Buppsats Farhiya Osman Mohamed

The quest for sovereignty:
A comparison of South Sudan and Somaliland
Av: Farhiya Osman Mohamed

Södertörns högskola |
Institutionen för samhällsvetenskapliga studier
B-uppsats 7.5 HP
Statsvetenskap B | HT- 2017
Statsvetenskap B HT-17 Farhiya Osman Mohamed
Abstract
This paper examines the moral arguments for secession based on Allen Buchanan’s theory of
secession applied on the cases of South Sudan and Somaliland in order to seek out the main
differences that has led to the different outcomes for two African secessionist movements. Both
states possess moral justifications for seceding although Somaliland can claim the right for self-
determination in a more well-founded account based on the decolonization declaration.
However, this paper concludes that due to substantial pressure from the international community
and large scale ethnic injustice, South Sudan’s quest for secession therefore became successful
despite having inadequate governance structures prior to being granted its independence
compared to Somaliland.
Keywords: South Sudan, Somaliland, Secession, Self-determination
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………5
1.1 Aim………………………………………………….………………..5
1.2 Thesis……………………………………………..…………………..5
1.3 Delimitations……………………………………………….…………6
1.4 Disposition……………………………………………………………6
2. Method………………………………………………………………….…6
2.1 Material………………………………………………………..………7
3. Background
3. Somaliland…………………………………………………………..….7
3.1 South Sudan…………………………………………………………….. 9
4. Previous Research
4.1 The First Crack in Africa’s Map? Secession and Self- Determination after South
Sudan……………………………………………………………………………..10
5. Theoretical framework
5.1 Secession -The morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and
Quebec………………………………………………………………………………11
6. Analysis
6.1 Part I - Arguments for Moral Secession| Somaliland & South Sudan………13
6.2 Part II -Comparing South Sudan and Somaliland…………………………..16
7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………17
8. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….18
3
List of acronyms
AU - African Union
SNM - Somali National Movement
UN - United Nations
SPLM/A- Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army
CPA- Comprehensive Peace Agreement
4
1. Introduction
Somaliland is a self-declared state that has failed to become recognized by its peers in the
international community despite being successful in holding several democratic elections. It also
serves to be a paradox as it is regarded as rather weak and poorly funded yet holds legitimacy
that surpasses many other governments throughout the international community.1 On the
contrary South Sudan won its political independence in 2011, becoming the newest African
nation. These two states share similarities in historical relations with their mother states but have
had contrasting outcomes in regards to secession and recognition.
This paper examines the moral justifications of secession to bring an understanding of why some
states succeed in their quest for secession and others do not.
1.1 Aim
This paper aims to inquire two nations strive for statehood and thereby analyze the differences to
comprehend the respective outcomes. South Sudan is the newest of African states whilst
Somaliland has been striving for international recognition since parting ways with its mother
state of Somalia in 1991. The two nations share similarities in terms of geographical location and
colonial history however Somaliland’s quest has received little international attention despite
functioning as an independent state. This raises questions regarding the international
community’s willingness to recognize new states but more importantly how theories regarding
secession, in this case, the morality of secession can explain when and whom has a moral right to
secede.
1.2 Thesis
By examining the cases of South Sudan and Somaliland this paper inquires to comprehend
whether South Sudan was recognized as a sovereign state due to having more moral rights to
secede than Somaliland.
1
Kibble, Steve, Tradition and Modernity in Somaliland Beyond polarity: negotiating a hybrid state, s. 2
5
1.3 Delimitations
This essay is delimited to study secession in regards to South Sudan and Somaliland. It does not
encompass other political matters regarding these regions. Also, this paper is demarcated to
analyze the moral justifications of secession rather than analyzing secession from the stance of
international law.
1.4 Disposition
This essay is composed into seven main sections. The first chapter consists of the introduction,
aim, thesis and delimitations. Secondly, the following chapter consists of the selected method of
use and the materials. Furthermore, the third section a historical background is presented on both
South Sudan and Somaliland that gives an insight on the causes behind the secessionist
movements and the political climate prior to secession. The following fourth section is dedicated
to briefly presenting some prior work from the same research field. Followed by the fifth section
regarding the theoretical framework provided by Allen Buchanan on the morality of secession.
The sixth chapter, the analysis, implements Buchanan’s theory onto the cases South Sudan and
Somaliland, concluded by the last chapter where I present my conclusion.
2. Methodology
The method that was chosen to conduct this study is with the assist of a qualitative normative
case study. Essential for a case study is that the one who conducts the research enhances the most
important factor in the case. The case study format is most appropriate for this study as the
chosen theory requires an in-depth analysis which is characteristic for this method.2
By using the arguments for a moral right to secede from Secession -The morality of
Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec” it is possible to create a theoretic
definition of what moral justification entails to answer the thesis. This however does not rule of
2
Johannessen Asbjörn, Tufte Per Arne, Introduktion till samhällsvetenskapligt till samhällsvetenskaplig metod,
Liber, 2003, p. 56
6
the fact that there are other theoretical definitions of secession. Nonetheless, it will provide the
theoretical framework for this paper as I intend to operationalize the three arguments for
secession by measuring to what extent the theory is applicable to the chosen cases.
2.1 Material
The principles of the morality of secession theory are applied to the case of South Sudan and
Somaliland in order to view if South Sudan’s secession is or is not more morally justifiable than
the case of Somaliland. The material that has been encompassed into this paper derives mainly
from secondary sources such as dissertations, research papers, articles from political scholars and
other academic literature about, South Sudan, Somaliland, self-determination and secession.
3. Background| Somaliland
To understand Somaliland's quest for independence a historical outlook is required to

