British said Somalilanders could never be fully independent

Status
Not open for further replies.
IT doesn't matter, what you say just goes through the air saaxib.

The advisory of The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations on Somaliland is the following:

View attachment 61887
View attachment 61888
View attachment 61886
This is just part of it but you can read the whole thing here: https://studylib.net/doc/8799017/rhsmun-2015-icj-update-paper

Anything you say on SL union or whatever is just air after this. Here's your facts..

The ICJ isn't saying Somaliland should be independent, they're using the case study of Somaliland to analyse a completely different case. (Armenia v Azerbaijan)

Furthermore, they even state that what they are stating is Somaliland's version of events, not their own judicial opinion.

Also, the ICJ note in that document that Somaliland believes their people did not wish to join the union. That is different from you have been arguing.

You didn't read this document properly.
 
Last edited:
I double checked the document and it's a document from a High School Model United Nations.

Somalilanders are using children to justify their ictiraaf.

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 12.22.37 am.png


:mjlol::dead:
 
Stop embarrassing yourself, in that document they are giving advisory on two cases. One being SL and Somalia and the other on Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Read the damn document

View attachment 61892

An advisory opinion from a school.

They are pretending to be the ICJ and are looking at the Somaliland case.

I study law, there is no glossary on a legally binding document let alone one that has geo-political repercussions.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
This whole thread is an L' check everything I linked, read it. Check the sources. I know I hurt your feelings but hey that's part of life..

It's from the The International Model United Nations Association (IMUNA) is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) educational organization formally associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information.

You cannot ridicule this article, it showcases points relevant to this discussion.
imuna.PNG
 
Last edited:

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
An advisory opinion from a school.

They are pretending to be the ICJ and are looking at the Somaliland case.

I study law, there is no glossary on a legally binding document let alone one that has geo-political repercussions.
It doesn't matter read it, update yourself and stop deflecting from what it really is. This is one of the reasons Somalia will never take Somaliland to International Court..
 
This whole thread is an L' check everything I linked, read it. Check the sources. I know I hurt your feelings but hey that's part of life..

It's from the The International Model United Nations Association (IMUNA) is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) educational organization formally associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information.

View attachment 61893

Read that again, slowly.

You missed the part where it says "IMUNA conferences teach students to cultivate excellent communication skills and decision-making skills ... for effective negotiations".

It was a mock session by students to teach them the law.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
Read that again, slowly.

You missed the part where it says "IMUNA conferences teach students to cultivate excellent communication skills and decision-making skills ... for effective negotiations".

It was a mock session by students to teach them the law.
I already did, I am linking it to show you even if it is that the sources are there and they are basing it on facts.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
You are using the judgement of high school students to prove your point?
It's relevant because they are referencing articles from the UN conventions, further proving my point of questionable legalities around the Union.

If you don't want to take this part serious, you still have not responded to my previous source, you were silenced. I am just showing you where the real issue lies.

You say the British didn't believe Somaliland could be independent but I show you they still granted Somaliland independence and the issue is not wanting a union again it's the legalities of the Union.

British Somaliland together with Italian Somaliland wanted to form a greater Somali state, they were more than willing to do this.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
You can dismiss it that source if you want to but what about my previous sources?? What is your response to that other than

@Lordilord

Definition of an international treaty: An agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations.

Somaliland and Somalia were not a sovereign state nor international organisations so they could not have signed an international treaty.

You study law, correct? You should have a better opinion on it than me then

What happened is that a former independent state withdrew from the union in 1991. It's simple as that, you don't need to tell me anything else.

Since Somaliland was formerly given recognition and independence by the British they are protected by UN conventions. How come Somalia doesn't take Somaliland to international court? Most countries would do that, it is very simple.

Are they afraid because of the legal significance of being given independence by the British in 1960?? The international court might recognize Somaliland just from this fact. Supported by:

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933.

Charter of the United Nations, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 26 June 1945.

UN Resolution on Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, 14 December 1950

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention” or the “New York Convention 1958

UN Resolution on United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 14 December 1960)

Somaliland and Somalia merged through an international treaty. Irregularities occurred in the ratification of the treaty, however. The two states drafted separate treaties. Somaliland crafted a draft treaty, legislatively approved it, and sent it to the authorities in Mogadishu, the southern capital. The authorities in Mogadishu never approved the draft. Instead, the southern legislature wrote a significantly different treaty, the Act of Union, which the national legislature made retroactively binding in 1961 after unification was an established fact.8 A subsequent national referendum on the proposed constitution heightened the discrepancy between the two entities: northerners voted against it, whereas southerners voted for it.9
 
It's relevant because they are referencing articles from the UN conventions, further proving my point of questionable legalities around the Union.

