Historical Continuity and Colonial Disruptions in the Northern Red Sea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and the Evolving Status of the Port of Assab from Pre-Colonial to Post-Colonial Periods

Historical Continuity and Colonial Disruptions in the Northern Red Sea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and the Evolving Status of the Port of Assab from Pre-Colonial to Post-Colonial Periods | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Historical Continuity and Colonial Disruptions in the Northern Red Sea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and the Evolving Status of the Port of Assab from Pre-Colonial to Post-Colonial Periods Brehanu Borji Ayalew This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the historical, legal, and geopolitical foundations of the Assab question, challenging prevailing narratives that position the port as intrinsically part of Eritrea. Drawing on archival records, colonial correspondences, legal documents, and contemporary policy sources, the research demonstrates that Assab historically functioned within Ethiopia’s imperial sphere, either through direct administration as in the case of Medri Bahri or through tributary autonomy under Afar sultanates. The study employs a qualitative research approach supported by NVivo 12, enabling systematic thematic coding and comparative historical analysis across precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial periods. Findings reveal that Italian colonialism disrupted long standing Ethiopian governance structures by amalgamating unrelated territories and constructing a new political identity under the name Eritrea. Legal historical evidence, including the 1952 United Nations federation arrangement, reaffirms Ethiopia’s continuity of sovereignty, while the legitimacy of Eritrea’s secession remains highly questionable due to its exceptional legal basis, the transitional nature of the government that provided consent, and the absence of full compliance with principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. The study underscores that the transitional government led by Meles Zenawi consented to the separation due to their allied position, and that the endorsement by Boutros Ghali (an Egyptian), the UN Secretary General, introduces unresolved legal ambiguities concerning the process and its international legitimacy. Geopolitically, Assab’s strategic importance for Ethiopia’s access to the Red Sea illustrates how colonial boundary making and contemporary external interventions continue to influence regional power dynamics. In particular, the study demonstrates that Egypt’s involvement in the Eritrean liberation process was driven by a strategic objective to secure the secession of Eritrea and thereby block Ethiopia from maintaining access to the Red Sea, effectively contributing to Ethiopia’s landlocked status. Through an integrated historical, legal, and comparative lens, the study concludes that the Assab issue is a product of colonial engineering, external geopolitical manipulation, and unresolved postcolonial legal ambiguities, with significant implications for regional stability, diplomatic negotiations, and long-term conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa. Anthropology Assab sovereignty colonial legacy Ethiopia Eritrea relations Red Sea geopolitics and secession and international law 1. INTRODUCTION The geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa, particularly concerning sovereignty and access to the Red Sea, is a subject of intense historical debate and critical contemporary importance. At the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental tension between the region's deep historical structures and the artificial boundaries imposed by a later colonial order. This study posits that an accurate understanding of the current stalemate over the port of Assab must begin with a clear distinction between two historically separate trajectories: the integrated imperial province of Medri Bahri (including the port of Massawa) and the distinct Afar-administered territory of Assab, whose forced amalgamation under Italian rule created a contested legacy that endures to this day. The historical record demonstrates a clear and enduring political continuity. Following the Solomonic Restoration in 1270, the Ethiopian Empire established and maintained the province of Medri Bahri, comprising the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, as a coherent and integral component of its imperial system. Governed by the imperial vassal, the Bahr Negash, this region, including the strategic port of Massawa, was politically, economically, and militarily aligned with the Solomonic state for more than five centuries through tribute, military service, and consistent resistance to external challenges. This sovereignty was repeatedly reaffirmed over the course of its long imperial administration. In stark contrast, the port of Assab followed a separate historical path, existing within the sphere of autonomous Afar sultanates with no pre-colonial political connection to the northern highlands. This separation is empirically evidenced by the fact that Assab was purchased by the Italian Rubattino Shipping Company directly from local Afar rulers in 1869 a transaction that would have been impossible had it been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire or integrated into the Medri Bahri administration. Italy’s colonial project was incremental; after acquiring Assab, it occupied Massawa in 1885 and militarily conquered the Ethiopian highlands, consolidating these historically unrelated territories into the artificial colonial construct of "Eritrea" in 1890. This act deliberately severed the Red Sea coast from its historical Ethiopian framework, creating a new territorial entity where none had existed before. The colonial legacy of this arbitrary border continues to fuel modern conflict. The port of Assab, once Ethiopia’s primary maritime outlet, has become a focal point of tension since Eritrea's independence in 1993, a secession that itself remains legally contested due to its reliance on the consent of a transitional Ethiopian government lacking a permanent constitutional mandate. Despite the optimism of the 2018 peace agreement, a deepening stalemate now threatens the region. Eritrea has militarized its border and resisted diplomatic overtures, while Ethiopia, in pursuit of regional stability and economic survival, continues to seek peaceful dialogue for guaranteed access to the Red Sea. Complicating this fragile situation is Egypt’s involvement, which mirrors its earlier opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). By strategically aligning with Eritrea, Egypt is reportedly encouraging Asmara to reject any negotiation, threatening to exacerbate hostilities and push the Horn of Africa toward renewed conflict. Ethiopia has demonstrated a consistent preference for diplomatic solutions and international mediation, but Eritrea’s categorical refusal to accept arbitration has entrenched the deadlock. Therefore, this analysis seeks to deconstruct the colonial narrative and re-establish the historical verity that challenges Eritrea's exclusive claim over Assab. By examining the conceptual frameworks of colonial legacy and legal-historical sovereignty, and by presenting empirical evidence from regional history, this study provides a robust foundation for arguing that resolving the issue of Ethiopia's legitimate need for Red Sea access requires acknowledging this complex history. The path forward lies not in revisiting borders through conflict, but in pursuing diplomatic solutions and impartial international mediation, as underscored by regional institutions, to secure enduring peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. 