Opinion - Sovereignty First: The Limits of Somalia’s Federal States in Foreign Relations

Debates surrounding Somalia’s foreign agreements—particularly those involving ports, security cooperation, and military arrangements—have repeatedly exposed a fundamental misunderstanding of the country’s constitutional order. At the center of these disputes lies a core legal question: Do Somalia’s Federal Member States possess the authority to independently enter binding agreements with foreign governments?

Under both Somali constitutional law and international law, the answer is clear and unambiguous: they do not. The power to conduct foreign relations, conclude treaties, and represent the Somali state internationally rests exclusively with the Federal Government of Somalia.

This legal reality is not a matter of political interpretation or institutional preference; it is grounded in the text of the Somali Provisional Constitution and reinforced by well-established principles of international law governing state sovereignty and international legal personality.

Foreign Relations Under Somali Constitutional Law

The Somali Provisional Constitution provides a clear allocation of powers between the federal center and the Federal Member States. Article 54 of the Constitution explicitly centralizes authority over foreign affairs, stating that matters related to foreign policy, diplomacy, treaties, and international agreements fall under the exclusive competence of the Federal Government.

This provision leaves little room for ambiguity. While Somalia’s federal system allows for decentralization in internal governance—such as local administration, service delivery, and regional development—it does not extend to the international sphere. Federal Member States are not constitutionally empowered to recognize foreign states, negotiate treaties, or enter into military, security, or diplomatic agreements with foreign governments.

The constitutional logic is straightforward: Somalia is a single sovereign state, and sovereignty cannot be fragmented among its constituent units. International representation must therefore be exercised by one authority, acting on behalf of the state as a whole.

Attempts by regional administrations to justify independent foreign agreements often rely on selective readings of federalism or on regional constitutions. However, under Somalia’s constitutional hierarchy, regional constitutions cannot override or contradict the national constitution. Any regional legal framework that claims foreign-relations authority operates outside constitutional legality, regardless of political realities on the ground.

Federalism Does Not Equal International Personality

A critical distinction often overlooked in public discourse is the difference between internal federal autonomy and international legal personality. Federalism determines how power is shared within a state; it does not determine who represents the state externally.

Under international law, only entities possessing international legal personality may conclude treaties and enter binding agreements with other states. In Somalia’s case, that personality belongs solely to the Federal Government of Somalia.

Federal Member States are administrative and political entities created by the national constitutional framework. They are not subjects of international law. They cannot claim sovereign equality, treaty-making capacity, or diplomatic standing independent of the federal state.

This principle is consistent across federal systems worldwide. Whether in Germany, Ethiopia, Nigeria, or the United States, subnational entities may engage in limited technical cooperation or commercial outreach abroad—but only within parameters authorized by the federal constitution and never in a way that creates binding international obligations for the state.

In Somalia’s case, even that limited scope is narrowly defined. Any engagement with foreign governments that carries legal, military, or diplomatic consequences requires federal authorization.

Treaty Law and International Practice

The international legal framework governing treaties reinforces Somalia’s constitutional position. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, only states and recognized subjects of international law may conclude treaties. Agreements signed by entities lacking treaty-making capacity are considered legally invalid under international law, regardless of their practical implementation.

Foreign governments engaging directly with Somali regional administrations therefore do so at legal risk. Such agreements cannot acquire international legal validity unless endorsed by the Federal Government. Even if implemented de facto, they remain vulnerable to annulment, dispute, or international non-recognition.

This is why most states and international organizations insist on dealing exclusively with Somalia’s federal authorities on matters of national competence. Deviating from this practice undermines the principle of state sovereignty and exposes external actors to diplomatic and legal complications.

The Misuse of Federalism in Political Argument