It's less of a maritime dispute and more of a sneaky annexation, imo.
The case is being heard at the International Court of Justice in the Hague from Sept. 19 to Sept. 23 and it doesn't look good for Somalia. While the disputed area was pretty clearly in Somali waters, due to a....strange turn of events, that has become less clear.
Somalia is on top, btw.
The reason why Kenya is interested in these waters in the first place is because of the vast oil and gas reserves that have been discovered hidden beneath the ocean's floor.
For some strange reason, Somalia's transitional federal government signed a memorandum of understanding with Kenya in 2009 that was to give them these waters for free. More specifically, this deal was signed by three individuals in the Somali government: the president, the prime minister and the minister of planning and international cooperation. There are strong suspicions that these three were bought by Kenya. The MoU was, however, unanimously rejected in parliament. MPs basically agreed that an undemocratic transitional government does not have the right to make decisions on this kind of thing.
Nonetheless, this same MoU forms the basis of Kenya's case.
For some context, Somalia gained independence and joined the UN before Kenya. During the last 55 years, this "dispute" was nonexistent. It conveniently became an issue after Somalia fell apart and was held together with duct tape.
And then there's this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Eastern_Province_(Kenya)
Even with the 2009 MoU, surely Kenya will lose this case, right? Not necessarily. Some experts have read Somalia's case last year and found it unusually weak. It made no mention of Somalia's historical maritime boundaries and said that this dispute had been going on for decades. It also said that Somalia's territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles which goes against law No. 37 of September 10, 1972 which states Somalia’s territorial sea is by breadth 200 nautical miles. That kind of self-sabotage reeks of moneyhats to me.
In addition to this, Kenya has USA, France and Norway on their side (all countries that have a stake in the Kenyan-authorised offshore oil blocks) and they've already doled out contracts to an Italian and American oil companies.
All in all, while there are several factors working against Somalia, I think it could still go either way.
https://horseedmedia.net/2015/07/31/why-somalia-has-to-withdraw-case-against-kenya-at-the-icj/
http://qz.com/785326/a-maritime-bor...-international-court-of-justice-in-the-hague/
The outcome of this case will set a precedent for developing nations across Africa and the rest of the developing world. If the ICJ rules in favour of Kenya, it will likely result in other nations in similar positions doing the same as well as a resurgence of Somali piracy.
The case is being heard at the International Court of Justice in the Hague from Sept. 19 to Sept. 23 and it doesn't look good for Somalia. While the disputed area was pretty clearly in Somali waters, due to a....strange turn of events, that has become less clear.
Somalia is on top, btw.
The reason why Kenya is interested in these waters in the first place is because of the vast oil and gas reserves that have been discovered hidden beneath the ocean's floor.
For some strange reason, Somalia's transitional federal government signed a memorandum of understanding with Kenya in 2009 that was to give them these waters for free. More specifically, this deal was signed by three individuals in the Somali government: the president, the prime minister and the minister of planning and international cooperation. There are strong suspicions that these three were bought by Kenya. The MoU was, however, unanimously rejected in parliament. MPs basically agreed that an undemocratic transitional government does not have the right to make decisions on this kind of thing.
Nonetheless, this same MoU forms the basis of Kenya's case.
For some context, Somalia gained independence and joined the UN before Kenya. During the last 55 years, this "dispute" was nonexistent. It conveniently became an issue after Somalia fell apart and was held together with duct tape.
And then there's this...
That North-Eastern province that he's so scared of losing was actually carved out of Somalia and it appears that Kenya wants more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Eastern_Province_(Kenya)
Even with the 2009 MoU, surely Kenya will lose this case, right? Not necessarily. Some experts have read Somalia's case last year and found it unusually weak. It made no mention of Somalia's historical maritime boundaries and said that this dispute had been going on for decades. It also said that Somalia's territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles which goes against law No. 37 of September 10, 1972 which states Somalia’s territorial sea is by breadth 200 nautical miles. That kind of self-sabotage reeks of moneyhats to me.
In addition to this, Kenya has USA, France and Norway on their side (all countries that have a stake in the Kenyan-authorised offshore oil blocks) and they've already doled out contracts to an Italian and American oil companies.
All in all, while there are several factors working against Somalia, I think it could still go either way.
https://horseedmedia.net/2015/07/31/why-somalia-has-to-withdraw-case-against-kenya-at-the-icj/
http://qz.com/785326/a-maritime-bor...-international-court-of-justice-in-the-hague/
The outcome of this case will set a precedent for developing nations across Africa and the rest of the developing world. If the ICJ rules in favour of Kenya, it will likely result in other nations in similar positions doing the same as well as a resurgence of Somali piracy.