2. HISTORICAL/ CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE 2.1 HISTORICAL AND CONCEPTUAL LITERATURE 2.1.1 Colonial Legacy and Territorial Formation The concept of colonial legacy refers to the enduring political, legal, and social structures imposed by colonial powers, which continue to shape post-colonial governance, identity, and territorial disputes (Young, 2001 ; Mamdani, 1996 ). In the Horn of Africa, Italys creation of "Eritrea" represents a quintessential example of colonial re-engineering. The Italian administration deliberately consolidated historically distinct regions, the Ethiopian highland province of Medri Bahri including Massawa, the Afar coastal territories including Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian coastal holdings, into a single artificial colony (Bertazzini 2018 ; Rubenson 1976 ). This colonial restructuring parallels global imperial strategies, including British restructuring of princely states in India and French federation of diverse ethnic regions in West Africa (Young, 2001 ). These interventions systematically disrupted local governance, masked historical claims, and created enduring sources of post-colonial territorial disputes. The colonial renaming of established Ethiopian provinces like Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzai served to obscure their long-standing ties to the Ethiopian Empire and fabricate a new political geography (Connell & Killion, 2011 ; Reid, 2011 ). 2.1.2 Sovereignty and Territorial Ownership in Historical Context Sovereignty constitutes the ultimate authority a state exercises over a defined territory (Krasner, 1999 ; Shaw, 2017 ). In pre-modern contexts like the Ethiopian Empire, sovereignty functioned as relational and flexible, operating through indirect authority and tributary arrangements rather than rigidly defined borders. The Empire exercised suzerainty over the Medri Bahri highlands through the vassal office of the Bahr Negash while maintaining tributary relationships with the Afar Sultanate of Aussa, which governed the Assab region (Marcus, 1994 ; Zewde, 2001 , Saleh, n.d.). This historical understanding of sovereignty demonstrates that territorial ownership must be evaluated through historical governance, legal continuity, and cultural ties rather than solely through modern administrative maps. The Italian purchase of Assab from local Afar rulers in 1869 and the subsequent colonial conquest represented temporary disruptions rather than legitimate transfers of sovereignty (Pankhurst, 1997 ; Rubenson, 1976 ), as post-colonial arrangements reaffirmed Ethiopia's historical and legal continuity in the region. 2.1.3 Historical Reconstruction of Identity and Geography Colonial powers systematically redefined geography and political identity to facilitate control and administration. Italy imposed the name "Eritrea," derived from the classical Latin Mare Erythraeum (Red Sea), on a fragmented region, deliberately erasing preexisting political and cultural links to Ethiopia (Anderson, 1991 ; Mamdani, 1996 ; Clapham, 2002 ). This top-down reconstruction created a centralized colonial identity intended to replace the localized, culturally grounded identities of Medri Bahri and autonomous Afar polities. The conceptual tension between indigenous, historically continuous political structures and externally imposed nation-state boundaries remains crucial for understanding contemporary territorial disputes. Ethiopia's historical sovereignty over the Red Sea coast predates and exists independently of the colonial creation of "Eritrea" (Pankhurst, 1997 ; Kaplan, 1999 ; Clapham, 2002 ), challenging modern narratives that derive legitimacy solely from colonial boundary-making. 2.1.4 Historical Continuity of Medri Bahri and Distinct History of Assab 2.1.4.1 The Solomonic Restoration and Integration of Medri Bahri The historical record demonstrates clear political continuity following the Solomonic Restoration in 1270, when the Ethiopian Empire established and maintained Medri Bahri as a coherent frontier province comprising the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, along with the strategic port of Massawa (Pankhurst, 1997 ). This territory functioned as Ethiopia's northern maritime gateway, governed through the office of the Bahr Negash (King of the Sea), a vassal authority whose power derived directly from the Ethiopian emperor (Connell & Killion, 2011 ). Pankhurst ( 1997 ) notes that during the reign of Emperor Zara Yāqob (1433–1468), the title of Bahr Negash gained significant prestige as the emperor elevated its authority above other local chiefs to extend imperial influence across the northern highlands and toward the Red Sea coast (pp. 100–104). Zara Yāqob also established a military colony of Maya warriors in the region to reinforce imperial control and ensure the loyalty of local administrators (Pankhurst, 1997 , p. 102). Although the Bahr Negash exercised considerable autonomy in administration, taxation, and military affairs, both Pankhurst ( 1997 ) and Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (as cited in Wikipedia, 2025) affirm that the office remained subordinate to—and legitimized by—the authority of the central monarchy. Connell and Killion ( 2011 ) similarly underscore that the Bahr Negash was not an independent ruler but a vassal official whose power derived from imperial appointment. The administrative center at Debarwa , located south of modern Asmara, functioned as the political seat from which inland districts and coastal territories were governed, while Hirgigo served as the primary mainland administrative base for maritime affairs (Trimingham, 1952 ; Miran, 2015 ). 2.1.4.2 TRIBUTE, MILITARY SERVICE, AND POLITICAL INTEGRATION Throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the political relationship between Medri Bahri and the Solomonic Ethiopian Empire remained firmly established through tribute, administrative hierarchy, and shared military interests. This continuity, however, predates the Solomonic Restoration of 1270 and extends back into the period of the Zagwe rulers, who maintained imperial authority across the northern highlands and their associated coastal spheres. Although less is written about the administrative structures of the Zagwe period in Medri Bahri, available historical evidence indicates that the northern regions including the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay remained within the political orbit of the Ethiopian state long before the Solomonic line returned to the throne (Kaplan 1999 ; Trimingham 1952 ). Following the restoration of the Solomonic dynasty, this imperial continuity became even more clearly defined. The rulers of Medri Bahri, most notably Bahr Negash Dori, regularly paid tribute to Ethiopian emperors such as Lebna Dengel, offering high value goods including horses, fine textiles, carpets, and luxury items (Pankhurst 1997 ). Tribute functioned as both an economic obligation and an expression of political loyalty, demonstrating the deep economic and administrative integration of the region into the wider imperial system. The authority of the Bahr Negash extended across the highland districts and reached the Red Sea coast. His jurisdiction included Hirgigo, the principal mainland coastal settlement that served as the provisioning and logistical base for Massawa. This dual authority ensured that Medri Bahri remained internally cohesive and consistently aligned with the Ethiopian court. The administrative seat at Debarwa further reinforced the primacy of highland governance over both inland and coastal territories, creating a stable and unified political system (Kaplan 1999 ; Miran 2015 ). Massawa, despite its commercial prosperity and active trade with merchants from Arabia, Yemen, and the wider Red Sea basin, never developed into an autonomous political center (Miran 2015 ). Its economic vibrancy strengthened its ability to support the tribute obligations of Medri Bahri rather than undermining Ethiopian authority. The port functioned as the maritime outlet of the highlands, and its operations remained firmly embedded within Ethiopian administrative structures (Pankhurst 1997 ; Miran 2015 ). Hirgigo, also known historically as Arkiko, played an even more central