Ethiopia’s government officials and affiliated media have stated that the country requires coastline access or access to the sea. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has emphasized the need for Ethiopia to secure a coastline or access to the sea through the Red Sea or Indian Ocean. The government has also urged neighboring countries to discuss or negotiate the issue.
Claims and themes of the claims
[X post: link]
[YouTube video: link]
Based on its monitoring of state-affiliated media and social media reports, HaqCheck identified four main themes in the Ethiopian government’s claims regarding the issue:
- Coastline or access to the sea: State media (link) and the government have asserted that Ethiopia needs a coastline (access to the sea) and that it can secure this right under international law.
- Utilization of maritime resources: HaqCheck also observed claims that international law permits landlocked Ethiopia to utilize maritime resources, such as fishing, on an equal basis with coastal states.
- Right of transit for imports and exports: State media and government officials have asserted that international law guarantees landlocked countries the right of transit for imports and exports.
- Freedom of navigation: Government officials, citing international law, have stated that the high seas belong to no one and that Ethiopia has the right to freedom of navigation.
The Ethiopian government’s claims about international law guaranteeing Ethiopia a coastline, transit for imports and exports, freedom of navigation, and resource utilization are primarily based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982.
Ethiopia’s government, state-run media, and officials have claimed that international law allows Ethiopia to obtain coastline or sea access.
What is the law of the sea?
The law of the sea is a body of international law that governs matters related to seas and oceans, issues of navigational rights, sea mineral claims, and coastal waters jurisdiction.
What are the sources of the law of the sea?
The sources of the law of the sea, which is the international law governing maritime issues such as the high seas, transit rights, navigational rights, sea mineral claims, and coastal waters jurisdiction, are primarily international customs, treaties, and agreements.
Evolution of the law of the sea
The Viena Congress of 1815
In 1815, Austria, Britain, Russia, Prussia (Germany), France, and other European countries signed the Treaty of Vienna. The treaty stated that European rivers, especially the Rhine and Danube, should be open to navigation.
The Congress of Vienna established that all countries should have equal access to navigation on international rivers and their tributaries. This principle was used in all nineteenth-century treaties on seas and navigation.
The Mannheim Act of 1868
In 1868, the present-day German states of Baden, Bavaria, Hesse, and Prussia, as well as France and the Netherlands, signed the Treaty of Mannheim. The treaty made the Rhine River free for all countries to navigate.
The Barcelona Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit of 1921
The 1921 Barcelona Convention, which followed the Treaty of Versailles, allowed landlocked countries to transport goods across the territory of other countries. The treaty prohibited governments from charging transit fees that exceed the cost of operating or providing transit services.
The Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958
In 1958, the United Nations General Assembly resolved to convene a conference to draft a convention on the law of the sea. The First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was held in Geneva, Switzerland, and resulted in the adoption of four international conventions between United Nations member states:
- The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
- The Convention on the Continental Shelf
- The Convention on the High Seas
- The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas.
The Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States of 1965
This Convention allows landlocked countries to transport goods through the territory of other countries to and from seaports. The convention is based on the principle that landlocked countries need access to the sea to trade and grow their economies.
The Convention states that import and export goods from landlocked countries that pass through the territory of other countries should not be subject to customs duties or excessive transit charges.
The UNCLOS III
In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was signed. UNCLOS is a comprehensive convention that supersedes all four of the previous conventions. It is now the main source of international law for international waters.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entered into force in 1994 after 60 countries had ratified it. However, several countries still need to ratify UNCLOS, including the United States, Eritrea, and Turkey. The United States has argued that UNCLOS could limit its sovereignty and its freedom to act in its own national interest.
Ethiopia and UNCLOS
Ethiopia signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, but it has yet to be a party to the convention because it has yet to ratify it.
Ethiopia and access to the sea
Ethiopia maintains a complex and significant relationship with the Red Sea. Although currently landlocked, the country’s historical ties, geopolitical significance, and economic interests render the sea an essential element in both its foreign and domestic policy frameworks.
Tracing back to the Aksumite Empire, Ethiopia’s influence over the Red Sea was once substantial, dominating key sections of the coastline. Throughout different historical periods, the country leveraged this maritime access for trade and geopolitical sway. After Italy colonized Eritrea in the late 19th century, Ethiopia temporarily lost its Red Sea access. However, the incorporation of Eritrea as an Ethiopian province in 1952 restored this access.
