By Abdirahman Mohamed Gure - Somali writer and political analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and regional geopolitics. He writes on politics, art and philosophy.
“States are not measured by the condition of their temporary governments, but by their legal legitimacy, which remains constant regardless of changing political circumstances and shifting balances of power.” - Abdirahman Gure
Whenever Somalia’s future returns to public debate, the same question inevitably arises: has the unity of the Somali state become a political issue open to negotiation, or does it remain a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised regardless of changing political circumstances?
Although the question appears political, its foundation is legal. States do not derive their legitimacy from the governments that temporarily administer them or from shifting balances of power. Their legitimacy rests on the legal basis upon which they were established and the international recognition that affirmed their existence and defined their borders.
From this perspective, Somalia’s territorial integrity is not merely a matter of political disagreement. It concerns the legal foundation upon which the Somali Republic has existed since independence.
This explains why the principle of Somalia’s unity has remained constant despite decades of conflict. The country has experienced civil war, institutional collapse, political instability and successive governments with different agendas. Yet throughout these changes, international recognition of Somalia as a single sovereign state within its internationally recognized borders has never been withdrawn or revised.
When British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland united on 1 July 1960, they did not establish a temporary political arrangement. They created a sovereign state under international law. That state was recognized by other countries, admitted to the United Nations and regional organizations, and acquired an independent international legal personality.
Crucially, that recognition was directed to the Somali state itself—not to any individual government. This distinction explains why Somalia retained its legal personality despite the prolonged crises that followed.
International law does not make the existence of a state dependent upon the strength of its institutions or the effectiveness of its government. If it did, many countries would disappear from the international system whenever they experienced civil wars or constitutional crises.
Instead, international law recognizes that a state’s legal personality continues even when its institutions become weak or dysfunctional. Political instability may affect governance, but it does not erase the legal existence of the state.
That principle explains why Somalia retained its seat at the United Nations throughout the years when no effective central government existed. International recognition remained intact, and Somalia was never treated as a collection of separate sovereign entities. The international community consistently regarded the crisis as one affecting state institutions—not the legal existence of the Somali state.
For this reason, territorial integrity occupies a central place in the United Nations Charter, which identifies respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as fundamental principles governing relations among states.
The African Union reinforced this approach by adopting the principle of respecting borders inherited at independence. African leaders understood that reopening colonial boundaries across the continent would invite endless territorial disputes and undermine regional stability.
This was not simply a political preference but an essential legal principle. If borders could be revised whenever political disagreements emerged, no African state would enjoy lasting legal certainty.
Somalia is no exception. Every major international and regional initiative concerning Somalia has proceeded from recognition of the Federal Government as the legitimate representative of the Somali state while reaffirming Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Neither the United Nations, the African Union, the League of Arab States nor the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has treated Somalia’s unity as negotiable. Rather, it has consistently served as the legal starting point for every diplomatic effort concerning the country.
At the same time, defending Somalia’s unity does not require ignoring its political challenges. Somalia continues to build a more effective federal system, improve governance, strengthen public institutions and develop mechanisms for managing political diversity. These are legitimate objectives that deserve dialogue and reform.
However, such reforms differ fundamentally from questioning the existence of the state or its internationally recognized borders.
Federalism regulates the distribution of authority within one sovereign state. Sovereignty itself, however, cannot be divided because it provides the constitutional framework within which every public institution operates.
It is therefore essential to distinguish between political disagreements—which exist in every democratic society—and the legal principles upon which the state itself depends.
Debates over constitutional reform, power sharing or relations between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States are normal political questions that can be addressed through legislation, negotiation and consensus. The unity of the state, however, is not subject to political bargaining because it forms the foundation upon which the entire constitutional order rests.
Related articles
Some political arguments invoke the principle of self-determination to justify reconsidering existing borders. Yet international law presents a far more nuanced picture.
Historically, self-determination was principally associated with decolonization, allowing peoples under foreign rule to establish independent states. Once that process largely concluded, respect for the territorial integrity of existing states became the governing principle of international relations.
Cases of secession have remained exceptional, arising under unique legal, political and humanitarian circumstances. They have never evolved into a general rule applicable to every political dispute.
Accordingly, isolated international precedents cannot simply be replicated elsewhere. International law evaluates each case within its own historical, legal and political context. What applies in one exceptional situation does not automatically become a universal legal principle, particularly where a state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity continue to enjoy universal international recognition.
Somalia’s strategic location further reinforces the importance of this principle. Positioned along one of the world’s most significant maritime corridors, Somalia occupies a central place in the security architecture of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean.
Any alteration to Somalia’s legal status would therefore have consequences extending well beyond its borders. This helps explain the continued international commitment to Somalia’s stability within the framework of its recognized territorial unity.
Preserving national unity also serves Somalia’s own interests. Combating terrorism, rebuilding institutions, expanding economic opportunities and delivering public services all require a functioning state supported by effective national institutions rather than increasing political fragmentation.
The stronger Somalia’s institutions become, the better equipped they will be to accommodate diversity, resolve disputes peacefully and improve the lives of citizens throughout the country.
Defending Somalia’s unity should never be interpreted as opposing political reform. Strong states encourage debate about improving governance and strengthening institutions. Such debate, however, is most productive when it begins from a shared recognition that the state itself provides the common constitutional framework for all citizens.
Reducing national unity to a temporary political disagreement would therefore be a profound mistake. States do not endure because governments remain in power. They endure because their legal legitimacy, established through history and recognized internationally, survives political change.
Somalia illustrates this principle. Despite extraordinary challenges, the Somali Republic has preserved its international legal personality, retained its place within the international community and maintained the legal foundation upon which it was established in 1960.
The real debate about Somalia’s future should therefore focus on building stronger institutions, improving governance, deepening the rule of law and creating economic opportunities that benefit all Somalis.
Reasonable people may disagree over constitutional reform, federal arrangements or the distribution of political authority. Such debates are both legitimate and necessary. What should not become a matter of dispute is the legal existence of the Somali state itself, because the state is the framework that makes democratic politics possible.
For these reasons, Somalia’s territorial unity represents far more than a political slogan or an emotional aspiration. It is the legal foundation upon which the Republic was established, the cornerstone of more than six decades of international recognition and the indispensable framework for building a stable, effective and prosperous state.
That is why Somalia’s territorial integrity remains a principle that cannot be compromised.
———
Abdirahman Mohamed Gure is a Somali writer and political analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and regional geopolitics. He writes on politics, art and philosophy.
Email: gure57@gmail.com
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Dawan Africa.