administrative role. Long before Massawa rose to prominence under the Ottomans, Hirgigo served as the primary coastal base of the Bahr Negash, overseeing tribute, coastal governance, and the management of maritime affairs (Trimingham 1952 ; Kaplan 1999 ). Goods from the highlands typically passed through Hirgigo before reaching Massawa, and its inhabitants provided the labor, supplies, and logistical services that sustained the port. This interdependence demonstrates that Massawa was commercially important but politically subordinate to Hirgigo and to the highland authority centered in Debarwa. The Ottoman occupation of Massawa in 1557 introduced only a partial alteration to this long-standing arrangement. Although the Ottomans fortified the port and used it as a military outpost, Hirgigo remained the seat of local authority, and the Naibs, hereditary chiefs based in Hirgigo, administered the surrounding territories on behalf of the Ottomans, ensuring that effective political authority remained centered on the mainland rather than on the island port itself (Erlich 1996 ; Trimingham 1952 ). This administrative pattern continued into the nineteenth century, long before Italy created the colonial entity named Eritrea and established Asmara as its capital (Zewde 2001 ; Reid 2011 ). Across all available records including Ethiopian royal chronicles, Portuguese eyewitness accounts, and modern scholarly analyses, there is no historical evidence that Massawa or the northern highlands operated as independent political units before external intervention. Both the coast and the interior were integral parts of a unified Ethiopian imperial structure, governed through the authority of the Bahr Negash and connected to the throne through tribute, economic integration, and administrative continuity. The combined evidence from the Zagwe period, the Solomonic Restoration, the tribute system of the Bahr Negash, the inland and coastal administrative hierarchy centered in Debarwa and Hirgigo, and the absence of any autonomous political formation in Massawa all demonstrate an unbroken pattern of Ethiopian governance on the northern Red Sea coast. This long-established political order predates and fundamentally contradicts later colonial inventions, particularly the Italian creation of the artificial entity called Eritrea. The historical and administrative continuity of Medri Bahri and its Red Sea interface is therefore not a colonial construct but a deeply rooted Ethiopian imperial reality that endured for centuries. 2.1.5 External Challenges and Resilient Sovereignty When Ottoman forces under Ozdemir Pasha advanced into the Red Sea littoral in 1557, they captured Massawa, Hirgigo (Arqiqo) and several nearby islands and coastal settlements. These conquests formed the basis of the Ottoman Eyalet of Habesh, a maritime foothold intended to secure Red Sea routes, counter Portuguese influence, and protect Muslim traders and pilgrims rather than to develop a deep territorial administration in the Ethiopian interior. The initial advance was rapid, but two structural factors ensured that Ottoman control remained essentially coastal. First, Ottoman military logistics and force composition were suited to garrisoning ports and controlling sea lanes, not to sustaining long term inland occupation. Expeditionary units composed of janissaries, cavalry detachments, and naval personnel could seize harbors and adjacent lowlands, but they lacked the supply lines, administrative cadres, and acclimatized manpower needed to pacify the rugged interior for extended periods. Ottoman policy therefore concentrated on fortifications, customs posts, and naval stations at Massawa, Hirgigo, and Suakin rather than comprehensive inland rule. Contemporary and later accounts confirm these priorities and show that the Ottomans invested in coastal defenses, port administration, and maritime infrastructure, not in building provincial governance in the highlands (Erlich, 1996 ). Second, the social and political geography of the interior rendered sustained Ottoman rule impracticable. The highlands of Hamasien, Akele Guzay, and Seraye were governed by entrenched elites under the Bahr Negash and other authorities aligned with the Solomonic state. The terrain favored highland armies and localized rule, and Ottoman attempts to project power inland quickly met resistance. Although Ottoman forces briefly occupied Debarwa during the 1557 campaign, these gains were temporary and local rulers, supported by the Ethiopian imperial military, repeatedly reasserted control. Shifting alliances and uprisings, including the fluctuating loyalties of the Bahr Negash himself, made permanent Ottoman administration unachievable. By the late sixteenth century, a clear practical division had emerged: the Ottomans held the littoral, while the Solomonic polity maintained effective authority over the highlands. A related consequence of these military and geographic limits is that Assab was never part of Ottoman Habesh (Trimingham, 1952 ) . The Afar lowlands around Assab lay to the southeast of the Ottoman coastal sphere and were dominated by the Afar sultanates of Dankali and Aussa, which retained their own political systems. There is no historical evidence that Assab fell under sustained Ottoman administration or that it was integrated into the Eyalet of Habesh. Assab appears in the colonial record only much later when it was purchased by the Rubattino shipping company and subsequently transferred to Italy in the 1880s. This acquisition, and its later use as an Italian staging point for northward expansion, confirms that Assab lay outside Ottoman and Egyptian authority prior to European intervention. Egyptian rule after 1865 similarly remained confined to the coast. Although Egyptian administrators took control of Massawa, their attempts to expand inland were defeated decisively by Ras Alula Abanega in the 1870s (Erlich, 1996 ; Rubenson, 1976 ). These victories reaffirmed Ethiopian sovereignty over the northern highland provinces and demonstrated that foreign coastal footholds, whether Ottoman or Egyptian, never translated into control over Ethiopian territory. 2.1.6 The Distinct Historical Trajectory of Assab In contrast to the integrated administration of Medri Bahri, Assab followed a distinct historical path. While ultimately under the suzerainty of the Ethiopian Empire, Assab remained politically and administratively autonomous. It was governed by Afar-speaking sultanates, particularly the Sultanates of Aussa and Dankali, which exercised local authority over the port and surrounding territories (Hassen, 2023 ). Unlike Medri Bahri, Assab was never incorporated into the domain of the Bahr Negash; it had its own indigenous governance structures and maintained separate administrative, political, and economic networks, even while recognizing Ethiopian overlordship. This autonomy is demonstrated by Italy’s 1869 purchase of Assab from the local Afar sultans for 6000 Italian lire (Pankhurst, 1997 ; “Treaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah,” 2017). The transaction was a commercial agreement rather than an act of conquest or direct colonization. Italy targeted Assab precisely because it was legally transferable under the sultans’ authority and outside the direct administration of Medri Bahri. The sale provided Italy with a strategic foothold on the Red Sea coast, which it later developed into a coaling station and used as a base for northward expansion. The historical significance of this episode lies in highlighting Assab’s unique position: it was under Ethiopian suzerainty but administratively autonomous, and it was never governed by the Bahr Negash. This distinction confirms that Assab’s incorporation into European colonial structures occurred not through the displacement of established Ethiopian authority, but via a commercial transaction with the local Afar rulers, reflecting the complex and layered nature of imperial and local sovereignty in the northern Red Sea littoral. 