The Legal and Moral Case for Tigray’s Independence

International law compels action when states commit atrocities against their own people

The creation of a sovereign nation is never accidental. It is the outcome of history, identity, and collective will, anchored in law. Under international principles set out in the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention of 1933, and rulings of the International Court of Justice, independence can become more than a political aspiration. It is a remedial right when a people are systematically denied self-determination, justice, and security.

This principle derives from jus cogens, the highest and non-derogable norms of international law, which impose binding obligations upon all states without exception. To disregard these norms is to subvert the moral architecture upon which international order stands. The selective or discriminatory application of these principles corrodes the legitimacy of global law itself.

The international community therefore faces a categorical imperative: to uphold the universality of these norms without political compromise or moral evasion. To ignore them is not neutrality; it is complicity in their destruction.

Grave Violations

Few transgressions strike deeper at the heart of international law than the violation of jus cogens norms. These peremptory principles—prohibiting genocide, slavery, aggression, torture, and crimes against humanity—constitute the collective moral conscience of humankind. They stand beyond negotiation; nothing lawful can exist in defiance of them.

A state that violates these principles nullifies the very legitimacy it claims to possess.  Sovereignty, once meant as protection, mutates into an instrument of harm. At that point, non-interference is no doctrine at all, it is complicity dressed as restraint.

Between 2020 and 2022, Tigray endured systematic atrocities that meet the gravest definitions of these crimes. Mass killings, sexual violence, deliberate starvation, and the annihilation of infrastructure were not collateral tragedies, they were instruments of extermination. Such acts are not merely human rights violations; they are an assault on jus cogens itself.

When a people face destruction at the hands of their own government, the doctrine of remedial secession becomes not a political choice but a legal necessity. The right to independence is activated as both a moral and juridical response to the collapse of coexistence.

Broken Covenant

Ethiopia’s federal order was founded upon voluntary partnership, mutual consent and constitutional equality. The federal government’s conduct during the war, including the commission of genocide and the abrogation of constitutional guarantees, constitutes a profound breach of that covenant.

Under international law, when one party annihilates the foundational trust of a political compact, the aggrieved party is released from its obligations. When the covenant is shattered, fidelity no longer binds.

The distinction between internal and external self-determination is critical here. Internal self-determination allows for self-rule within a state; external self-determination—independence—becomes lawful only when internal remedies are destroyed. The siege, the dismantling of institutions, and political exclusion hollowed autonomy into a façade.

Thus, independence ceases to be an aspiration. It becomes a lawful remedy of last resort, recognized under the doctrine of jus ad remedium secessionis, the remedial right to secede when grave and sustained injustice obliterates all other means of redress.

Moral Collapse

Without trust, unity is merely administrative, an empty form without spirit. When that trust is violated through genocide and betrayal, coexistence becomes impossible. The social covenant that once made coexistence possible dissolves into suspicion and fear.

Tigray’s experience represents such a collapse. Its constitutional autonomy was destroyed, peace accords violated, and crimes went unpunished. The moral and political bond binding Tigray to the Ethiopian federation has been irreversibly severed.

Independence, therefore, is not rebellion. It is the restoration of justice and the preservation of existence itself. The pursuit of statehood reflects not ambition but survival.

Invoking territorial integrity in this context does not defend order, it sanctifies atrocity.

People’s Mandate

The legitimacy of self-determination rests on the sustained and genuine will of a people. It is expressed through unity, collective mobilization, and democratic mandate. Tigray’s unwavering resolve for self-rule—its mobilization during siege, its resilience under isolation—demonstrates an enduring and coherent national will.

Tigray’s claim arises not from political convenience but from the slow, assured growth of a shared conviction.

In this light, the question before the international community is not whether Tigray may become independent, but whether humanity can continue to deny its right to exist.

Criteria for Statehood

International law is not a ledger of requirements but a mirror that reveals when a people have already become a nation. The Montevideo Convention’s so-called criteria for statehood are not technical thresholds, they are the natural imprint of a community that has proved its coherence under fire.

Tigray does not conform to these criteria by chance; it fulfills them through the stubborn continuity of its history and its survival against extinction.

A Sovereign People. The foundation of any state is its people. The Tigrayan nation, with its ancient language, culture, and millennia of shared history, has long possessed a distinct and defined identity. The genocidal war did not create this identity; it brutally tested and ultimately solidified it, forging a collective political will for self-rule that is now inseparable from the will to survive.

A Legitimate Territory. The principle of uti possidetis juris ensures that historical and legal boundaries form the basis of new sovereignties. Tigray’s territorial claim is not an aspiration but a legal fact, clearly demarcated under Ethiopia’s own 1995 Constitution. This provides an uncontested geographic foundation for statehood, recognized even by the state that sought to destroy the people within it.

The Capacity to Govern. The true test of a government is not its performance in peace, but its resilience in war. Under a years-long siege designed to collapse all civic function, Tigray’s institutions demonstrated a profound effectiveness. They maintained administrative continuity, provided community defense, and preserved a semblance of order amidst chaos. This proven capacity for governance under the most extreme duress is not a preliminary step toward statehood, it is the essence of sovereignty in practice.

A Place Among Nations. Statehood is ultimately affirmed through the capacity for external engagement. Throughout its isolation, Tigray’s leadership consistently demonstrated a commitment to articulate its cause, seek peaceful resolution, and uphold international norms. This record is not merely diplomatic outreach; it is the demonstrated competence of a polity prepared to assume the responsibilities of the international order.

The question of statehood rises beyond procedural checklists. Tigray confronts the world not with a petition but with a fact: a people sovereign in will, defined in territory, and tempered in adversity, ready to assume its place among nations. The law’s criteria do not confer Tigray’s legitimacy; they bear witness to it.

Imperative of Recognition

When a state systematically destroys the foundations of coexistence—when it turns its power inward to annihilate a people—its sovereignty loses moral standing. The duty of the international community, under jus cogens, is not to preserve such unity but to restore justice.

The recognition of Tigray’s independence is therefore not an act of political favoritism. It is an affirmation of law, a defense of morality, and a renewal of the international order’s credibility.

To excuse that recognizing a people’s remedial right to independence intrudes upon state sovereignty constitutes a fundamental misinterpretation. This violates  the jus cogens principles and exposes the hypocrisy of an international legal order that purports to uphold justice and human rights.

Denying the right to independence amid proven atrocities elevates sovereignty above human survival. When sovereignty becomes a shield for perpetrating crimes and oppression, international law loses its moral and legal authority, reducing it to a lie.

Tigray’s pursuit of nationhood is the final assertion of humanity against annihilation. Its independence is not merely justified; it is owed.

Query or correction? Email us

While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.

Main photo: Martyr’s Memorial Monument, Mekelle. Source: Tigray Television

Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.