X.Playa wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:06 pm
Sharmarke91 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:20 am
“
We believe that it is for the Federal Government of Somalia and Somaliland to reach agreement on their future together, and that it is for those in the region to take the lead in recognising the resulting agreement,” a UK Foreign Office spokeswoman told the Financial Times in response to questions.
That message is consistent across western governments, said Ahmed Soliman, a Horn of Africa expert at Chatham House in London. “
Until there are formal discussions between Mogadishu and Hargeisa, endorsed by the African Union or other regional players, it is unlikely that any country would take the final step [of recognising Somaliland],” he said.
---
What now for the SNM aka Qudhmis?
discuss.
If you read exactly what you posted it belies your own assertion now. The world did not say Somalia has the power to recognize Somaliland or visa versa the world said that both entites should decide their future seprate or together through dialoge, and the rest of the world will abide by whatever result .
Somalia i.e. the Federal Republic of Somalia transformed from the original Somali Republi
No it can't , if Somaliland decide to rejoin the union that official name " somalia" will have to be changed , since Somalia only referes to one part of the union.
Legally this transition is not void because the Act of Union created the Somali Republic not the constitution - there is a difference
.
There was and is no act of union . The answer to that part is very simple.
Hence, the sovereignty of the former British Protectorate which it voluntarily relinquished and transferred to the Somali Republic is today possessed by the current federal governmen.
where did Somaliland ever relinquished its soverignty to modern Somalia??? don't make up words and with it a new history and revisionsim . Somaliland and Somalia joined together forming a united state called the Somali Republic, how can that be called " relinquishing" anything? and if relinquishing is your key word, we can also argue logically that Italian Somalia by joining Somaliland and thus creating the new Somali Republic that they have relinquished their and transefered their soverignty also. Why not apply your twisted logic to Somalia also?? oh i fogot your Daaroodism and hate again is clouding your judgment.
For the current Republic of Somaliland to become independent the Federal Government of Somalia must agree to forsake and renounce its claim to its north western territory because after all sovereignty is vested in it. So, told Somaliland is no different to Puntland or Jubaland.
Again your logic is silly and groundless , Somaliland is not and was not part of this "somalia" , Somaliland and Somalia were equal parteners creating a union so thus Italian Somalia has no claim over somaliland , what italian somalia has claim over is mainting the union whereas Somaliland is opting for disolving the union , there is no territroial claim since Somalia an Italian colony and Somaliland a British colony were not part of one another .
The world is unequivocally declaring that for Somaliland to gain recognition it must first open dialogue with Somalia and Somalia via that dialogue must agree to recognize Somaliland as equal sovereign state. Thus if Somalia refuses to grant this recognition, there is no option for Somaliland to but to remain as part of Somalia. This global decree contradicts what Somalilanders have argued for the last 30 years which was 'recognition will be conferred on as with or without Somalia's approval'. For this its accepted that the world desires for Somaliland follow the same route as South Sudan, Eritrea and Timor-Leste were the parent country granted Independence after many decades of struggling to gain independence.
Somalia would not only be recognizing Somaliland it would also be granting it independence. Which are two different legal principles.
You seem to be stuck on the name 'Somalia' - countries change the names all the time, most recently Swaziland changed its name . When determining the
de jure existence of a sovereign independent state you have to look at how it was created in law. As I explained the Somali Republic was created in law (as a legal entity) when the British Somaliland Protectorate and 'Trust Territory of Somaliland under Italian administration' became the State of Somaliland and the State of Somalia respectively and unified to become the Somali Republic by passing the Act of Union. They
both relinquished their sovereignty.
The Somali Republic was created as a legal entity for the moment when both parliaments of Somaliland and Somalia passed the Act of Union (although some argue the act wasn't passed correctly, but that's an issue for another discussion).
Here you can find the Act of Union -
https://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2013/july ... a_law.aspx
Therefore, both Somaliland an Italian Somaliland ceased to exist in law. They both have no legal claims to gain back sovereignty because the Act of Union didn't stipulate they can gain back sovereignty when ever they wished (if they weren't happy with the union). So, its not Italian Somalia that is denying the modern day Somaliland recognition and Independence its the Somali Republic which happened to change its name to the Federal Republic of Somalia. The legal entity of The Somali Republic going forward from its creation in 1960 was free and entitled to change its name, constitution and territorial bounders if it wished.
So, Somaliland today is a de facto state (existing in reality) but not in law - Legally its part of the Somalia. And since its legally part of Somalia international law allows Somalia to either renounce its claims to the Somaliland territory or keep it as part of this territorial sovereignty.
This is nothing to do with Darod its simple international law.