comprehend the current situation. In 1884, during the colonial times, Britain established the
British Somaliland Protectorate whilst other parts of what we today know as Somalia was
divided between the French and the Italians as colonies. The British Somaliland Protectorate
lasted until June 26th of 1960 when the territory received its independence. The independence of
Somaliland was notified to the UN (United Nations) and 35 member states would confirm its
recognition.3 Some days after, the Italian-administered Italian Somalia also received its
independence and the two territories would engage in what many scholars referred to as a hasty
union with little legal validity.4
Discontentment regarding the union arose when the northerners that had been a part of the
former British Somaliland felt marginalized as the political power was centralized in the south.
The northern citizens would come to feel even more alienated during Siyaad Barre’s military
dictatorship that lasted between 1969-1991.5 Somalilander’s did not only face political
marginalization during Barre’s regime but also vicious campaigns that systematically pillaged
3
Pham, Peter J. Somalia: Where a state Isn’t a state, The Fletcher Forum On World Affairs, 2011, p. 142
4
5
Hansen, Stig Jarle & Bradbury, Mark, Somaliland: A New Democracy in the Horn of Africa? s. 463
7
and destroyed the northern territory in the 1980s.6 The grievances with the regime lead to the
formation of SNM (Somali National Movement) amongst exile Somalilanders in the United
Kingdom in 1981. The group would later base in neighboring Ethiopia, recruiting its fighters
predominantly from the Isaq clan. Somalia had been in war with Ethiopia until a peace
agreement was signed in 1988 forcing the SNM to make the desperate decision to capture the
northern main cities of Burco and Hargeisa. The Somali central government responded with
brutal reprisals against the civilian population of the north, killing 60 000 civilians and
dislocating half a million people. This would further fuel the quest for independence7.
In April 1991, leaders of the SNM met together with traditional elders with the intention to
conclude a ceasefire and establish a transitional administration for the northern region. On the
18th of May, the same year they had unexpectedly reached the decision to dissolve Somaliland’s
30-year-old union with Somalia and to reclaim their independence.8
The government of Somaliland views itself as the successor state to the British
Somaliland protectorate and can legitimately claim to fulfill almost all aspects of the Montevideo
criteria for statehood. These criteria encompass a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, the ability to defend and represent itself and lastly recognition from the
international community of states. The last criteria is the one that Somaliland lacks, however
another obstacle is the fact that since the outbreak of Somali civil war in 1991, there has been no
functioning state in Somalia which they could seek to secede from.9
Since the self-reclamation of independence Somaliland has enjoyed some successes,
notably by resolving several internal conflicts and creating lasting stability. This is a sharp
contrast to its mother state of Somalia that has simultaneously gone through 16 major externally
funded peace conferences whilst Somaliland has opted for an internal process for a conflict
resolution.10.
6
7
Hansen, Stig Jarle & Bradbury, Mark, Somaliland: A New Democracy in the Horn of Africa? s. 464
8
Bryden, Matt, Somalia and Somaliland: Envisioning a dialogue on the question of Somali unity, African Security
Review, 2004, page 24
9
McNamee, Terence, 2012. “The First Crack in Africa’s Map?: Secession and Self- Determination after South
Sudan” p. 19
10
Walls Michael, The emergence of a Somali state- Building Peace from Civil War in Somaliland, African Affairs,
2009, p. 372
8
3.1 Background| South Sudan
Modern South Sudan first emerged as a sole territorial unit during the Anglo-Egyptian reign.
Nonetheless, the South Sudanese opposed to the regime and sought to fight for their
independence. The British colonial administration would come to favor over the northern
Sudanese population in most sectors in terms of health, administration and education. When the
times for transitioning to independence came during the 1950s the political power was
concentrated to a small conservative ethnic Arab elite that would come to discriminate the South