2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study employs an integrated theoretical framework combining post-colonial theory, legal-historical sovereignty theory, strategic-geopolitical theory, and complementary theoretical perspectives to analyze the complex dimensions of the Assab dispute. These theoretical perspectives provide complementary lenses through which to examine the historical roots, legal contradictions, and contemporary geopolitical implications of Ethiopia's claim to Red Sea access. 2.2.1 Post-Colonial Theory Post-colonial theory provides the foundational framework for understanding how colonial interventions continue to shape governance, identity, and territorial legitimacy long after independence (Said, 1978 ; Fanon, 1963 ; Young, 2001 ). This theoretical approach reveals how imperial powers systematically imposed artificial political boundaries and identities, deliberately erasing pre-existing governance systems and historical claims to facilitate colonial control. In the Horn of Africa context, Italy’s creation of Eritrea exemplifies these colonial dynamics. Through the consolidation of historically distinct territories, the Ethiopian highland province of Medri Bahri, the autonomous Afar coastal region including Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian holdings, Italy fabricated a colonial entity that masked Ethiopia’s historical sovereignty (Bertazzini, 2018 ; Young, 2001 ). The renaming of established Ethiopian provinces and the imposition of centralized administrative structures served to create a new political identity divorced from historical realities. The theory explains the persistent nature of disputes over Assab by highlighting how colonial experiences created legacies of fragmented identities and contested borders. The fabricated narrative of a pre-colonial "Eritrean" entity continues to justify post-colonial sovereignty claims, despite overwhelming historical evidence of Ethiopian administration and influence. Post-colonial theory thus provides the critical analytical tools to deconstruct colonial narratives and understand their enduring power in shaping contemporary Horn of Africa geopolitics. 2.2.2 Critical Geopolitics Theory Critical geopolitics theory complements post-colonial analysis by examining how political spaces are socially constructed, represented, and practiced through discourses of power and territory (Ó Tuathail, 1996 ; Dalby, 1991 ; Reid, 2011 ). This framework reveals how dominant narratives about Eritrea's territorial integrity are not neutral descriptions but politically constructed representations that serve specific power interests. The theory helps deconstruct how Eritrea's current borders are presented as natural and inevitable, despite their origins in colonial cartography (Reid, 2011 ). It examines the "spatial scripts" that frame Assab as inherently Eritrean territory, analyzing how these narratives are produced, disseminated, and normalized in international diplomacy, academic discourse, and media representations. Critical geopolitics also illuminates how Ethiopia's historical claims are often framed as "revisionist" or "expansionist," demonstrating how language and categorization serve to reinforce the status quo. Furthermore, this approach analyzes the practice of geopolitics, showing how Eritrea's control of Assab enables specific forms of regional influence and how Ethiopia's landlocked status constrains its strategic options. By examining both the representation and practice of territory, critical geopolitics provides essential tools for understanding how spatial arrangements perpetuate power asymmetries in the Horn of Africa. 2.2.3 Legal-Historical Sovereignty Theory Legal-historical sovereignty theory establishes that territorial claims derive legitimacy from historical continuity and legal recognition over time, rather than from momentary possession or conquest (Franck, 1992 ; Crawford, 2006 ). This framework emphasizes that sovereignty is constituted through enduring patterns of governance, legal succession, and uninterrupted political authority. Applied to the Ethiopian context, this theory demonstrates that Ethiopia's claim to the Red Sea coast rests on centuries of documented historical governance. The Ethiopian Empire maintained suzerainty over Medri Bahri through the institutional office of the Bahr Negash while exercising tributary authority over the Afar Sultanates governing Assab (Marcus, 1994 ; Zewde, 2001 ). This established a continuous chain of political authority that colonial intervention temporarily disrupted but never legitimately terminated. From a legal-historical perspective, Italy's purchase of Assab from local Afar rulers cannot confer legitimate sovereignty to the subsequent colonial construct of "Eritrea," particularly since no such political entity existed at the time of the transaction (Reid, 2011 ). The post-World War II legal arrangements, including the 1952 UN federation that incorporated Eritrea within Ethiopia's sovereignty, reaffirmed this historical and legal continuity. This theoretical framework thus enables a normative distinction between de facto colonial administration and de jure sovereign claims grounded in historical precedent. 2.2.4 Strategic-Geopolitical Theory Strategic-geopolitical theory emphasizes the decisive influence of geographic location and resource access on state behavior, particularly in regions of vital strategic importance (Kaplan, 2010 ; Clapham, 2017 ). This perspective illuminates how control over strategic territories shapes national security calculations, economic development, and regional power dynamics. The Horn of Africa, and specifically the Red Sea corridor containing Assab, represents a critical global chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy transportation. Ethiopia's position as Africa's second-most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing economies makes secure Red Sea access not merely a historical claim but an existential economic imperative. Conversely, Eritrea's control over Assab provides strategic leverage and influences its regional security calculations. Historical interventions in the region, including Italy's colonial expansion and Egypt's contemporary involvement, demonstrate how strategic imperatives consistently drive territorial disputes. Egypt’s role in maintaining Ethiopia’s dependency over maritime access further illustrates this dynamic (Erlich, 1996 ; Tvedt, 2024 ). The competition over Assab reflects the convergence of historical legitimacy claims with vital contemporary economic and security interests. This theoretical approach bridges historical analysis with policy relevance, highlighting that the Assab dispute represents a quintessential geopolitical challenge where historical claims and strategic necessities are inextricably linked. 2.2.5 Dependency Theory and Core-Periphery Dynamics Dependency theory, particularly through the lens of core-periphery relationships (Wallerstein, 1974 ; Galtung, 1971 ), offers insights into how the current territorial arrangement perpetuates structural inequalities. This framework analyzes how Eritrea's control over Assab creates a dependent relationship where Ethiopia's economic development is constrained by its landlocked status. The theory helps explain how control over strategic infrastructure—in this case, maritime ports—enables peripheral states to exert disproportionate influence over larger neighboring economies. It illuminates the structural violence inherent in arrangements that force landlocked states to depend on transit neighbors for essential economic lifelines. Furthermore, dependency theory provides tools for analyzing how external powers, particularly Egypt, benefit from and reinforce this core-periphery dynamic to maintain regional hegemony. This perspective also reveals how the colonial creation of artificial borders established structural dependencies that continue to shape post-colonial relationships. By examining the economic dimensions of territorial control, dependency theory complements geopolitical analysis by highlighting how spatial arrangements produce and reproduce economic inequalities. 