Opinion- Law Makes a Nation—Illusion Does Not: Somaliland and the Test of Recognition

A state is not born through declarations, diplomatic surprises, or political convenience. It is born through law. Recognition that ignores law does not create sovereignty; it merely manufactures illusion. This distinction has become sharply relevant following Israel’s decision to recognize the self-declared Republic of Somaliland.

Modern international order is built on restraint. States do not acquire legitimacy by announcing themselves or by winning the favor of a single foreign power. They acquire it through shared consent of their population, defined borders accepted by all stakeholders, effective and inclusive governance, and recognition that respects the rules governing territorial integrity. These are not abstract ideals; they are binding principles embedded in international law.

Somalia’s case is instructive. In 1960, the former British Somaliland and Italian Somalia entered a voluntary and lawful union to form the Somali Republic. This union was registered internationally, recognized by the United Nations, and accepted by the global community. No coercion was involved. Whatever political failures followed decades later did not dissolve the Somali state itself. Governments may collapse, but states do not disappear under international law.

The declaration of Somaliland’s secession in 1991 occurred in the context of state collapse, not lawful dissolution. Crucially, it has never been ratified through a nationally inclusive process nor accepted by the federal state that succeeded the Somali Republic.

Large communities within the territory claimed by Somaliland—particularly in Sool, Sanaag, and Cayn—have consistently rejected secession and aligned themselves with Somalia’s federal framework. This absence of collective consent strikes at the core requirement of sovereignty.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland therefore does not resolve a legal question; it bypasses it. Recognition granted without the consent of the parent state amounts to endorsement of unilateral border change. Such an act weakens the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter and opens the door to similar claims elsewhere. If borders can be altered by selective recognition rather than negotiated settlement, the international system itself becomes unstable.

Recognition is not symbolic. It carries legal consequences. It signals which rules matter and which can be ignored. When recognition is extended to a secessionist entity outside a lawful process, it rewards fragmentation over compromise and sets a precedent that others may exploit. In regions already marked by fragile borders and unresolved conflicts, this is not a neutral act—it is a destabilizing one.

There is also a deeper danger. Discussions surrounding Somaliland’s recognition have increasingly been linked to geopolitical agendas, security arrangements, and even speculative talk of demographic relocation. Such ideas collide directly with humanitarian and international law. Forced demographic engineering or strategic population transfers—without the consent of a sovereign state—have historically produced long-term conflict, not stability. Law exists precisely to prevent such experiments.

The legal standards are not ambiguous. The Montevideo Convention defines the criteria of statehood. The UN Charter protects sovereignty and non-interference. Together, they form a system designed to balance self-determination with territorial integrity. Somaliland, despite developing local institutions and exercising de facto autonomy, has not crossed the threshold required for lawful statehood. That reality is legal, not emotional.