Page 1 of 1

Everything is unraveling

Posted: 11 Jun 2025, 11:23
by Zmeselo



Re: Everything is unraveling

Posted: 11 Jun 2025, 11:31
by Zmeselo


The Inviolability of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity vs. Landlocked States’ Right of Access to the Sea

By Absareeki

The principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is a cornerstone of international law. Any demand by a land-locked country for sovereign access through another country’s territory challenges the foundational norms of state sovereignty.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) addresses the rights of landlocked states in Part X, particularly Articles 124 through 132. Article 125 affirms that landlocked states shall enjoy the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising the freedoms of the high seas, including freedom of navigation. Crucially, this access must be

on terms to be agreed between the land-locked States and transit States concerned through bilateral, subregional or regional agreements.


This clause reinforces the sovereignty of coastal states by making clear that any access depends on mutual consent.

Furthermore, Article 125(2) states that transit arrangements must respect the

sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence


of the transit state.

In effect, landlocked states have the right to negotiate access, but not to demand sovereign corridors or infringe upon the host state’s authority.

This principle was affirmed in the landmark case Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2018. Bolivia (a landlocked country) argued that Chile (a coastal nation) had a legal obligation to negotiate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The ICJ, however, ruled that Chile was under no such obligation, reaffirming that while landlocked states have the right to access the sea for trade, this does not equate to a right to sovereign territory or corridors. The decision underscored that such matters remain subject to mutual agreement and cannot override the territorial sovereignty of coastal nations.

Any attempt by a landlocked state to forcibly acquire sovereign access to the sea—through invasion, coercion, or threat of force—would constitute an act of aggression under international law. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), particularly Article 8 bis, the crime of aggression involves the

planning, preparation, initiation or execution


of acts of force by a person in a position of control that violate the UN Charter in a manifest manner.

Such acts are not merely violations of treaty obligations; they breach jus cogens norms—peremptory principles of international law from which no derogation is permitted.

In this context, recent statements and actions by Ethiopia, a landlocked state, raise serious legal and diplomatic concerns. Even though all transit states in the Horn of Africa—such as Djibouti, Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan—have shown goodwill and willingness to accommodate Ethiopia’s needs for access to the sea in accordance with UNCLOS provisions, Ethiopia has chosen to engage in sabre-rattling and rhetoric demanding sovereign access. Such posturing is not only diplomatically inflammatory but also legally baseless. It violates the principle of peaceful negotiation enshrined in UNCLOS and constitutes a threat of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

By invoking the possibility of force or coercion to achieve territorial access, Ethiopia risks crossing a threshold that may fall within the scope of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. The use or threat of force to alter internationally recognized boundaries or to claim corridors of sovereignty undermines the legal order established to prevent conflict and protect national sovereignty. Leaders who advocate or pursue such strategies expose themselves to potential criminal liability under international law.

Peaceful cooperation and regional integration remain the only legitimate paths for resolving transit and access issues. Any departure from this framework— particularly one that involves pressure or threats against neighboring states—represents a grave violation of international norms. The international community must remain firm in upholding the inviolability of borders and the primacy of negotiated, lawful solutions in the Horn of Africa and beyond.

Victoria, B.C. Canada

Re: Everything is unraveling

Posted: 11 Jun 2025, 12:00
by ethiopianunity
Zemselo and Fyamenta anti Ethiopians,
typical expert on propoganda! This is how you deceive Tigrayans and Eritreans foolish they are.

Re: Everything is unraveling

Posted: 11 Jun 2025, 12:14
by DefendTheTruth
ሕልም አይከለከልም፣ ቅዠትም እንደዚያዉ!

Re: Everything is unraveling

Posted: 11 Jun 2025, 12:36
by Fiyameta
Ethiopians were made to accept their internal ethnic conflicts and divisions as their true nature, rather than something they should avoid, which led many of them to foster self hatred and have no qualm about destabilizing themselves in order to destabilize the whole region. Sea access is an excuse they use to reinforce the internalized negative stigma attached to the country as being prone to backwardness, man-made famines and conflicts.