The Republic of Somaliland presents one of the most intriguing and legally nuanced cases in contemporary international law. Since reclaiming its independence from Somalia in 1991, Somaliland has functioned as a de facto state—complete with its own government, currency, democratic elections, and relative stability—yet it remains unrecognized by most of the international community.
As of December 2025, Israel became the first United Nations member state to formally recognize the Republic of Somaliland as a sovereign entity. This development has renewed legal and scholarly discussion concerning Somaliland’s historical entitlement to statehood, the legal validity of the 1960 union with Somalia, and the application of foundational principles of international and African law, including uti possidetis juris.
Somaliland’s argument is distinctive: it is not a secessionist movement seeking to carve out new territory from an existing state but rather a restoration of sovereignty that existed briefly but independently in 1960. This position aligns closely with international legal standards and AU precedents, even as political realities have long delayed recognition.
Historical Foundations: Independence and the Flawed Union of 1960
On June 26, 1960, the former British Somaliland Protectorate achieved full independence as the State of Somaliland. It was recognized by approximately 35 states, including major powers, and entered the international system as a sovereign entity with defined borders and legal personality.
Just five days later, on July 1, 1960, Somaliland voluntarily united with the former Italian-administered Trust Territory of Somalia to form the Somali Republic. The union was driven by pan-Somali nationalism but was marred by procedural flaws. The agreed-upon Act of Union was intended as a bilateral treaty requiring mutual ratification. Somaliland’s legislature passed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law on June 27, but Somalia’s assembly never properly ratified an identical instrument. Instead, Somalia’s legislature approved a different version “in principle,” and the union proceeded via a provisional constitution adopted by acclamation without full debate or harmonization.
Legal scholars have long questioned the union’s validity. Experts, including those citing analyses from the era, note that the absence of a single, ratified Act of Union rendered the merger legally defective. The union never fully extinguished Somaliland’s prior sovereignty under international law, a point reinforced by the fact that the 1961 retroactive Act of Union (passed in Somalia) attempted to dissolve Somaliland’s independence backdated to 1960—a violation of principles against retroactive legislation.
Restoration, Not Secession: The 1991 DeclarationThe union’s collapse came amid Somalia’s descent into civil war and the brutal repression of northern populations (including the 1988–1991 destruction of Hargeisa). In May 1991, Somaliland’s elders and the Somali National Movement (SNM) revoked the union at the Burao Conference, reasserting sovereignty within the original colonial borders.
This act is not secession from a functioning state but restoration of a pre-existing sovereignty. International law distinguishes between unlawful secession (which presupposes an effective central authority) and the dissolution of defective unions or the restoration of prior statehood.
Alignment with African Union Principles
The AU’s foundational document, the Constitutive Act, emphasizes territorial integrity and respect for borders existing at independence—codified in the principle of uti possidetis juris. This rule, adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1964, aims to prevent border disputes by preserving colonial boundaries.
Somaliland’s claim adheres strictly to this principle: its territory matches the former British Somaliland Protectorate’s borders, without seeking to alter or annex others. Far from threatening African unity, Somaliland’s position upholds the integrity of inherited borders by rejecting the unlawful expansion of a failed union. Critics fear recognition could open a “Pandora’s box” of secessionism, but Somaliland’s unique historical context—pre-existing independence and a defective merger—sets it apart.
The 2005 AU Fact-Finding Mission:
A Pivotal AssessmentIn April–May 2005, the AU dispatched a Fact-Finding Mission to Somaliland. The mission’s report was remarkably sympathetic, concluding that the 1960 union was never properly ratified and “malfunctioned,” leading to injustice and suffering. It described Somaliland’s case as “historically unique and self-justified” in African political history, noting its democratic governance, effective institutions, and popular support for independence.
The mission recommended a “special method” for addressing the case without equating it to ordinary secessionism. It highlighted how non-recognition hindered development and urged the AU to engage. Despite this authoritative endorsement, the AU has not acted, prioritizing Somalia’s territorial integrity amid ongoing instability.
Current Developments and the Path Forward
As of late December 2025, Israel’s recognition constitutes a significant legal and diplomatic development. In this context, the Republic of Somaliland regards recognition as further affirmation of the legal basis of its position under international law.
Under the declaratory theory of statehood (per the 1933 Montevideo Convention), Somaliland meets the criteria: a permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity for international relations. Recognition remains primarily political, not legal. Continued non-recognition stems from caution over African precedents, not inherent deficiencies in Somaliland’s case.
An AU-led process—perhaps a new fact-finding mission or mediated dialogue—could resolve this impasse. Recognition would affirm legal norms rather than undermine them, rewarding effective governance and peace in a volatile region.
In conclusion, Somaliland’s quest is grounded in verifiable history, flawed legal foundations of the 1960 union, and alignment with AU principles. The 2005 mission’s findings and Israel’s recent move underscore its exceptional status. As the Horn of Africa evolves, addressing Somaliland’s case could enhance regional stability, demonstrating that international law can accommodate unique circumstances without jeopardizing the continental order.
Dr. Abdisamad Omar Mal
Senior Legal Advisor to H.E. the President
Republic of Somaliland