Sudanese people due to racial and religious differences. The South Sudanese would fight for
liberation even after the Sudan was granted independence in 1956. The period post colonialism
continued to be plagued by the domination of the Arabic elites which in turn fueled further
marginalization of the southern part of Sudan. Civil war had also been realized between the
central government and southern rebels that sought regional autonomy for the southern territory.
The first civil war would last between 1955 until 1972, ceasing with the Addis Ababa Agreement
that would grant the south its regional autonomy. Nevertheless, the agreement would turn out to
become irrelevant as it failed to possess the consent of the central government of the parental
state and therefore condemned by the international community. Conflict would reemerge
between the SPLM/A (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army) and the central government
in 1986 until 2005. During these times of conflict the SPLM/A did not succeed in developing
any state-like institutions, nevertheless, the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) would be
negotiated and signed in 2005 followed by an interim period of six years prior to the conduction
of a referendum. An overwhelming majority of the South Sudanese voted for independence in
January of 2011 resulting in the declaration of sovereignty in July the same year with full
international recognition.11
In contrary to Somaliland, the South Sudan cannot be regarded as a colonial artefact. The
British administered the territory as a separate unit within the Sudanese state and as British
colonial authorities governed Sudan indirectly, tribal leaders and domestic lawmakers functioned
as instruments of governance. The consequence of this indirect rule from the British would
11
Riegl Martin, Dobos Bohumil, Secession in Post-Modern World: Cases of South Sudan and Somaliland, p. 177-
178
9
uphold a separate identity from the Northern part of Sudan. Further, many South Sudanese would
come to view the referendum of 2011 as the final part of their decolonization process.12
4. Previous Research
4.1 The First Crack in Africa’s Map? Secession and Self- Determination after
South Sudan
This paper by Terence McNamee examines how secession and self-determination post the South
Sudanese independence affects the African continent. After the creation of Africa’s 54th state
African leaders such Muammar Gaddafi feared that the African map would be redrawn yet again.
However, it is not evident that South Sudan's independence has paved the way for further
secessionist movements. McNamee also contends that Somaliland does not find itself closer to
recognition despite already functioning as a de facto state that deserves recognition.13
Moreover, McNamee argues that a strong case for Somaliland’s secession could be made due to
its existing governance structures but the quest for international recognition has been halted by
Somalia’s refusal to consent to a political divorce.14 The state-like characteristics that exist in
Somaliland are many, for example, Somalilanders have their own passports that will be stamped
as they arrive to the Ethiopian border even though Ethiopia does not formally recognize
Somaliland. Furthermore, in legal terms Somaliland is still a part of Somalia which is regarded
as a failed state. This however does not hinder the international community to initiate
arrangements with Somaliland. The author writes that as the relationships continue to evolve the
last step would be formal diplomatic recognition.15
In the case of South Sudan, no one was surprised that 99 % of southerners voted for secession in
January 2011. And its “mother state” of Sudan was the first government to recognize its
independence followed by the members of the UN Security Council, and lastly by the AU.
12
Bereketeab, Redie, Self-Determination and Secessionism in Somaliland and South Sudan Challenges to
Postcolonial State-building p. 9
13
Sudan” p. 6
14
Sudan” p. 13
15
Sudan” p. 22
10
What differs South Sudan's struggle from other secessionist movements is the length of their
cause, the sharp racial and ethnic divide between the north and the south and the large economic
inequalities. This sustained support from important external forces such as the United States,
Israel and its neighboring country Ethiopia.16
5. Theoretical framework
5.1 Secession -The morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to
Lithuania and Quebec
