Legal Brief: Somaliland’s Sovereignty and Withdrawal from the Union with Somalia

The Case for Somaliland’s Recognition as a Sovereign State: A Legal-Historical Argument Based on Paolo Contini’s Account

Paolo Contini’s The Somali Republic: An Experiment in Legal Integration (1969) provides a detailed account of the independence of both Italian Somalia and British Somaliland. His narrative demonstrates that these were two distinct states that briefly attempted a union in 1960. From the Somaliland perspective, this history forms the foundation of a concrete legal argument for recognition today.

Italian Somalia was placed under a United Nations trusteeship administered by Italy between 1949 and 1960, with independence scheduled for July 1, 1960. British Somaliland, by contrast, was a protectorate established through treaties with Somali clans between 1894 and 1897. It was never part of Italian Somalia and followed a completely separate legal and political trajectory.

On June 26, 1960, British Somaliland became an independent sovereign state. It had a constitution annexed to the Somaliland Order in Council, a Council of Ministers led by Prime Minister Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal, and a Legislative Assembly of thirty-three elected members. Most importantly, Somaliland’s independence was recognized internationally, as it exchanged diplomatic notes with multiple states affirming its sovereignty.

Five days later, on July 1, 1960, Somaliland voluntarily united with Italian Somalia to form the Somali Republic. Yet this union was defective from the outset. Somaliland passed its own Act of Union in Hargeisa, while Somalia passed a different version in Mogadiscio. No single ratified instrument binding both states was ever adopted. Contini himself notes that the union was more a political arrangement than a legally perfected treaty.

This raises critical legal issues. Was Somaliland a sovereign state prior to the union? Did it legally surrender its sovereignty in July 1960? And does it retain the right under international law to withdraw from the union and restore its independence?

The answers are clear. Contini’s account confirms that Somaliland was independent and recognized on June 26, 1960. Sovereignty was established through a constitution, functioning government institutions, and international recognition.

Therefore, Somaliland entered the union as a sovereign equal, not as a subordinate territory. The union itself lacked a single ratified treaty binding both states. Under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be mutually ratified and binding to have legal effect.³ The Somali union failed this test. Thus, Somaliland’s sovereignty was not extinguished, only conditionally shared.

Because the union was defective, Somaliland retains the right to withdraw and restore independence. This is not secession but continuity of statehood. International law principles support this position. The doctrine of uti possidetis juris affirms that colonial administrative boundaries define the territorial limits of post-independence states. Applied here, Somaliland’s protectorate boundaries established under British treaties remain valid and internationally recognizable. This principle has been consistently upheld in cases across Africa and Latin America to prevent boundary disputes and safeguard the territorial integrity of newly independent states.¹ ²

The principle of self-determination further supports the right of Somaliland’s people to reclaim sovereignty when the union fails to serve their interests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, based on Paolo Contini’s account, Somaliland’s case for recognition rests on historical fact and legal continuity. It was a sovereign state in June 1960, the union with Somalia was never legally perfected, and withdrawal today is a lawful restoration of sovereignty, not secession. Recognition of Somaliland would simply acknowledge the reality documented by Contini: two distinct states briefly united under a flawed arrangement, with Somaliland now reclaiming its rightful independence. The doctrine of uti possidetis juris reinforces this claim by affirming the legitimacy of Somaliland’s colonial-era boundaries as the foundation of its enduring statehood.

References

1. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22).
2. Oxford Public International Law, Uti possidetis Doctrine (2018).
3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
4. Dirdeiry M. Ahmed, Boundaries and Secession in Africa and International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2015).

Annotated Bibliography

Ahmed, Dirdeiry M. Boundaries and Secession in Africa and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  → Explains how the ICJ’s reliance on uti possidetis juris preserved colonial boundaries in Africa, even when arbitrary, to prevent fragmentation and disputes.

•  International Court of Justice. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali). Judgment of 22 December 1986. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.
•  → Landmark case affirming uti possidetis juris as a binding principle of international law, ensuring colonial boundaries define post-independence states.
•  Oxford Public International Law. “Uti possidetis Doctrine.” Oxford University Press, 2018.
   → Provides scholarly analysis of the doctrine’s origins in Latin America and its universal application, later extended to Africa during decolonization.
• United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Done at Vienna, May 23, 1969. Entered into force January 27, 1980. U.N. Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
  → Establishes that treaties must be mutually ratified and binding to have legal effect, reinforcing Somaliland’s argument that the 1960 union lacked validity.