe passage of commercial shipping and reinforcing regional economic integration.
The recognition of Somaliland would promote regional economic growth and sustainable trade cooperation. Somaliland has fulfilled all internationally accepted criteria for statehood and merits recognition as a responsible, independent state. Somaliland is not asking for an exception to international law; it is asking for the acknowledgment of an existing reality.
About the Author
Mahad J. Koronto
Journalism, Communication, and Media Literacy Expert
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the Horndiplomat editorial policy.
If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis, please email it to Opinion@horndiplomat.com. Horndiplomat reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information, and political affiliations.