This paper will be analyzed with the assistance of Allen Buchanan’s literary work “Secession -
The morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec”.
In this work Buchanan offers moral arguments for and against secession in order to understand
when secession is permissible and justifiable morally. I have chosen the most appealing and
applicable arguments for secession into both cases in order to measure which case (Somaliland
or South Sudan) has the strongest moral grounds for seceding.
1. The first arguments for secession is deeply interwoven with the values of liberty. The
concept of liberty naturally favors the right for states self-determination however it also
recognizes its limitations. This first arguments main case is that it is impermissible to
interfere with a group's effort to secede unless this causes harm to others.17
Buchanan defines the meaning of harm in this instance as following:. ”..harm is not just a
setback to an interest but a setback to an interest that constitutes the violation of a right.” 18
This limits the meaning of harm as not only the suffering of one's interest but harm as a violation
of one’s constitutional right. Therefore, to limit harm to those setbacks to interest that constitute
violations of rights is created to achieve the needed restriction19.
Furthermore, secession based on the concept of liberty emphasizes the right to freedom
for groups and individuals and that the state has the responsibility to maintain liberal rights for
16
Sudan” p. 9
17
Buchanan Allen, Secession- The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, 1991,
page. 29
18
page. 30
19
page. 30
11
all of its citizens. If the state fails to provide these basic liberal rights for all of its citizens and
they cannot coexist in a liberal framework, the right for secession becomes morally permissible
as long as it does not bring harm upon others.20
Further, Buchanan elaborates with an example on which significant interest of others that is
harmed by secession. The main interest that is harmed by secession is the state’s loss of its
territory and the resources that comes along with it. Secessionists in this instance challenge the
authority of the state by denying the state the jurisdiction of its territory. The pro-secessionist
answer to this is to delve into who is the rightful owner to the territory. If secession would
indicate wrongfully taking of the “others” land, secession would constitute as a harmful act.
However, if the secessionists are the rightful owners to the territory, secession becomes morally
justifiable.21
2. The second argument for the moral right to secede is the one regarding ‘rectifying past
injustice’. This argument is often regarded one of the strongest moral arguments for secession.
The reasoning behind this argument is that a group has the right to secede if it was wrongfully
incorporated into a state and now wishes to part ways.22 Wrongful incorporation can be
manifested in two different forms. Firstly, it could be a through a direct annexation of a territory.
The example that is presented by the author was how the Baltic states became incorporated into
the former Soviet Republic. The second situation when an illicit inclusion occurs is when a state
has been unfairly incorporated by an earlier state that is now the predecessor of the current state.
Here Buchanan exemplifies the situation by illustrating how Bangladesh was incorporated into
the British Empire, and after colonialism ended it was incorporated into the creation of Pakistan,
consisting of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Later, East Pakistan would secede in order to
become Bangladesh.23 The strength of this argument stems from the fact that is argues that
secession is candidly the re-appropriation of the territory to its justifiable owner.24
20
page. 31
21
page. 32
22
page. 67
23
page. 67
24
page. 67
12
However, in reality it is not clear at all times who in fact is the legitimate proprietor of the
territory or if the land was unlawfully taken. If a secessionist movement fails to demonstrate that
they are the rightful owners, secession in this case is difficult to justify morally.
3. The third argument for secession that will be presented tackles the value of diversity.
Liberals argue that a liberal state should exist with diversity amongst the individuals and groups
living within the state. This diversity should however not stop at the states borders. Secession is
favorable when it contributes to diversity internally and externally, in this case diversity is
