Ethiopia’s Quest for Access to the Sea: Historical Realities and Legitimate Claims
Ethiopia’s demand for maritime access is rooted in historical ties to the Red Sea and contemporary legal principles governing landlocked states. Geopolitically, the Horn of Africa’s strategic waterways have long shaped regional power dynamics, with Ethiopia’s loss of direct coastal access after Erit...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Mizan law review Vol. 19; no. 2; pp. 347 - 388 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Amharic English |
| Published: |
St. Mary's University, Addis Ababa
30.09.2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1998-9881, 2309-902X |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Ethiopia’s demand for maritime access is rooted in historical ties to the Red Sea and contemporary legal principles governing landlocked states. Geopolitically, the Horn of Africa’s strategic waterways have long shaped regional power dynamics, with Ethiopia’s loss of direct coastal access after Eritrea’s 1993 secession exacerbating its economic and security vulnerabilities. Legally, Ethiopia’s claim draws on colonial-era agreements, which recognized its “legitimate need for access to the sea,” as well as post-independence ‘effectivités’, its sustained administration of ports, including Assab port, prior to 1991. The claim also engages key debates in international law, including the tension between Eritrea’s territorial sovereignty under uti possidetis and Ethiopia’s equitable rights as a landlocked state under UNCLOS and customary law. Critics argue that Eritrea’s sovereignty is absolute and that Ethiopia’s reliance on Djibouti’s ports suffices. However, Ethiopia counters that its historical access to the sea, coupled with the disproportionate economic burden of landlocked status, justifies special arrangements such as shared administration or sovereign easements. The legal justification hinges on doctrines of necessity, equitable access, and the correction of colonial-era disruptions, which fragmented Ethiopia’s Red Sea linkages. Proposed solutions (including lease agreements, joint port management, or transit corridors) reflect international practices balancing sovereignty with developmental equity. Ethiopia’s pursuit is framed not as territorial revisionism but as a test case for reconciling self-determination with the rights of landlocked states. Therefore, resolving this issue requires political dialogue informed by legal precedents and regional stability imperatives. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1998-9881 2309-902X |
| DOI: | 10.4314/mlr.v19i2.6 |