Ethiopia’s Illegitimate Claim to the Red  Sea: A Dangerous Threat to Somalia,  Djibouti, and Eritrea under International  Law.

Abstract

Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed recently claimed Ethiopia’s “right” to  sovereign access to the Red Sea as a matter of national survival. He did this by citing  Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory as a supposed precedent, thereby making  aggression official state policy. This article critically analyzes Ethiopia’s claims under  international law, African Union principles, and International Court of Justice  jurisprudence. It argues that Ethiopia’s position is not based on law and violates the  principle of territorial sovereignty enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the  AU Constitutive Act. Aside from legal breaches, Ethiopia’s rhetoric is a serious threat  to the stability of the region, risking destabilization of Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea  and setting off a broader security crisis in the Horn of Africa. The article ends on a  note proposing lawful alternatives, such as collaborative maritime accords and AU led mediation.

Introduction

Historically one of the globe’s most geopolitically contested regions, the Horn of  Africa has become instable once again due to Ethiopia’s growing rhetoric regarding  access to the Red Sea. Since 1993 when Eritrea became independent, Ethiopia has  been a landlocked country, having depended predominantly on Djibouti for maritime  trade. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s October 2023 announcement that Ethiopia  requires “sovereign access” to the Red Sea to survive is a significant foreign policy  departure. Most disturbing is Abiy’s invoking the example of the Russian invasion of  Ukraine as precedent for claiming territory—a new and unwanted step violating the  foundational assumption about territorial integrity.

This article examines the legality of the Ethiopia claims against the international law  paradigm, the AU Constitutive Act, and ICJ jurisprudence. It also balances the likely  regional and global consequences for Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea, by extension, regional peace and international security.

Research Methodology

The study assumes a doctrinal approach, relying on original legal sources such as the  United Nations Charter, Constitutive Act of the African Union, and ICJ decisions.  Secondary sources, such as academic commentary, policy briefs, and news reports,

are also consulted. An analytical framework is employed to test the claims of  Ethiopia against current international legal rules.

Legal Framework

International Law and Sovereignty

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the  territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Ethiopian annexation  violates this jus cogens norm. The ICJ has again and again reaffirmed sovereignty as  inviolable. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua  (Nicaragua v United States of America) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, the Court established that  any action to destabilize another state through the employment of armed force was  against international law.

The uti possidetis juris principle—maintaining colonial boundaries at  independence—remains the pivot of African statehood. Annexation, however much  shrouded in the guise of national necessity, is against this principle.

African Union Principles

The Constitutive Act of the African Union (2000) specifically provides: •\tArticle 4(b): “Respect of borders existing on achievement of independence.” •\tArticle 4(e): “Peaceful settlement of disputes among Member States.”

By threatening annexation, Ethiopia is explicitly challenging the AU’s founding  principles, which were established to prevent precisely such border disputes from  destabilizing post-colonial Africa.

Historical Treaties and Agreements

The Algiers Agreement of 2000 between Ethiopia and Eritrea, following war along  their shared border, led to the establishment of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary  Commission (EEBC). The EEBC, in 2002, demarcated the border between the two  countries, which was rejected by Ethiopia though the agreement was binding. The  current Ethiopian rhetoric is an outgrowth of this negation of the binding legal  process.

Judicial Interpretation

International Court of Justice Jurisprudence

• \tIn Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 168, the Court condemned Uganda for armed occupation and exploitation of Congolese territory, reaffirming the illegality of intrusions over  frontiers.
• \tIn Advisory Opinion on Kosovo [2010] ICJ Rep 403, the Court reaffirmed self determination while affirming the paramountcy of territorial integrity.
• In Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) [1962] ICJ Rep 6, the Court reaffirmed the binding character of mutually agreed borders, excluding attempts to alter them unilaterally.

Application to Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s claim of sovereign access by annexation would have been acquisition of  territory by force, a practice in express prohibition in international law and  consistently repudiated by the ICJ.

Critical Analysis

Ethiopia’s “National Survival” Argument

Prime Minister Abiy has contended that Ethiopia’s absence of a coastline constitutes  an existential threat to its economic development. Nevertheless, no such principle  exists in international law under which states have the right to take over alien  territory because of economic needs. Rather, Ethiopia obtained access in the past  through bilateral treaties with Djibouti, which remain legitimate channels for trade.

Russia-Ukraine Analogy

Abiy’s resort to Russia’s aggression as precedent is very problematic. The UN General  Assembly, through its Resolution ES-11/1 (2022), unequivocally condemned the  annexation by Russia as illegal. To cite such aggression as precedent means Ethiopia  aims to make breaches of international law legal, upsetting the international order.

Impact on Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea

• Somalia: Already insurgency-plagued due to Al-Shabaab, any assertion of territorial claim by Ethiopia would heighten insecurity and destabilize fragile governance.
• Djibouti: With American, French, and Chinese military bases, Djibouti risks being dragged into the great power competition if Ethiopia rolls out its claims.
• Eritrea: Having fought a destructive war against Ethiopia, Eritrea sees any attempt at altering borders as an existential threat, thereby elevating war recurrence.

Violation of African Union Charter

Ethiopia, once the symbolic center of African unity as host of the AU headquarters,  now undermines the AU by challenging uti possidetis juris. Such actions weaken  collective security mechanisms and set a dangerous precedent for other African  states with contested borders.

Recent Developments

• Ethiopian military activities near border regions have intensified. • Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea have categorically rejected Ethiopia’s claims.
• At AU summits in 2024–25, several African leaders expressed concern that Ethiopia’s rhetoric risks sparking a wider conflict.
• Scholars have warned of an “African Ukraine” scenario if Ethiopia pursues annexation.

Suggestions / Way Forward

1. African Union Mediation: The AU Peace and Security Council should convene an urgent dialogue to reaffirm the principle of uti possidetis juris. 2. International Condemnation: The UN General Assembly should adopt a resolution explicitly rejecting Ethiopia’s claims, similar to its condemnation of  Russia.
2. Maritime Cooperation Agreements: Ethiopia should expand lawful port lease agreements with Djibouti, Eritrea, or Somalia rather than pursuing annexation.
3. Security Mechanisms: IGAD and AU member states must develop preventive diplomacy strategies to deter escalation.

Conclusion

Ethiopia’s claim to the Red Sea, justified by reference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,  represents a grave violation of international law and threatens to destabilize the  Horn of Africa. The UN Charter, ICJ jurisprudence, and AU principles collectively  affirm the sanctity of territorial sovereignty and prohibit annexation. Ethiopia’s  rhetoric undermines the very legal and institutional frameworks it once championed.  The international community, led by the AU and UN, must act swiftly to prevent  escalation and to channel Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions into lawful agreements  rather than unlawful aggression.

Reference(S):

OSCOLA

• UN Charter, art 2(4).
• Constitutive Act of the African Union 2000, art 4(b).
• Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 168.
• Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
• Advisory Opinion on Kosovo [2010] ICJ Rep 403.
• Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) [1962] ICJ Rep 6. • UNGA Res ES-11/1 (2 March 2022).

Bluebook

• U.N. Charter art. 2, cl. 4.
• Constitutive Act of the African Union, July 11, 2000, 2158 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 4(b). • Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 168.
• Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14.
• Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 I.C.J. 403. • Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6. • G.A. Res. ES-11/1, Aggression Against Ukraine (Mar. 2, 2022).