realized when individuals and groups are able to take part in free interaction between political
units as a consequence of secession. Therefore, secession is considered morally justifiable if it
prospers diversity.25
6. Analysis
6.1 Part I Arguments for Moral Secession| Somaliland & South Sudan
For the analysis, I will apply these three arguments for the moral right to secede onto the cases of
Somaliland and South Sudan. In order to uphold a nuanced analysis each argument will be
discussed thoroughly to find if the two cases are entitled morally for secession and its
differences.
The first moral justification for secession examines the values of liberty. This notion of
liberty argues that it is indeed morally permissible to secede if the secession does not cause harm
to others. And if harm constitutes as an interest that violates a right it could be argued that when
applied to these two cases some difficulties would be evident. The principle of liberty grants both
South Sudan and Somaliland the right for secession as long as these efforts fail to bring harm
upon others. However, the weak point of this argument is that it fails to account for the fact that
the anti-secessionists movements in their respective mother state could consider it a harm to lose
a significant part of their territory. As a response to this counterargument Buchanan contends
that it cannot be considered as harm if the secessionists are the rightful owner of the territory.
25
page. 33
13
Therefore, we must now view the historical backgrounds behind these claims for secession in
order to comprehend who is rightfully entitled to these territories.
Firstly, in the case of Somaliland it was divided between several different colonial
powers prior to the regions receiving its independence that later resulted in unification. However,
the British protectorate of Somaliland was granted its own independence in 1960 before
engaging in a union that was regarded as hasty and of little legal validity.26 This implies that the
territory that was proclaimed independent prior to the unification is the same territory that
rightfully belongs to the Somaliland secessionists. Therefore, secession in this instance should
not be considered as a wrongful taking of the mother state’s territory. Moreover, in technicality
the liberty argument favors Somaliland's seceding claim further as Somaliland has functioned as
a de facto state for the past 27 years and the state-like government has been in control of its own
resources since central Somalia state collapse in 1991. So, in that sense it has gone a substantial
amount of time since the central state of Somalia had actual control of the territory. In
principality, they had been unified for a period that is equivalent to the time they have been
disjointed.
In the case of South Sudan, the liberty argument has strong grounds merely due the fact
that the central government of Sudan hopelessly failed to provide its citizens with the liberal
rights that a state should provide its citizens. The constant conflicts that occurred with the
regions made it impossible for the people of South Sudan to remain within the framework of the
state.
Also, when debating whom in fact possesses the rightful ownership to the South Sudanese
territory one could argue that it indeed belongs to the South Sudanese. As it was administered by
the Anglo-Egyptian reign as a single territorial unit and had been ostracized and fighting for
independence since then. This connects to the second argument for moral secession.
The argument regarding rectifying past injustice also suggests that South Sudan was
wrongfully incorporated into the state of Sudan upon receiving its independence and perhaps
should have already at the time of independence had been allowed the right for self-
determination.
However, I would argue that this argument has stronger moral grounds in the case of Somaliland.
It is possible to view the Somali unification in two different lights, firstly, one could argue that it
26
Pham, Peter J. Somalia: Where a state Isn’t a state, The Fletcher Forum on World Affairs, 2011, p. 142
14
was not a wrongful incorporation as both regions intentionally chose to be unified. Scholars have
however conferred that the unification had weak moral and legal validity, and a 2005 report
concluded that the union was never actually ratified.27 Concludingly, this reinforces the argument
that the incorporation of British Somaliland into the rest of Somalia could be regarded as
