Political Recognition Without Legal Foundation

By David Yeh

Political Recognition Without Legal Foundation: International Law, Regional Stability, and the Risks of Escalation in the Somaliland Question

Recent diplomatic narratives surrounding the self-declared Republic of Somaliland have intensified, marked by claims of recognition by the State of Israel, speculation that Ethiopia is preparing to follow suit, and reports that Kenyan President William Ruto is expected to meet the United Arab Emirates ruler, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in discussions allegedly linked to Somaliland’s recognition. These developments are accompanied by highly charged rhetoric suggesting that such recognition would usher in strategic decline or “darkness” for rival regional actors, particularly Eritrea and Egypt. While such claims are politically provocative, they are unfounded and risk deepening instability in the Horn of Africa. When examined through the framework of international law, African Union norms, and established diplomatic practice, these narratives collapse under their own weight.

Under international law, Somaliland does not possess international legal personality. Although it has exercised de facto control over territory and population since 1991, statehood is not determined by internal governance alone. The international legal order is built on recognition within multilateral frameworks, particularly the United Nations system. Somaliland is not a member of the United Nations, is not recognized by the African Union, and does not participate as a sovereign state in international treaties. The territory it claims remains internationally recognized as part of the Federal Republic of Somalia, a UN member state whose sovereignty and territorial integrity are protected by the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly prohibits actions that undermine the territorial integrity or political independence of a member state, while Article 2(7) restricts interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. These provisions form the bedrock of the modern international legal order and are directly implicated in the Somaliland question.

Claims that the State of Israel has recognized or “re-recognized” Somaliland do not alter this legal reality. Recognition by an individual state is a unilateral political act and does not create statehood under international law. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly emphasized that legal status derives from objective criteria and international acceptance, not from isolated political endorsements. Moreover, the notion of “re – recognition” is legally meaningless in this context, as Somaliland was never previously recognized by Israel as a sovereign state. Even if Israel were to issue a formal recognition, such an act would remain legally ineffective in altering Somaliland’s status and would not bind other states or international organizations. Recognition that supports or consolidates an unlawful situation, namely, the unilateral secession of territory from a UN member state without consent is widely regarded as contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and therefore lacking legitimacy.

The prospect of Ethiopia recognizing Somaliland raises even more serious legal concerns. Ethiopia is a neighboring state, a regional power, and a founding member of the African Union. Its obligations are not limited to the UN Charter but extend to the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which explicitly affirms respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states and the preservation of borders existing at independence. This principle, commonly referred to as uti possidetis juris, has been central to preventing widespread fragmentation and conflict across Africa. Any Ethiopian recognition of Somaliland would directly contravene these obligations, undermine Somalia’s sovereignty, and weaken the collective security architecture of the African Union. Recognition motivated by strategic considerations, such as access to maritime routes, further erodes international norms by reducing recognition to a transactional tool rather than a principled legal acknowledgment.

Speculation regarding Kenyan President William Ruto’s anticipated engagement with the United Arab Emirates leadership in connection with Somaliland recognition must also be viewed through this legal lens. Kenya, as a key African Union member and long-standing participant in Somalia related peace and stabilization efforts, is bound by the same legal and normative commitments as Ethiopia. Kenya has historically upheld Somalia’s territorial integrity, hosted Somali institutions, and supported UN- and AU led processes. Any Kenyan move toward recognition of Somaliland would therefore represent a dramatic departure from its established legal and diplomatic positions and would risk undermining its credibility within regional and international forums. Meetings between Kenyan and Emirati leaders, even if they include discussions on the Horn of Africa, do not constitute legal endorsement of Somaliland’s statehood. Economic engagement, infrastructure investment, or strategic dialogue cannot substitute for lawful recognition within multilateral frameworks.

The role of the United Arab Emirates is often mischaracterized in recognition narratives. While the UAE has commercial and logistical interests in Berbera and elsewhere in the region, international law draws a clear distinction between economic activity and sovereign recognition. Commercial agreements, port management, and investment do not confer international legal personality or alter territorial status. The UAE has not advanced Somaliland’s membership in the United Nations, nor has it challenged Somalia’s internationally recognized sovereignty. Conflating economic engagement with legal recognition is a deliberate rhetorical strategy, not a reflection of international legal practice.

Alarmist claims that recognition of Somaliland will plunge Eritrea and Egypt into strategic “darkness” are similarly detached from legal and geopolitical reality. International relations are governed by law, institutions, and long-standing alliances, not by symbolic recognitions of unrecognized entities. Egypt’s engagement in the Horn of Africa is anchored in international law, particularly the protection of Somalia’s sovereignty and regional security arrangements recognized by the UN. Eritrea’s regional posture is shaped by its own security calculations and multilateral engagements, not by Somaliland’s contested status. No unilateral recognition of Somaliland by Israel, Ethiopia, Kenya, or any Gulf state has the legal capacity to marginalize these states or fundamentally reshape regional power dynamics. Such rhetoric risks inflaming tensions and encouraging misperceptions that could lead to diplomatic or security miscalculations.

Arguments that Ethiopia’s or Kenya’s economic needs justify recognition misunderstand the legal framework governing landlocked states and maritime access. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes the right of landlocked states to freedom of transit to the sea, but this right operates strictly through agreements with sovereign coastal states and does not confer territorial rights or justify recognition of unrecognized entities. Ethiopia already enjoys lawful sea access through Djibouti and can expand commercial use of ports such as Berbera through contractual arrangements without violating international law. Recognition of Somaliland is neither necessary nor legally justified to achieve these economic objectives.

To conclude, the growing narrative of imminent recognitions, high-level diplomatic engagements, and dramatic regional consequences is built on political signaling rather than legal substance. International law is unequivocal: recognition does not create statehood, unilateral recognition that undermines territorial integrity is illegitimate, and sovereignty cannot be exchanged for strategic advantage. Any recognition of Somaliland outside Somalia’s consent and multilateral legal frameworks will remain legally ineffective and politically destabilizing. Rather than bringing clarity or progress, such actions risk eroding the authority of the United Nations, weakening African Union norms, and increasing polarization in an already fragile region. A sustainable and lawful path forward for the Horn of Africa lies in respect for international law, adherence to established borders, and constructive engagement with Somalia as the internationally recognized sovereign state, not in unilateral recognitions or alarmist rhetoric that promise change but deliver instability.