Did Somali representatives agree to join this new state and dissolved their own? No? Then forget it.No they formed a new state called East Africa with Addis Ababa as the capital. The agreement was ratified in Addis Ababa, case closed.
Did Somali representatives agree to join this new state and dissolved their own? No? Then forget it.No they formed a new state called East Africa with Addis Ababa as the capital. The agreement was ratified in Addis Ababa, case closed.
Did Somali representatives agree to join this new state and dissolved their own? No? Then forget it.
There is that cope again.There was no record of a final agreement approved by both parliaments.
That's how international agreements work unfortunately take it up with the lawyers not me.There is that cope again.
They work with imaginary parliaments? Okay.That's how international agreements work unfortunately take it up with the lawyers not me.
This is the only real cope going on, my argument is sound and can be found in legal journals. Yours is just delusion, maybe of a clinically significant level.They work with imaginary parliaments? Okay.
Nothing about it was sound. You are arguing that dissolved parliment should have over saw a law.This is the only real cope going on, my argument is sound and can be found in legal journals. Yours is just delusion.
Nothing about it was sound. You are arguing that dissolved parliment should have over saw a law.
Which Mogadishu (central government) did. No problems.unless the parliament approved it,
Questionable:Which Mogadishu (central government) did. No problems.
He said it was questionable, not that it was factually void. Sorry but that isn't cutting it. At best he is arguing semantics but the real way we know its legit is the fact that there was next to no disagreements or resistence by former Somalilanders or anyone else after the union was ratified. Or that Somaliland politicians (to my knowledge) have never brought up the idea of the union being void. Probably because the union was in fact legit.Questionable:
View attachment 349653
View attachment 349652
Go train as a lawyer and write a journal paper then I might accept your argument, until then we listen to the laywers.
He said it was questionable, not that it was factually void. Sorry but that isn't cutting it. At best he is arguing semantics but the real way we know its legit is the fact that there was next to no disagreements or resistence by former Somalilanders or anyone else after the union was ratified. Or that Somaliland politicians (to my knowledge) have never brought up the idea of the union being void. Probably because the union was in fact legit.
So appeal to authority then. Not looking good for youI don't think it's a paper on semantics, it's a legal paper from the international and comparative law quaterly.
So appeal to authority then. Not looking good for you
Working fulltime acting like a somali, you are a clear ethiopian being funded to push this somaliland idea to split somalis further.I don't think it's a paper on semantics, it's a legal paper from the international and comparative law quaterly.
There was no resistance because it was a gentelmens agreement that was evolving over time until it was revoked. Now you are trying to argue it's legally solid when there is clearly problems there.
Where are the experts?
Argue with the experts.
SL has been taking Ls for over 30 years.
Don't leave without taking your L first.
Questionable:
View attachment 349653
View attachment 349652
Go train as a lawyer and write a journal paper then I might accept your argument, until then we listen to the laywers.