Berbera Port: Power on the Ground, Authority in Law

 

 

The recent interview with Al Jazeera by the CEO of DP World, in which he stated that Somalia’s decision to nullify agreements with the United Arab Emirates would not affect Berbera Port, warrants careful legal scrutiny rather than emotional reaction.

From a legal perspective, the statement is unsurprising but not decisive.

The Federal Government of Somalia has formally annulled all agreements with the United Arab Emirates, including those related to Berbera Port. The core question is not whether DP World continues to operate on the ground, but whether those operations are legally valid under international law.

Somalia’s strongest position lies in remaining the only internationally recognised sovereign authority over its territory. Physical access to a port does not determine sovereignty. Recognition does. Under international law, only the Federal Republic of Somalia has the legal capacity to approve foreign port concessions, security arrangements and international maritime compliance.

This gives the Somali government several lawful options, even without physical control of Berbera.

First, Somalia can formally declare that all agreements signed without federal approval are void ab initio. Such a declaration matters internationally. Courts, insurers, shipping companies, and multilateral institutions rely on recognised sovereign consent rather than on local arrangements.

Second, Somalia can challenge the port’s compliance with international maritime security rules, particularly the ISPS Code. A port operating without approval from the recognised government faces questions over the validity of its security certification. This does not require soldiers or blockades. It requires formal notifications to international maritime bodies and flag states.

Third, the government can engage ship insurers, especially Protection and Indemnity Clubs, which insure most of the world’s commercial shipping. If insurers are put on notice that a port operates without sovereign authorisation, they reassess risk. Increased premiums or withdrawn coverage can deter shipping traffic more effectively than any physical intervention.

Fourth, Somalia can elevate the issue from a commercial dispute to a matter of state responsibility. The UAE government wholly owns DP World. Under international law, the actions of state-owned enterprises may, in certain circumstances, be attributed to the state. Continued operation in defiance of a clear sovereign annulment strengthens Somalia’s argument that this is not merely a business disagreement but unlawful interference.

The Al Jazeera interview reflects DP World's confidence, but confidence does not constitute legal certainty. Ports today depend on recognition, insurance, compliance, and paperwork as much as on concrete and cranes. These are areas in which Somalia still exerts leverage.

Ultimately, Somalia’s most effective tools are legal, diplomatic and institutional. If used consistently and calmly, they can reshape the reality around Berbera without escalation. The outcome will not be decided by statements alone, but by which side controls legitimacy in the eyes of the international system.