The notion that Ethiopia holds any legitimate claim to Eritrea’s Red Sea coastline is fundamentally flawed, both historically and in terms of international law. During the Scramble for Africa, Ethiopia’s emperors, including Menelik II, never fought Italy over Eritrea as though it were sovereign Ethiopian territory. In fact, when Emperor Menelik signed the Treaty of Wuchale with King Umberto I of Italy, establishing colonial boundaries, Eritrea was effectively relinquished. That moment marked the formal and irreversible loss of Eritrea to the Ethiopian crown.
The second, and arguably more decisive, failure,, came during the armed struggle for Eritrean independence. Ethiopia’s inability to defeat the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front EPLF, despite overwhelming military efforts, signalled the collapse of its de facto claim to the region. Eritrea, at the time still considered a mere province, asserted its right to self determination through force and resilience.
The final and most definitive blow to any Ethiopian claim was delivered in 1993, when Ethiopia itself formally requested a UNsupervised referendum, which culminated in Eritrea’s overwhelming vote for independence. That act consensual, legal, and internationally recognised ,sealed Eritrea’s sovereign status under international law.
Ethiopian expansionists often cite the historical use of the port of Assab during the federation era, arguing that this justifies a contemporary claim. However, historical utility is not a basis for territorial entitlement in modern international law. Others draw false parallels with Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Yet even that action backed by military force and nuclear deterrence remains widely condemned and legally invalid. Furthermore, Russia's claim is at least underpinned by a contested notion of ethnic selfdetermination something entirely absent in the case of Assab, whose population is not ethnically or politically aligned with Ethiopia.
Unless the Eritrean government, through its own volition, were to request a new UN-supervised referendum a scenario that is virtually inconceivable under President Isaias or any foreseeable successor, Ethiopia has no legal pathway to claim Eritrean territory.
Barring a seismic global shift, such as a third world war leading to the collapse of the current international system Ethiopia's aspiration to regain access to the Red Sea through Eritrean land remains a political fantasy with no legal foundation. For now, and for the foreseeable future, Ethiopia has zero legitimate claim over Eritrea’s coastline indeed.
dr zackovich
Re: Why Ethiopia has no right to Eritrean sea shores
The UAE that got kicked out of Djibouti for meddling into the country's internal affairs has no right to use Ethiopia to destabilize the region.
Re: Why Ethiopia has no right to Eritrean sea shores
You cannot speak on the behalf of Ethiopia. Ethiopians clearly and loudly spoke Assab is theirs. God created Read Sea and Assab for Ethiopia, the country of 130 millions; the largest country in East Africa with rich history that goes back thousands years ago. No tiny mini born 3 decades back can stand as witness to testify about Ethiopia. The oldest nation on God's green earth, Ethiopia is the prime owner of Red Sea. Swallow the bitter truth in peace, if not in peace your would be forced to swallow bullets. No cheap trick, UN this or that says work.
Re: Why Ethiopia has no right to Eritrean sea shores
.Abere wrote: ↑06 Jun 2025, 15:56You cannot speak on the behalf of Ethiopia. Ethiopians clearly and loudly spoke Assab is theirs. God created Read Sea and Assab for Ethiopia, the country of 130 millions; the largest country in East Africa with rich history that goes back thousands years ago. No tiny mini born 3 decades back can stand as witness to testify about Ethiopia. The oldest nation on God's green earth, Ethiopia is the prime owner of Red Sea. Swallow the bitter truth in peace, if not in peace your would be forced to swallow bullets. No cheap trick, UN this or that says work.
Historical legacy and the mere antiquity of a nation’s existence are not, in themselves, valid grounds for claiming territory within the borders of another sovereign state. Even the most ancient and storied claims often falter under scrutiny and are bogus to some extend. but By that logic, Eritrea could assert itself as the rightful successor to the Axumite Empire, citing the presence of ethnic Eritreans in eastern Sudan and the early Himyarite and Sabaean influences in the Horn of Africa, which largely emanated from Eritrean territory. Yet such a claim would still hold no legal standing under international law it would remain a historical assertion and a mere feeling dear lad, not a legitimate entitlement.
What is being put forth, therefore, is little more than conjecture an appeal to historical sentiment rather than lawful sovereignty. In fact, if we are to entertain historical claims, Somalia’s position over a significant portion of Ethiopia is far more grounded. The Somali empires of Ifat and Adal once ruled vast swathes of the Horn, and today Somalis constitute a majority in nearly one third of Ethiopia’s territory. Their claim, rooted in both history and demography, bears far more substance than Ethiopia’s tenuous aspirations toward Eritrean land indeed
In international relations, legitimacy is defined not by romanticised fantasy histories but by legal agreements, recognised borders, and the consent of governed peoples indeed.
Dr Zackovich