2.2.6 Constructivist International Relations Theory Constructivist theory (Wendt, 1992 ; Adler, 1997 ) provides essential insights into how identities, norms, and social constructions shape the Assab dispute. This approach examines how "Eritrean" and "Ethiopian" identities have been socially constructed and how these constructions influence territorial claims and diplomatic interactions. The theory analyzes how colonial boundaries, initially artificial impositions, have gained social meaning through decades of practice, institutionalization, and international recognition (Herbst, 2000 ). It helps explain why these borders, despite their colonial origins, now appear natural and legitimate to many observers. Constructivism also illuminates how changing regional norms about territorial integrity, self-determination, and decolonization have shaped the evolution of the dispute over time. Furthermore, this approach examines how shared understandings, intersubjective meanings, and normative contexts constrain and enable certain policy options. It helps explain why certain diplomatic solutions appear feasible while others seem unimaginable within the current normative framework of African border politics. 2.2.7 International Legal Frameworks The theoretical framework is further refined through analysis of key international legal principles that govern statehood, territorial integrity, and self-determination. The Montevideo Conventions criteria for statehood—permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and international capacity—provide the foundational legal test for assessing Eritrea’s claims (Studeersnel, n.d.; Mwaihomba, 2017 ). These criteria emphasize that recognition alone cannot constitute legal statehood without meeting substantive requirements of governance and territorial control. The principle of territorial integrity, enshrined in the UN Charter and reinforced through African Union doctrines, prohibits the unilateral fragmentation of sovereign states except under narrowly defined exceptional circumstances (ICJ, 2023; Leibniz Institute, 2023). The Ethiopia-Eritrea situation in 1993 fell outside recognized exceptions for legitimate secession, as it neither represented decolonization nor responded to systematic oppression justifying territorial partition. The theoretical tension between self-determination and territorial integrity further complicates the legal assessment. While self-determination grants people’s rights to determine political status, UN resolutions and international jurisprudence consistently subordinate this principle to territorial integrity outside colonial contexts (Erlich, 1996 ; Trimingham, 1952 ; Tvedt, 2024 ). Eritrea's secession, relying on a transitional Ethiopian government's consent rather than constitutionally sanctioned procedures, occupies uncertain legal territory that continues to generate scholarly debate and practical challenges. This integrated theoretical framework enables comprehensive analysis of the Assab dispute across historical, legal, economic, and strategic dimensions, providing the conceptual tools necessary to evaluate competing claims and identify potential pathways toward resolution. 2.3 EMPIRICAL AND CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE This section synthesizes the empirical evidence from regional history, colonial documentation, and contemporary geopolitical analysis to substantiate the study's core arguments regarding Ethiopia's historical sovereignty and the artificial construction of Eritrea. 2.3.1 Historical Continuity of Ethiopian Sovereignty The empirical record demonstrates uninterrupted Ethiopian sovereignty over the Red Sea littoral through the integrated province of Medri Bahri. Authoritative sources consistently document that the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, together with the port of Massawa, formed a coherent administrative unit under the Bahr Negash, whose authority derived directly from the Ethiopian Emperor (Pankhurst, 1997 ; Connell & Killion, 2011 ). The administrative capital at Debarwa and the coastal headquarters at Hirgigo maintained Ethiopia's maritime governance for over five centuries, with tribute systems and military arrangements confirming political integration (Trimingham, 1952 ; Miran, 2015 ). Foreign interventions including the Ottoman establishment of the Eyalet of Habesh in 1557 and Egyptian control from 1865 remained strictly limited to coastal enclaves. Historical accounts document that Ottoman attempts to expand inland failed against Ethiopian resistance (Erlich, 1996 ), while Egyptian forces under Kamal Ismail Pasha were decisively defeated by Ras Alula Abanega in the 1870s, reaffirming Ethiopian control over its northern provinces (Rubenson, 1976 ). 2.3.2 Distinct Historical Trajectory of Assab Empirical evidence establishes that Assab followed a separate historical path under Afar sultanates, particularly the Sultanate of Aussa and Dankali polities (Lewis, 1994 ; Hassen, 2023 ; Cerulli, 1941 ; Trimingham, 1952 ). The 1869 purchase of Assab by the Rubattino Shipping Company from local Afar sultans Ibrahim and Hasan ibn Ahmed provides conclusive proof of this separation, as the transaction would have been impossible had Assab been under Ottoman, Egyptian, or Medri Bahri administration ("Treaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah," 2017). Italy's specific targeting of Assab precisely because of its autonomous status underscores its distinct political trajectory separate from the Ethiopian highlands. 2.3.3 Colonial Amalgamation and Artificial Construction Italian colonial archives reveal the deliberate process of territorial fabrication that created Eritrea in 1890. Italy's incremental expansion from securing Assab in 1882, occupying Massawa in 1885 (Zewde, 2001 ), to conquering the highland provinces culminated in the forced amalgamation of three historically distinct regions: the Ethiopian province of Medri Bahri, autonomous Afar territories around Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian coastal holdings (Reid, 2011 ). This colonial construction mirrored imperial practices in French West Africa and British India, where artificial political units generated enduring post-colonial conflicts (Boone, 2003 ; Chandra, 2008 ). 2.3.4 Contested Legality of Eritrean Secession International Court of Justice advisory opinions provide an important legal framework for evaluating the procedural and substantive validity of Eritrea’s secession and the continuing status of Assab. The Western Sahara Advisory Opinion affirmed that the right to self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the people and must be carried out through lawful procedures that respect existing sovereign authority (ICJ, 1975; Shaw, 2017 ). It also clarified that historical or political claims cannot substitute for a valid legal mechanism of territorial transfer (Shaw, 2017 ). The Namibia Advisory Opinion similarly held that any alteration in sovereignty must be undertaken by a competent authority operating within a recognized legal order (ICJ, 1971; Shaw, 2017 ). These principles are relevant to the Horn of Africa because the separation of Eritrea required a legitimate and constitutionally authorized act of the Ethiopian state rather than informal political arrangements formed during the liberation struggle (Shaw, 2017 ; Erlich, 2024a ; Tekeste, 1997 ). The Kosovo Advisory Opinion further contributes to this legal assessment. It concluded that declarations of independence are not prohibited under international law, but that their effects depend on compliance with the domestic constitutional framework of the parent state (ICJ, 2010; Shaw, 2017 ). This observation is significant because Eritrea’s 1993 referendum and subsequent independence occurred at a time when Ethiopia lacked a ratified constitution that permitted the dismemberment of sovereign territory (Crawford, 2006 ; Shaw, 2017 ; Tekeste, 1997 ). The