illegitimate. The evident power of “rectifying past injustice argument” is that it simplifies the
notion of secession as the repossession of lost territory to its rightful owners.
Lastly, the third argument for the moral right to secede was one regarding diversity.
The argument suggests that if secession enhances and contributes to diversity then it should be
considered as a favorable option. Diversity in this sense flourishes when people are free to
participate in the political sphere as a direct consequence of secession. By applying this
argument unto the case of Somaliland that is geographically situated in a region that has long
been plagued by civil war and other sorts of adversity, an internationally recognized Somaliland
that has already manifested successes in state-building and democratic practices, this could
reinforce and strengthen the diversity within the region. However, if we take a look at South
Sudan in this instance, independence did not reinforce diversity as the newly recognized state
saw an outbreak of conflict and violence only two-year post independence. This would lead onto
creating a humanitarian crisis and displacing a great number of its people.28 This goes on to show
that secession did in fact not guarantee the new state stability and inflate diversity.
But, it is of importance to understand that South Sudan did not have the same conditions as
Somaliland has today prior to its formation as an independent state. The level of self-sufficiency
that has been displayed in the region of Somaliland is relatively unseen in other secessionist
movements despite failing in becoming recognized. This could possibly increase the odds that
secession in the case of Somaliland would fuel larger conflicts.
27
Pham, Peter J, State Collapse, Insurgency, and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from Somalia, 2013, p.30
28
UNMISS, United Nations Mission In South Sudan - Background, United Nations, 2017
15
6.2 Comparing South Sudan and Somaliland
The theory on moral justification of secession has demonstrated that both cases possess moral
grounds for seceding. However, in order to comprehend the distinction in results, I will now seek
to find the differences.
The main historical difference between the two states is that South Sudan is not a consequence of
colonialism such as Somaliland. It was ruled separately by the British and failed to be integrated
into the rest of colonial Sudan which paved the way for it to later become even worse
consolidated into post-colonial Sudan. Somaliland on the other hand was controlled by an
entirely different colonial power than its mother state which gives it a stronger claim for self-
determination as they were subjected to alien rule.29 Additionally, this is also emphasized in the
UNs Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.30
This gives the Somaliland secessionist movement stronger moral claims for seceding
according to the second argument for secession, Rectifying past injustice. This also happens to be
strongest argument for Somaliland seceding as it would merely be reclaiming the independence
it received from the British in 1960.
Another of the main distinctions to these two cases is the internal ethnic difference.
The Republic of Somalia (with Somaliland included) is often depicted as the most homogenous
nation in the African continent.31 Moreover, ethnic adversity in Somalia as a whole has not been
deemed severe to the same extent as in Sudan prior to South Sudan seceding. The atrocities that
occurred in most notably Darfur, brought attention from the entire international community. 32
This was also mentioned by the author of the `prior research` and could possibly be considered
as the main distinctinction between the two nations.
29
Bereketeab, Redie, Self-Determination and Secessionism in Somaliland and South Sudan Challenges to
Postcolonial State-building p.17
30United Nations, Global Issues – Decolonization
31
United Nations, Country Facts - Somalia
32
Copnall James, Darfur Conflict: Sudan’s bloody stalemate, BBC NEWS
16
7. Conclusion
The aim of this research was to examine the cases of South Sudan and Somaliland to
comprehend whether the various results of the quest for recognition is due to a difference in the
moral justifications for the secessions.
To conclude this essay, the analysis has lead us to following conclusions:
Argument I: Secession based upon the values of liberty demonstrated that both cases possessed
