Mereja.Forum

Asovereign state is a state that has the highest authority over a territory.[1] International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.[2] It is commonly understood that a sovereign state is independent.[3] A sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states.[4][5] However, unrecognized states often have difficulty engaging in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states due to their lack of international recognition.

Can Ethiopia recognize Somali Land. Read the following two types of territorial recognition.

Constitutive theory
edit
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[24] In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result, it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[25]



One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.[24]

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:

International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[26]

International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[26]

The second type.

Declarative theory
edit
Main article: Montevideo Convention
By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[27]

A "territory" in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered as territories sufficient for statehood. The term "permanent population" defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable to support the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement of a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as "effective control test") and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The "capacity to enter into relations with other states" reflects the entity's degree of independence.[28]

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.[29] In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. An important part of the convention was Article 11 which prohibits using military force to gain sovereignty.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.[30]

State recognition
edit
See also: List of states with limited recognition
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.[31] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[32] Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".[33]

In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus.[34] International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[35] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[36] On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".[37] On 9 October 2014, the US's Federal Court stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".[38][39][40] On 2 September 2015, ECtHR decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".[41] On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island".[42] and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal. Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus.[43] As a country, Northern Cyprus became an observer member in various international organizations (the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (TURKPA), etc.).

The question for you guys,
If Ethiopia recognizes Somali Land as a State, would that allow Somali land to gain its own sovereignty separate from Somalia. The answer is no. It would have worked prior to Second World War.
Is Ethiopia violating Somalia’s Sovereignity. Yes. Can Somalia declare war on Ethiopia. Definitely yes. Ethiopia has crossed the red territory with its signature to interfer with sovereignty of another nation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei ... ndependent.

First of all the Somaliland case is different or strange to compare to other cases.
First the Somaliland goverment doesnt consider themselves par tof the Sovreignty of Somalia even taiwan considers it self part of china just a different governemtn of china . Somaliland It says it never signed any sort of agreement to recognise Somalia constitution. It says the constitution of 1960 isnt no longer there there for we arre not part of it,which can be partly a claim . This one is not ours and we have our own constitution for 30 some years. This is their claim allegedly.
In yes if we have to understand the case yes Ethiopia is violating International law because its bypassing Somalia government in making such a deal which has ramifications for the entire region . Including Djihouti and Somalia and Ethiopia also

now let me be devils advocate Ethiopia can say Somaliland act of union with Somalia isnt ratified the law of 1960 ,there for we are dealing with the successor state of British Somaliland. It can also say we are following the fact finding mission of 2005 where as the African union stipulated that Somaliland case for independence isnt that of secession.

Ethiopia can also make it obvious say that for a long period of time Ethiopia had an understanding with Somaliland it was using Berbera port. it recognised Somaliland passport as legitimate document to Enter Ethiopia. It has a diplomatic office in Hargeisa there is a diplomat there with the rank of an Ambassador.

This diplomatic office isnt connected what so ever with the Ethiopian Embassy in Mogadishu. It says that Ethiopia had established these diplomatic ties prior to the existence of a Somali goverment in Mogadishu.

Now what is Somalia claim. Somalia claim simple Somaliland is part and parcel of Somalia politically despite not having any control over Somaliland , but lawfully the break away republic is part and parcel of Somalia , The rest of the world Views it that way. The United nations the Arab league , the AU IGAD.

Somalia claims despite its goverment being weak that Ethiopia is taking advantage of Somalia because of its fragile situation and it shouldnt do that and that Ethiopia is in breach of international law
.
according to international law , Somalia can sue Ethiopia because of its claim or if it makes or has an understanding with Somaliland. So if Ethiopia movies inside Somaliland a territory claimed by Somalia goverment .Then its violating Somalia Sovreignty how ever if Ethiopia creates a political reality on the ground and convince the AU and other african countries to recognise Somaliland independence it can diminish Somalia claim a bit . but not by much Because the United nations will still condemn Ethiopia for interfering with Somalia domestic affairs. Ethiopia can say then in its defense but i dont think they will go that route because it will back fire , They would say Somaliland case for independence is self determinmation the region operated as a country for decades. We just honered the wishes of the people based on democratic credentials .