transitional government that endorsed the referendum did not possess constitutional authority to authorize secession, leaving a legal gap that international law has never fully resolved (Erlich, 2024a ; Shaw, 2017 ). Moreover, the process unfolded in a context of intense regional rivalry and external intervention, which shaped political decisions and influenced local power dynamics (Heinlein, 2022 ). As a result, the process that produced Eritrean independence did not align with recognized requirements for lawful territorial change (Shaw, 2017 ; Erlich, 2024b ; Tekeste, 1997 ). In the post-independence period, governance and human rights challenges further complicated Eritrea’s political legitimacy. Reports by international organizations highlight systemic violations, authoritarian control, and limited accountability, reflecting ongoing tensions in state authority and governance structures (OHCHR, 2015 ). These issues underscore that legal recognition of independence does not automatically resolve questions of legitimacy and effective governance. The Frontier Dispute case between Burkina Faso and Mali further reinforces these principles. The Court ruled that inherited borders, including those resulting from colonial administration, must remain intact unless a clear and valid legal act authorizes their modification (ICJ, 1986; Pankhurst, 1997 ; Kaplan, 1999 ; Shaw, 2017 ). This principle is central to the case of Assab because Ethiopia’s sovereignty over the Red Sea coastline historically predates and operates independently of Italian colonial boundary-making (Erlich, 2016 ; Erlich, 2024c ; Shaw, 2017 ). No constitutionally valid act of the Ethiopian state formally transferred Assab or the wider Red Sea littoral to a newly created Eritrean state (Erlich, 2024b ; Erlich, 2024c ; Shaw, 2017 ). Furthermore, control over Assab carries significant strategic and economic implications for regional connectivity and trade, similar to the importance of regional economic corridors in other contexts (Menon & Warr, 2013 ). When viewed collectively, these ICJ positions and scholarly assessments indicate that the process leading to Eritrea’s secession contained serious legal deficiencies, that the status of Assab remains tied to unresolved questions of territorial legitimacy under international law, and that regional geopolitical pressures and economic considerations further complicated the legality and practice of secession (Erlich, 2016 ; Erlich, 2024a ; Erlich, 2024b ; Erlich, 2024c ; Shaw, 2017 ; Heinlein, 2022 ; Tekeste, 1997 ; OHCHR, 2015 ; Menon & Warr, 2013 ). 2.3.5 Egyptian Geopolitical Intervention Archival evidence documents Egypt's systematic support for Eritrean separatism as part of its broader strategy to weaken Ethiopia. Historical records show Egyptian sponsorship of the Eritrean Liberation Front from its 1960 founding in Cairo, including military training in Alexandria and propaganda support through Sawt al Arab media (Tadesse, 1999 ; Jacquin Berdal, 2002). This pattern continued through Egyptian influence on UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali's endorsement of Eritrean independence and persists in contemporary efforts to block Ethiopian port access, particularly during GERD negotiations (International Crisis Group, 2021 ). 2.3.6 Contemporary Geopolitical Stalemate Current diplomatic impasse reflects the interplay of historical legacies and strategic interests. Ethiopia's position as Africa's fastest growing economy with over 110 million people creates an existential need for Red Sea access, while Eritrea's intransigence bolstered by Egyptian support prevents diplomatic solutions (Clapham, 2017 ). International precedents demonstrate viable alternatives, including Bolivia's access to Ilo port and Niger's corridors to Cotonou, proving that treaty-based arrangements can resolve landlocked access issues without border changes (Kleiche Dray & Blumenthal, 2012; Gwilliam, 2011 ). 2.3.7 Global Comparative Cases The Eritrean case fits global patterns of colonial boundary disputes. French West Africa's arbitrary federations and British India's princely state arrangements demonstrate how imperial powers consistently disregarded historical sovereignties, creating enduring territorial conflicts (Young, 2001 ). The specific parallel with Hyderabad and Junagadh where colonial borders ignored historical and cultural realities highlights how artificial territorial constructions inevitably generate post-colonial disputes (Chandra, 2008 ). 2.3.8 Diplomatic Frameworks and Conflict Resolution International practice provides multiple models for peaceful resolution. The African Union's border doctrine and UN conflict resolution mechanisms offer institutional frameworks for mediating port access agreements. Documented success cases include special economic zones, long term leases, and joint port authorities that preserve sovereignty while ensuring economic access (African Union, 2015 ). These mechanisms align with global norms that prohibit territorial conquest while encouraging cooperative solutions for landlocked states' maritime access needs. The empirical evidence collectively demonstrates that the current dispute stems from colonial disruption of historical sovereignties, compounded by contested legal processes and contemporary geopolitical interference. This foundation supports the argument for diplomatic solutions that acknowledge historical realities while working within current international legal frameworks. 3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The persistent and escalating dispute over Ethiopian access to the Red Sea, centering on the port of Assab, represents a critical threat to peace, security, and economic integration in the Horn of Africa. This crisis is not a recent political friction but is deeply rooted in a fundamental historical contradiction: the tension between Ethiopia's centuries-old sovereignty over its Red Sea littoral and the artificial colonial construction of Eritrea, which forcibly amalgamated historically distinct territories. The core of the problem is multifaceted, encompassing a contested historical legacy, a legally ambiguous secession, a contemporary geopolitical stalemate, and the persistence of historically unfounded claims that distort colonial boundaries and undermine peaceful cooperation. First, the problem originates in a deliberate colonial re-engineering of historical geography that severed Ethiopia from its maritime heritage. Pre-colonial history demonstrates that the northern highlands of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, along with the port of Massawa, constituted the integrated Ethiopian imperial province of Medri Bahri, governed by the emperor’s vassal, the Bahr Negash, for over five centuries. Historical evidence confirms that the Ethiopian Empire also exercised sovereignty and maintained tributary relations over the Afar coastal region, including Assab. The 1869 sale of Assab by the Afar Sultanate of Raheita to the Italian Rubattino Shipping Company occurred precisely because no political entity called Eritrea existed, and the territory lay within Ethiopia's sphere of authority. Italy’s subsequent colonization created the artificial territorial entity of "Eritrea" by forcibly merging these historically Ethiopian regions, erasing centuries of influence and creating an arbitrary border that has no basis in pre-colonial political structures. This colonial act generated a legacy of contested sovereignty that persists to this day. Second, the problem is compounded by the legally and politically contested nature of Eritrea's secession in 1993, which entrenched these colonial distortions. The international recognition of Eritrea’s independence relied heavily on the consent of Ethiopia's Transitional Government (TGE), an entity that lacked a permanent constitutional mandate and the legal authority to permanently dismember the state's sovereign territory. The referendum was conducted exclusively within Eritrea without the consent of the broader Ethiopian