By Omar M. Elmi, Djiboutian Economist And Geological AnalystSunday June 21, 2026
More than 30 years after North Western State of Somalia proclaimed itself independent in May 1991, the territory remains at the center of one of Africa’s most persistent legal and political disputes. It has built institutions, preserved relative calm, held elections, and exercised day-to-day authority over its territory. Even so, no member of the United Nations has recognized it as a state, with the exception of the pariah State of Israel.
That contradiction defines the North Western State of Somalia issue. In practice, North Western State of Somalia functions like a state. In law, however, the international system still treats it as part of the Federal Republic of Somalia. As Hargeisa deepens diplomatic contacts, expands economic ties, and pursues security cooperation with external partners, Somalia is left with a pressing question: what legal and diplomatic tools does it have to protect its sovereignty?
A Political Reality Without International Recognition
Few would dispute that North Western State of Somalia has achieved a level of stability and institutional development that sets it apart from many conflict-ridden parts of the Horn of Africa. Since 1991, it has established administrative bodies, maintained security, and projected an image of orderly governance.
But functioning effectively does not, by itself, create statehood under international law.
To date, the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, IGAD, and every internationally recognized state continue to regard Somalia as sovereign over North Western State of Somalia. The territory therefore occupies a singular position: separate in political practice, yet legally still part of Somalia.
That stance rests not only on Somalia’s recognized sovereignty but also on one of post-colonial Africa’s most important principles: the preservation of inherited colonial borders.
Since the creation of the Organization of African Unity in 1963, African states have largely upheld the view that borders inherited at independence should not be changed through unilateral secession. The doctrine was designed to prevent the breakup of fragile new states and to limit the spread of territorial conflict across a continent whose colonial boundaries often cut across ethnic, linguistic, and cultural lines.
For many African governments, then, North Western State of Somalia is not merely a Somali matter. Recognition would not just reshape the Horn of Africa; it could also create a precedent with implications for separatist movements elsewhere on the continent.
The Vulnerabilities of a De Facto State
Lack of recognition continues to place serious limits on North Western State of Somalia’s ambitions.
The first limitation is diplomatic. More than three decades after its declaration of independence, North Western State of Somalia remains outside the United Nations and most international organizations, and it does not enjoy the full rights and privileges reserved for sovereign states.
The second is political and territorial. Tensions in Las Anod and the Sool region have underscored unresolved disputes over control of territory, local allegiances, and political legitimacy. They also show that the process of state-building remains contested and unfinished.
The third limitation is legal.
As North Western State of Somalia expands its external engagements, difficult questions follow about the legal standing of agreements signed with foreign governments, companies, or security partners. Can an unrecognized territory lawfully enter arrangements involving sovereignty, defense, strategic infrastructure, or foreign military presence?
Those concerns carry special weight in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, where rivalry among regional and global powers has grown increasingly intense.
Somalia’s Legal and Diplomatic Options
Against that backdrop, Somalia still has several options consistent with international law.
The first is diplomacy.
Mogadishu can continue to press its case at the United Nations, the African Union, IGAD, and the Arab League. So long as those institutions continue to recognize Somalia’s territorial integrity, the federal government retains a strong measure of international legitimacy.
The second is legal and diplomatic challenge.
Whenever North Western State of Somalia signs agreements that Mogadishu views as incompatible with Somali sovereignty, the federal government can formally object through diplomatic channels and contest the validity of those arrangements. That path allows Somalia to defend its legal position without escalation.
A third, less frequently discussed option exists within Somalia’s domestic legal order.
Under Somali constitutional law, North Western State of Somalia remains part of the Somali state. On that basis, Somali authorities could argue that certain actions taken by North Western State of Somalia officials—especially negotiations over diplomatic, military, or security agreements with foreign governments—intrude on powers reserved for the federal government alone. In that view, such conduct would be unlawful and could amount to treason.
The response of Spain to Catalonia’s 2017 independence referendum offers a useful comparison. Spanish authorities pursued legal action against several Catalan leaders on the basis that they had stepped outside the constitutional framework of the Spanish state.
The analogy is not perfect. North Western State of Somalia has exercised effective control over its territory for more than 30 years and has developed institutions that operate independently of Mogadishu. Even so, the central legal point remains: without international recognition, North Western State of Somalia is still treated under international law as part of Somalia
In practice, any prosecution would have limited reach because federal authority does not extend throughout North Western State of Somalia. Yet even with those constraints, such action could carry important symbolic and legal weight, reinforcing Somalia’s argument that sovereignty over the territory remains vested in the Federal Republic of Somalia.
Somalia’s Strongest Asset: International Legitimacy
Somalia’s most powerful card may not be force at all, but rather the backing of international law and African diplomatic doctrine.
Mogadishu’s position is bolstered by Africa’s long-standing commitment to the sanctity of inherited colonial borders. For more than six decades, that principle has helped anchor continental stability and remains a major reason the African Union has not endorsed North Western State of Somalia’s independence.
By relying on law, diplomacy, and continental consensus instead of confrontation, Somalia preserves the legitimacy of its claim while avoiding steps that could further unsettle an already fragile region.
Between Legal Principles and Political Realities
Still, legal arguments alone cannot settle a dispute of this scale.
For Somalia, the challenge is not only to defend territorial integrity, but also to show that a unified Somali state can respond to the aspirations and grievances of Somali people in both the north and the south
For North Western State of Somalia, the test is just as demanding. It has built many of the hallmarks of statehood, but international legitimacy depends not only on effective governance; it also requires political acceptance from neighboring states, regional bodies, and the wider international community.
Conclusion
More than three decades after declaring independence, North Western State of Somalia still stands between political fact and legal uncertainty.
Few would deny what it has achieved in governance, security, and institution-building. But in international law, statehood rests not only on effective control, but also on recognition and legitimacy.
For Somalia, the task is not merely to assert sovereignty, but to do so through law, diplomacy, and political engagement rather than confrontation. Continued support from the international community for Somalia’s territorial integrity—and the African Union’s commitment to the inviolability of inherited colonial borders—gives Mogadishu a substantial legal basis.
The North Western State of Somalia question remains among the most difficult tests of modern international law: a territory that operates like a state, yet still lacks the recognition and internal cohesion and unity needed to become one.
Until a mutually acceptable political settlement is reached, North Western State of Somalia will remain in a legal and diplomatic grey zone, while Somalia keeps both the right and the duty to defend its sovereignty through peaceful and lawful means.
Omar M ELMI