And self determination which is a principle of the United nation , How it maybe so. Ethiopia cant say this. because Somalia will say in response if u support self determination then why not support the self determination of the Somalis and the Gallas inside ethiopia the Ogaden region . So it cant go that route. How ever it can hide behind other countries if it convinces other countries to follow Ethiopia effort to recognise Somalilands independence from Somalia, It is going to be a bumpy ride for Ethiopia. Because Somalia is not the same as it was before it has friends in the world Egypt Turkey and others that have vital interests in Somalia.


How ever if Ethiopia formally recognises Somaliland unilateral declaration of independence from Somalia of 1991 . It isnt breaking any law. Every nation has the right to recognise any sort of territory as it pleases Turkey does with northern cyprus Russa does with South osethia the African Union does that with the western sahara . for example the European countries recognise Kosovo as an independent state because they feel so , non of the European countries are being viewed by the world or the UN that it is in breach of International law. How ever the UN wont recognise it because Serbia makes a claim over kosovo and is a member of the UN any attempt to do a vote to allow kosovo in the UN , gets a veto from Russia.

Dr Zackovich

Zack,

Over African Affairs, who has the overriding authority between the UN and AU ? I believe it is the UN. But, out of courtesy and practicality, the UN allows for AU to deal with the local controversies first. Granted that the government of Somalia is complaining about the violation of Somalia’s sovereignty, and we all know that the Somalian government failed to excercise its duties over Somali land for three decades has any relevance to it ?

I think it all boils down to the interpretation of the law and all the related important circumstances of the issue at hand.

Somaliland has been independent for over 33 years or so, having all the institutions that a sovereign state has got, including (at least to some level) foreign relations. Many sovereign states of the world do have their bilateral relation and diplomatic offices in the country.

That makes it a de-facto independent state of the world, but not yet de-jure.

De-jure it is still considered part of Somalia, which has no bearing on the daily lives of the people living in the state of Somaliland.

These hard facts alone make it a far-fetched comparison the case of Somaliland with a sort of internal aspiration of secessionist forces in some countries, like the one existing (existed) in Ethiopia, which is no more so prevalent today as it used to be during the last quarters of the 20th century, as an example.

Interpretation of the law can never easily be overtaken from a case to another one by all laymen like the participants of this forum, including myself. It has to be given its own legal interpretation, in case by case consideration and investigation of the related facts on the ground.

In my layman's view the issue of Somaliland, which is de-facto independent, will easily gain a legal confirmation of de jure independence, after all it is the lives of human beings which is at stake here in the end.

For a comparison of a de facto and de jure weight in the legal context refer to the following article from Britannica encyclopedia.

De facto, (Latin: “from the fact”) a legal concept used to refer to what happens in reality or in practice, as opposed to de jure (“from the law”), which refers to what is actually notated in legal code. For example, a de facto leader is someone who exerts authority over a country but whose legitimacy is broadly rejected, while a de jure leader has a legal right to authority whether or not that authority can be executed. These terms are often important in legal matters where the de facto practice—though widely accepted, known, and used—differs from the legal standard.

In international law, there has long been the question of de facto governments and leaders and their legitimacy to rule. The phrase de facto is often attached to leaders and governments that acquired power through illegitimate means. According to the World Bank, “a ‘de facto government’ comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d’état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.” If organizations, such as the World Bank, and other countries choose to conduct business with and recognize the de facto leader or government, they can help to confirm and validate that entity as legitimate. Thus the decision to recognize a de facto government or leader can be contentious, and leaders and governments of individual countries often disagree.