populace, raising profound questions under international law regarding territorial integrity and the proper application of self-determination. Furthermore, the process was influenced by the partiality of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose actions reflected Egypt’s longstanding geopolitical strategy to weaken Ethiopia by supporting Eritrean separatism. This historical external interference casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of the current border arrangement and fuels Ethiopia's sense of historical injustice. Third, the problem manifests today as a dangerous geopolitical stalemate, exacerbated by Eritrea's intransigence and the persistence of politicized narratives. Ethiopia, one of the fastest-growing economies and most populous nations in Africa, is landlocked due to this colonial and post-colonial history. Its strategic and economic survival is contingent on secure access to the Red Sea. In a consistent demonstration of its commitment to peace, the Ethiopian government has pursued a cooperative approach, seeking not ownership through coercion, but limited use of Assab through dialogue, offering reciprocal incentives for regional development. However, Eritrea, with the strategic backing of Egypt, has adopted an intransigent stance, refusing dialogue, militarizing the border, and blocking any negotiation. Egypt’s involvement, mirroring its opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), exploits this dispute to maintain regional hegemony, thereby transforming a bilateral issue into a volatile multilateral crisis. Therefore, the central problem is that the current political map of the Horn of Africa is a colonial artifact that contradicts deep historical structures of sovereignty. Its preservation in the face of Ethiopia's legitimate strategic needs, combined with Eritrea's refusal to cooperate and Egypt's destabilizing interference, creates an unsustainable status quo that threatens to plunge the region into renewed conflict. The inability to reconcile historical truth with contemporary political reality, to correct colonial distortions, and to find a diplomatic solution that addresses Ethiopia's existential need for sea access, constitutes a critical challenge. This study is motivated by the urgent need to uncover the hidden truths surrounding Assab, separate colonial narratives from historical and legal reality, and provide evidence-based insights to guide diplomacy and foster a peaceful, cooperative resolution for regional stability and mutual economic growth. 4. RESEARCH QUESTION How do the distinct historical trajectories of the Medri Bahri province and the Afar Sultanate of Assab demonstrate long-standing Ethiopian sovereignty over the Red Sea coast, and what specific governance, tribute, and military structures integrated these regions into the Ethiopian imperial system? In what ways did Italian colonial policy deliberately construct the territory of Eritrea by forcibly amalgamating the historically Ethiopian province of Medri Bahri with the separate Afar coastal territory of Assab, and how did this process invent a new political geography that severed Ethiopia's maritime access? To what extent does the legal foundation of Eritrea's secession, reliant on the consent of Ethiopia's non-constitutional Transitional Government and a regionally exclusive referendum, contribute to the contested legitimacy of its sovereignty over Assab under international law? How do the contemporary policies of Eritrean intransigence and strategic Egyptian interference exploit the legacy of colonial borders to perpetuate the dispute over Assab and block diplomatic solutions for Ethiopian port access? Based on historical precedent and international law, what specific diplomatic frameworks offer the most viable mechanisms for reconciling Ethiopia's legitimate need for Red Sea access with the current territorial arrangement, thereby promoting regional stability? 5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 5.1 General Objective: The general objective of this study is to critically examine the historical, legal, and geopolitical foundations of Assab’s territorial status and assess Ethiopia’s sovereignty claims in light of pre-colonial governance, colonial interventions, and post-colonial arrangements. 5.2 Specific Objectives : To analyze Ethiopia's historical sovereignty over the Assab region through pre-colonial governance and archival records. To examine how Italian colonial policy constructed Eritrea and detached Assab from Ethiopia. To assess the legal implications of post-colonial arrangements for Assab's ownership and administration. To investigate how Eritrean policies and Egyptian interference perpetuate the current stalemate. To propose diplomatic solutions for Ethiopian port access that align with historical and legal frameworks. 6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY his study holds significant academic and policy relevance. Academically, it addresses a critical research gap by systematically tracing the historical and legal foundations of the Assab question, offering a vital reassessment of the colonial and post-colonial narratives that have distorted territorial sovereignty in the Horn of Africa. It challenges prevailing misconceptions by grounding the discourse in verifiable evidence of Ethiopia's sovereign continuity. From a policy perspective, the research provides actionable insights for policymakers, diplomats, and regional bodies. By foregrounding historical truth and advocating for constructive diplomacy and impartial mediation, in line with the frameworks of the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD, the study demonstrates that resolving the Assab issue is indispensable not only for Ethiopia's economic security but also for achieving lasting regional stability and cooperation. 7. SCOP OF THE STUDY The scope of this study is multi-dimensional, encompassing conceptual, temporal, geographical, and methodological aspects, as detailed in Table 1 . The conceptual scope examines the historical and legal dimensions of the Assab question, while the temporal scope covers the period from the late 19th century to the present. Geographically, the focus is on the Red Sea region, and methodologically, the study employs a qualitative, historical-legal approach. Table 1 Summary of dimensions of scope Dimension Description Conceptual Scope Examines historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of the Assab question, focusing on Ethiopia’s sovereignty claims, Eritrea’s political intransigence, colonial legacy, territorial ownership, post-colonial legal continuity, and regional strategic dynamics. Considers external actors such as Egypt and regional institutions including the African Union and IGAD. Temporal Scope Covers the late nineteenth century from Italy’s acquisition of Assab in 1869, through the Italian colonial period, the 1952–1962 UN-sanctioned federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia, Eritrea’s secession in 1993, and up to present-day diplomatic and geopolitical developments. Geographical Scope Focuses on the Red Sea coastal region of the Horn of Africa, particularly the port of Assab, surrounding Afar and highland regions of present-day Eritrea, and Ethiopia’s maritime and territorial interests. Considers regional context and involvement of neighboring countries such as Egypt and regional organizations. Methodological Scope Employs a qualitative, historical-legal approach using secondary sources including colonial archives, treaties, legal documents, historical records, and contemporary policy analyses. Uses NVivo 12 software to organize, code, and analyze qualitative data, identify patterns, and interpret legal and geopolitical dynamics. Excludes military or operational security assessments. Source Literature survey (2025). 8. