Israel’s recognition of Somaliland in December 2025 has reignited an international debate over territorial integrity, self-determination and the rights of peoples who have established functioning governments but remain outside the community of recognized states.

The decision was strongly condemned by Somalia and several regional and international actors, including Egypt, Djibouti, Türkiye, the African Union, Arab League and China. Much of the criticism centered on one phrase: “dangerous precedent.”

But the more fundamental question may be whether the real danger lies not in recognizing Somaliland, but in maintaining an international system that refuses to recognize viable, self-governing peoples simply because recognition could have consequences elsewhere, says Timothy William Waters, Richard S. Melvin Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

In an opinion piece titled “Dangerous Opportunity: Recognizing Somaliland – and New Realities” and published by OpinioJuris, Waters contends that the greater danger may not be recognizing Somaliland, but maintaining an international system that refuses to recognize viable, self-governing peoples simply because doing so could establish a precedent for other cases. His argument challenges the conventional emphasis on territorial integrity and calls for greater consideration of political realities, effective governance and the right of peoples to determine their own political future.

A Functioning State Without Recognition

Somaliland restored its independence in 1991 following the collapse of Somalia’s central government. Its modern political history is also distinctive: the former British Somaliland became an independent state in June 1960 before voluntarily entering a union with the former Italian Somaliland. After the union deteriorated and northern communities suffered severe repression, Somaliland reasserted its sovereignty in 1991.

For more than three decades, it has maintained its own government, security institutions, judiciary, currency, passport and political system. It has also conducted elections and developed economic and diplomatic relationships with foreign partners.

Yet despite this prolonged de facto independence, Somaliland remained internationally unrecognized until Israel’s decision.

That contrast raises an important question: Should international recognition depend primarily on the borders inherited from the past, or should it also reflect the political realities created by the people living within those borders?

Territorial Integrity Is Not the Same as Stability

The conventional argument for refusing recognition is that states must respect the territorial integrity of existing countries.

But Somaliland’s experience complicates that principle.

Somalia’s internationally recognized territorial boundaries have remained intact on paper for decades, while effective state authority has remained limited across much of the country. International efforts to preserve Somalia’s territorial unity have consumed enormous diplomatic, military and financial resources.

Meanwhile, Somaliland has developed relatively stable institutions and exercised substantial internal governance.

This does not automatically establish a legal right to independence. But it challenges the assumption that preserving existing territorial boundaries necessarily produces political stability or better governance.

Somaliland’s Case Is Not Without Legal Arguments

There are several possible legal and historical arguments supporting Somaliland’s claim.

Its supporters point to Somalia’s prolonged collapse and argue that the dissolution of a state can create circumstances in which political authority devolves to successor entities.

Somaliland’s colonial history also distinguishes it from many contemporary separatist movements. It was a separate British colony, became independent in 1960 and then entered a union with Somalia.

Its claim can also be viewed through the principle of self-determination and, more controversially, through the doctrine of remedial secession following the severe repression experienced by northern Somalia under the former military government.

These arguments remain contested, but they demonstrate that Somaliland is not simply another separatist movement seeking to redraw an established border.

The “Dangerous Precedent” Argument

Opponents of recognition fear that Somaliland could encourage other territories to demand independence.

But international recognition has never operated as an automatic legal formula. States routinely distinguish between cases according to their history, political circumstances and strategic interests.

The recognition of Kosovo, for example, was defended by recognizing states as a case involving exceptional circumstances. Recognition of Somaliland could similarly be treated on its own facts without creating an automatic obligation to recognize every separatist movement.

The possibility of precedent therefore does not necessarily answer the question of whether Somaliland itself deserves recognition.

It shifts attention away from the merits of the case toward hypothetical consequences elsewhere.

A Changing International Consensus

The long-standing diplomatic consensus around Somalia’s territorial integrity has already shown signs of pressure.

Ethiopia’s 2024 memorandum of understanding with Somaliland demonstrated the strategic importance of Somaliland and its position on the Gulf of Aden. Although Ethiopia later agreed to pursue negotiations with Somalia under Somalia’s sovereignty, the episode revealed the willingness of regional actors to explore arrangements that challenge the traditional framework.

Israel’s recognition represents a more significant break.

The strategic interests behind the decision are clear. Somaliland’s location near the Gulf of Aden and the approaches to the Red Sea gives it importance for maritime security, regional trade and geopolitical competition.

But geopolitical motivations do not necessarily invalidate the underlying question of self-determination.

Recognition as an Opportunity

The significance of Israel’s decision may therefore extend beyond Israel and Somaliland.

The international system has traditionally prioritized territorial integrity because of legitimate fears that uncontrolled secession could produce instability, conflict and competing territorial claims. Yet rigid adherence to that principle can also leave functioning political communities trapped in permanent international limbo.

Somaliland presents precisely this dilemma: a territory that has governed itself for decades but remains excluded from formal international recognition largely because the state from which it separated continues to claim sovereignty over it.

The central issue is consequently not whether recognizing Somaliland will create a precedent. It is whether fear of precedent should prevent recognition when a particular case has a credible historical, political and self-determination-based claim.

If Somaliland’s recognition encourages the international community to reconsider how it evaluates claims to statehood, that may not be a dangerous precedent at all.

It could instead represent an opportunity to build a more realistic international order—one that protects territorial integrity where it protects peace, but also recognizes the legitimate aspirations of peoples who have demonstrated their capacity and determination to govern themselves.

After more than three decades of de facto independence, Somaliland’s question is no longer simply whether it can function as a state. It is whether the international system is prepared to recognize what already exists.