During the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie, Ethiopia utilized the Eritrean ports of Massawa and Assab for various maritime activities. These ports assumed increased significance after the Suez Crisis in 1956 and throughout the Cold War, as Ethiopia aligned with Western powers. The conclusion of the Eritrean War of Independence in 1993, however, rendered Ethiopia landlocked and fundamentally changed its relationship with the Red Sea. Between 1991 and the onset of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border war in 1998, Ethiopia continued to rely on Eritrean ports for its import and export needs.
In contemporary times, the Red Sea is a critical conduit for global trade, particularly in oil and natural gas. Despite lacking direct access, Ethiopia still views the Red Sea as a cornerstone in its geopolitical strategies. Its geographical proximity to Red Sea nations like Eritrea, Djibouti, and Yemen means its regional politics and security concerns are deeply interwoven with its interests. Moreover, Ethiopia’s diplomatic and economic ties with global powers such as the United States and China add further layers to its Red Sea considerations.
Economically, the port’s strategic location near the Red Sea renders it indispensable for Ethiopia’s commercial activities. At present, Ethiopia primarily relies on the ports of Djibouti, Berbera in Somaliland, and Sudan for its import and export transit. The port of Djibouti is particularly crucial, handling over 90% of Ethiopia’s international trade.
Claims fact-checked
1. Does UNCLOS guarantee Ethiopia’s quest to have a coastline?
No. UNCLOS does not contain any provisions that guarantee landlocked countries the right to own coastal areas.
However, UNCLOS grants landlocked countries the right to transit through the territory of other states to and from the sea. This means that landlocked countries have the right to pass through other states’ territories in order to reach the sea and transport their imports and exports without infringing on the sovereignty or interests of the transit states.
Put another way, landlocked countries have the right to use other states’ territories as a corridor to the sea, but they do not have the right to claim a coastline of their own.
Article 125 and Article 127 of UNCLOS grant landlocked states the right to transit their imports and exports through the territories of transit states by all means of transport without being subject to unfair payments.
Article 125 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) clarifies that the right of landlocked states to transit imports and exports through coastal states must not in any way violate the sovereignty of the transit states. It also grants transit states the right to take all necessary measures to protect their sovereignty and interests.
2. Does international law guarantee maritime resource utilization?
Yes, to some extent. UNCLOS grants landlocked countries the right to access and exploit the ‘living resources’ of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of their coastal neighbors.
On the other hand, the provision on the right of landlocked states to exploit the living resources of the EEZ of coastal states is subject to certain limitations. First, landlocked states are only entitled to exploit an “appropriate part” of the living resources. Second, they can only exploit the “surplus” of the resources. Third, they must agree with the neighboring coastal states on the terms of exploitation. The coastal state has the final say on the allowable catch of the living resources in its EEZ.
Additionally, the convention does not give landlocked states the right to exploit non-living resources such as minerals and oil within the EEZ of neighboring coastal countries.
3. Does international law guarantee the right to transit?
Yes. UNCLOS guarantees landlocked countries the right of transit through the territory of other states to and from the sea. The convention states that “land-locked States shall have the right of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.” The right of transit allows landlocked states to transport their goods and people through the territories of coastal states to and from the sea.
However, the right of transit is not absolute and is also subject to certain conditions, such as the need to respect the sovereignty and interests of the transit states.
4. Does international law and freedom of navigation?
Yes. UNCLOS guarantees all states, coastal and landlocked, the right to freedom of navigation on the high seas.
5. Do the right of transit, maritime resource utilization, and free passage mean the right to have a coastline?
No. HaqCheck observed social media posts that referred to provisions of the UNCLOS convention that grant states the right of import-export transit through transit states, maritime resource utilization, and the right of free passage on the high seas to support the claim that Ethiopia has a right to a coastline under international law.
However, this connection between these different topics is false. The right of transit, maritime resource utilization, and free passage are all distinct concepts from the right to a coastline. The right of transit allows landlocked states to transport their goods and people through the territories of other states to and from the sea. Maritime resource utilization will enable states to exploit the natural resources of the sea, such as fish and minerals. Free passage allows all states to navigate freely on the high seas.
The right of transit, maritime resource utilization, and free passage do not imply the right to a coastline.
The right to a coastline, on the other hand, is a territorial claim that gives a state sovereignty over a strip of land along the sea. UNCLOS does not guarantee any state the right to a coastline.