strong moral grounds for seceding.
Argument II: The morality of secession grounded on the rectifying past injustice argument
proved to be a stronger argument for Somaliland seceding rather than for South Sudan due to the
state of Somaliland being a colonial artefact.
Argument III: The case of diversity for a moral right to secession could be directly applicated
on South Sudan as the outbreak of violence post secession suggests that secession in this case did
not inflate diversity. Nevertheless, Somaliland evidently has different prerequisites in term of
self-sufficiency and governance structures than South Sudan had prior to it entering the
international community of states.
Evidently, even though both cases proved strong moral claims for secession, the different
outcomes weigh heavy due to actions from the global community that have concentrated their
focus on South Sudan’s quest.
To briefly discuss the possibilities of future studies in the similar field the use of a different
theoretical framework in further assessing these cases could also be of value. Future studies
could examine the impact of post colonialism and state building on cases like these as theoretical
framework for other essays. As of today, the material in this particular field is rather narrow but
studying these cases are of importance as it creates deeper understanding on why secessionists
movements exist and why regions which to secede.
17
8. Bibliography
Bereketeab, Redie, Self-Determination and Secessionism in Somaliland and South Sudan Challenges to Postcolonial
State-building, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala, (2012)
Buchanan Allen, Secession- The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Westview
press,(1991)
Bryden, Matt, Somalia and Somaliland: Envisioning a dialogue on the question of Somali unity, African Security
Review, (2004)
Doornbos, Martin, Somalia: Alternative Scenarios for Political Restruction, African Affairs. Vol. 101, No. 402,
(2002)
Hansen, Stig Jarle & Bradbury, Mark, Somaliland: A New Democracy in the Horn of Africa, Review of African
Political Economy, Vol. 34, No. 113, Imperial, Neo-Liberal Africa? Taylor & Francis, Ltd, (2007)
Johannessen Asbjörn, Tufte Per Arne, Introduktion till samhällsvetenskapligt till samhällsvetenskaplig metod, Liber,
(2003)
Kibble, Steve, Tradition and Modernity in Somaliland Beyond polarity: Negotiating a hybrid state, Development
Planning Unit, UCL, (2009)
Pham, Peter J, State Collapse, Insurgency, and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from Somalia, Strategic Studies Institute
and U.S. Army War College Press. (2013)
Pham, Peter J. Somalia: Where a state Isn’t a state, The Fletcher Forum On World Affairs, (2011)
McNamee, Terence, The First Crack in Africa’s Map?: Secession and Self- Determination after South Sudan, (2012)
Riegl Martin, Dobos Bohumil, Secession in Post-Modern World: Cases of South Sudan and Somaliland, ACTA
GEOGRAPHICA UNIVERSITATIS COMENIANAE, Vol. 58, 2014, No. 2,
(2014)
Walls, Michael. “The Emergence of a Somali State: Building Peace from Civil War in Somaliland.” African Affairs,
vol. 108, no. 432, 2009
Internet Sources:
Copnall James, Darfur Conflict: Sudan’s bloody stalemate, BBC NEWS
Accessed : 2/1/18
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22336600
United Nations, Country Facts- Somalia

Accessed: 27/12/17
https://www.un.int/somalia/somalia/country-facts
UNMISS, United Nations Mission in South Sudan - Background, United Nations, (2017)
Accessed: 27/12/17
https://unmiss.unmissions.org/background
United Nations, Global Issues – Decolonization

Accessed: 27/12/17
http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/decolonization/
18
19

Buppsats Farhiya Osman Mohamed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buppsats Farhiya Osman Mohamed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The quest for sovereignty:

A comparison of South Sudan and Somaliland

Av: Farhiya Osman Mohamed

Keywords: South Sudan, Somaliland, Secession, Self-determination

3.1 South Sudan…………………………………………………………….. 9

SNM - Somali National Movement

SPLM/A- Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army

CPA- Comprehensive Peace Agreement

To understand Somaliland's quest for independence a historical outlook is required to

3.1 Background| South Sudan

6.2 Comparing South Sudan and Somaliland

United Nations, Country Facts- Somalia

United Nations, Global Issues – Decolonization

You might also like