In terms of politics, a notable example is the de facto constitution of Hong Kong, the Basic Law, which was implemented following the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China from Britain. The document guarantees residents certain freedoms and human rights and preserves a degree of autonomy for the special administrative region. Beijing maintains the sole authority to interpret this de facto constitution, however, and a year after mass pro-democracy protests in 2019, it imposed a national security law, which ended many of the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. The national security law has been widely criticized by international leaders and human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The difference between de facto and de jure can be important in cases where one group of people has been disadvantaged or disparaged and legal action depends on determining whether the treatment was conducted unofficially, in a de facto manner, or via sanctioned prejudice, de jure. In such cases, de facto practices can be harder to successfully challenge. This has been particularly true of racial desegregation in the United States. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court held that public school systems could not have separate educational facilities for white and Black students. However, in subsequent years various policies were undertaken that while not explicitly promoting segregation (de jure) still had that effect (de facto). This was the central issue of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), which involved segregated schools in Detroit and its suburbs. At the time Detroit was predominantly Black, while the surrounding suburbs were largely white. According to critics this racial disparity was achieved, in part, through unfair housing policies, such as redlining, that discriminated against Blacks. With Black students having been prevented from living in suburban school districts, the school district boundaries, it was argued, promoted segregation. A lower court agreed, and a plan was devised to bus Detroit students to the suburbs. The Supreme Court, however, overruled the proposal, declaring that there was “no showing of significant violation” by the suburban school districts. To some observers, this decision endorsed de facto segregation.

The delineation between the two terms is also at issue in the regulation of international trade. In 2000 the World Trade Organization (WTO) reviewed a complaint concerning the importation of automotive products into Canada. At issue was the country’s tax laws which granted reduced fees and duties to the United States and Mexico. Japan and the European Union questioned whether the tax disadvantaged certain imported products while privileging others. Also at issue was whether any privilege was de facto, conferred as a by-product of the law, or de jure, applied through intentionally discriminatory practice. The WTO held that there was de facto discrimination, and Canada was forced to adjust its policies on the importation of automotive products.

De facto may also be used in situations where no official law (de jure) exists. A notable example is a language widely spoken in a country and used by the government to conduct business though the country has no official language; e.g., English is the de facto official language of the United States. De facto may also refer to long-term domestic partnerships where no formal legal agreement was entered into but all the other prerequisites of marriage have been met (a “de facto marriage”).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/de-facto

Somaliland is not expecting an immediate UN approval , because china doesn't like how we are meddling with Taiwan. How ever Ethiopian recognition can open doors for somaliland, and Somalia will eventually accept it. Ethiopia can't sign deal with somaliland without first recognising it. That's illegal. So Ethiopia has no choice but to gamble with Somaliland , or rely with those hostile countries that can turn against you any minute.

Ethiopia should Train somaliland military , they can handle the internal security of the country. No Ethiopian forces needed to defend us in case Somalia or alshabaab attacks us on the ground . There is clear line of control between us. So you are not wasting any lives here. Just defend your assss inside the ocean. That's it .

Dark Energy wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 00:13

Zack,

Over African Affairs, who has the overriding authority between the UN and AU ? I believe it is the UN. But, out of courtesy and practicality, the UN allows for AU to deal with the local controversies first. Granted that the government of Somalia is complaining about the violation of Somalia’s sovereignty, and we all know that the Somalian government failed to excercise its duties over Somali land for three decades has any relevance to it ?

Well in the legal way of doing things it should have been the African Union to set up all the frame works for all things African. how ever the United nations handles security issues and diplomatic issues which threatens Western Interests. the UN in reality is the US with another name. The best way forward to solve this matter is for Somalia and Somaliland to solve these matters between themselves. I think there is a role for Eritrea in here to Mediate beween Somalia and Somaliland , since Eritrea profoundly expressed it cared for Somali interests. i think there is a possibility there indeed

Dr Zackovich