They quoted the UN Charter and the Vienna convention, two vague conventions that only apply to sovereign states. All their other quotes were news articles about Somaliland, which are academically irrelevant.

Furthermore, they also stated Somaliland's strongest claim was that the people were bound to the union as they did not have a say. We both know every Somali wanted the union.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
They quoted the UN Charter and the Vienna convention, two vague conventions that only apply to sovereign states. All their other quotes were news articles about Somaliland, which are academically irrelevant.

Furthermore, they also stated Somaliland's strongest claim was that the people were bound to the union as they did not have a say. We both know every Somali wanted the union.
I meant to say other good sources too etc. So we agree on that the Somali people of that time wanted the union to happen.

What is this about then??
I don't want to hear Somalilanders saying they chose to join Somalia, it was either that or remain under British subjugation forever.
 
What happened is that a former independent state withdrew from the union in 1991. It's simple as that, you don't need to tell me anything else.

Since Somaliland was formerly given recognition and independence by the British they are protected by UN conventions. How come Somalia doesn't take Somaliland to international court? Most countries would do that, it is very simple.

Are they afraid because of the legal significance of being given independence by the British in 1960?? The international court might recognize Somaliland just from this fact. Supported by:

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933.

Charter of the United Nations, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 26 June 1945.

UN Resolution on Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, 14 December 1950

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention” or the “New York Convention 1958

UN Resolution on United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 14 December 1960)

These three points should make this clear for you. Feel free to google.
  • Somaliland did not have De Jure independence, meaning it was not recognised nor a realistic state. That means Somaliland did not have the powers of a normal state such as leaving or exiting binding agreements.
  • Independence does not mean you're automatically a country. Somaliland was never internationally recognised and therefore did not meet the requirements to be recognised as a sovereign state.
  • Somalia cannot legally take Somaliland to court, as Somaliland is recognised as being a region within Somalia. That means according to the UN, Somalia is taking itself to court.
 
What is this about then??

Somaliland did not choose to join Somalia but they wanted to join Somalia.

Somalilanders decided it was better join Somalia than remain under British rule. Also, Somalia was much more advanced and developed than Somaliland.

Somaliland would gain more from the union than Somalia did.
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
Somalia cannot legally take Somaliland to court, as Somaliland is recognised as being a region within Somalia. That means according to the UN, Somalia is taking itself to court.
Somalia can take Somaliland to court for violating it's sovereignty lol.. If it acts without the permission of Somalia..

Independence does not mean you're automatically a country. Somaliland was never internationally recognised and therefore did not meet the requirements to be recognised as a sovereign state.
It means exactly that, you cannot dispute Somaliland sovereignty if they got their independence from their colonizer.

Whereas the territories in Africa known as the Somaliland Protectorate are under Our protection:
And whereas by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means We have power and jurisdiction in the Somaliland Protectorate:
And whereas it is intended that the Somaliland Protectorate shall become an independent country on the twenty-sixth day of June 1960. --> de jure recognition



Help me understand your points.. What are you on about saaxib??:what1:
 

Lordilord

❤Somaliland❤
Somaliland did not choose to join Somalia but they wanted to join Somalia.

Somalilanders decided it was better join Somalia than remain under British rule. Also, Somalia was much more advanced and developed than Somaliland.

Somaliland would gain more from the union than Somalia did.
They chose to join Italian Somaliland not Somalia, Somalia is the product of British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland entering into a union.

Regardless of one being more developed, if Somaliland wanted to be a separate state from Italian Somaliland they would have been able to.

Look at Djibouti(French Somaliland) very scarce in resources but independent.
 
Somalia can take Somaliland to court for violating it's sovereignty lol.. If it acts without the permission of Somalia..


It means exactly that, you cannot dispute Somaliland sovereignty if they got their independence from their colonizer.

Whereas the territories in Africa known as the Somaliland Protectorate are under Our protection:
And whereas by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means We have power and jurisdiction in the Somaliland Protectorate:
And whereas it is intended that the Somaliland Protectorate shall become an independent country on the twenty-sixth day of June 1960. --> de jure recognition



Help me understand your points.. What are you on about saaxib??:what1:

Okay.

  • Only a nation is allowed to take another nation to court. The most Somalia can do is put the SL leadership on trial for treason in Mogadishu but that would not be politically correct.
  • Palestine got independence in 1948 but is not a sovereign state because the UN and other major nations refused to give it recognition. The same happened to Somaliland, they were independent but the UN, AU, US and USSR refused to recognise Somaliland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top