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The study employed NVivo-12 software to facilitate a rigorous thematic analysis of the collected materials. All textual data were systematically coded into hierarchical nodes , enabling the organization of complex historical and geopolitical information into analytically meaningful clusters. At the highest level, parent nodes captured the broad thematic domains shaping the Assab question, namely historical evolution, colonial legacies, legal frameworks, and regional geopolitical dynamics. Within each parent node, child nodes were developed to articulate specific sub-themes, such as territorial administration, treaty arrangements, colonial boundary-making, and foreign strategic interests. Further refinement produced sub-child nodes , which recorded the fine-grained details drawn from archival records, treaties, legislative texts, diplomatic correspondences, and contemporary analyses. This multilayered coding structure strengthens both the depth and reliability of interpretation. It allows recurring patterns, contradictions, and historical continuities to emerge organically from the data while preserving the contextual nuance of each source. Ultimately, the hierarchical node system provides an organized analytical architecture through which the study synthesizes diverse textual evidence and develops coherent insights into the factors influencing the historical and legal status of Assab. The full hierarchy of nodes is presented in the following table. 8.1 Research Approach This study employs a qualitative research approach, selected for its capacity to investigate complex historical, legal, and geopolitical phenomena where numerical measurement is neither applicable nor sufficient. Unlike quantitative methods that seek statistical generalization or mixed methods that combine both paradigms, the qualitative approach enables an in-depth, nuanced examination of the underlying meanings, contexts, and complexities of the Assab question. This choice is fundamentally justified by the nature of the research objectives and the exclusive reliance on secondary data sources, including historical documents, legal texts, and policy statements. The following justification delineates why a qualitative approach is not only appropriate but necessary for this inquiry, in contrast to quantitative or mixed alternatives. 8.2 Research Design This study employed a historical comparative case study design, a methodological approach widely recognized in the literature for its effectiveness in examining socio-political processes that unfold across long time periods. Scholars in historical institutionalism and comparative politics emphasize that such designs allow researchers to trace continuity, change, and causal mechanisms across different eras, while drawing connections between past structures and contemporary outcomes. Within this framework, the study investigated Ethiopia–Eritrea relations across pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods, enabling a deep exploration of Ethiopia’s governance systems, administrative practices, and tributary arrangements. This long-term perspective supports a richer understanding of the cultural, political, and legal links between Ethiopia and the Assab region prior to Italian annexation. The comparative dimension of the design is also grounded in established methodological scholarship, which highlights the value of situating a single case within a broader set of historical experiences. By analyzing parallel cases of colonial boundary-making in regions such as India, Nigeria, and French West Africa, the study draws comparative insights that clarify how artificially imposed borders have influenced identity formation, state consolidation, and post-independence conflicts in multiple world regions. This comparative framing strengthens the analytical depth of the research and demonstrates how Ethiopia’s experience reflects broader post-colonial patterns documented in contemporary political geography and international relations literature. To enhance analytical rigor, the study integrates qualitative data analysis using NVivo 12. This software supports systematic coding of diverse historical materials, including archival documents, legal texts, treaties, and contemporary scholarly writings. Nodes were developed to reflect major thematic areas such as historical governance, colonial interventions, legal claims, and geopolitical dynamics. Sub-nodes and more refined categories capture specific issues within each thematic area, allowing the researcher to trace recurring patterns, identify contradictions, and organize large textual datasets in a transparent and replicable manner. The incorporation of NVivo aligns the study with current qualitative research standards by ensuring consistency, depth of interpretation, and methodological transparency. Finally, the historical comparative design supports a rigorous examination of how past territorial arrangements continue to influence contemporary geopolitics. By linking historical and legal evidence with current regional challenges such as port access, maritime security, and diplomatic negotiations, the study demonstrates that unresolved colonial legacies remain central to present-day strategic decisions in the Horn of Africa. Through this integrated approach, the research brings together historical, legal, and contemporary dimensions within a single analytical framework, producing findings that contribute meaningfully to ongoing debates in international law, political geography, and conflict studies. 8.3 TYPES AND SOURCES OF DATA This study draws upon a combination of archival documents and colonial records , which serve as the foundational sources for reconstructing the historical governance and territorial dynamics of the Assab region. Archival materials from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries such as Italian colonial correspondences, trade logs, and Ethiopian imperial records would provide crucial evidence of Ethiopia’s pre-colonial sovereignty and the subsequent territorial reconfigurations imposed by colonial powers. These records illuminate the nature of tribute relationships, administrative systems, and maritime activities that connected the Ethiopian highlands to the Red Sea coast prior to Italy’s acquisition of Assab (Bertazzini, 2018 ). The study also makes extensive use of legal instruments , including United Nations resolutions and post-colonial treaties, particularly the 1952 UN Federation documents that outlined the federal arrangement between Ethiopia and Eritrea. These legal sources clarify the extent of Ethiopia’s administrative authority and the limitations placed on Eritrea’s jurisdiction during the federation period (UN General Assembly, 1952). Subsequent legal agreements and independence-related documents were also reviewed to trace the evolution of sovereignty claims and administrative control over Assab, providing a robust legal framework for assessing post-colonial territorial legitimacy. In addition, the research engages with a wide body of secondary literature on colonial Africa and the Horn of Africa , encompassing scholarly works on the political economy of colonization, boundary formation, and post-colonial statehood. These sources contextualize Ethiopia’s experience within broader regional patterns of European intervention and the artificial construction of national identities (Anderson, 1991 ; Clapham, 2017 ). The comparative insights drawn from such literature enrich the analysis by connecting Ethiopia–Eritrea relations to the wider discourse on colonial legacies in Africa. Finally, the study incorporates contemporary policy statements and news reports to capture the modern geopolitical and economic dimensions of the Assab question. Official government communications, regional policy declarations, and credible media analyses were reviewed to assess how current diplomatic positions and strategic interests reflect or distort historical and legal realities (African Union, 2023; Reuters, 2024 ). This integration of historical, legal, and contemporary sources ensures a comprehensive understanding of the Assab issue, bridging the past and present to inform policy and diplomatic pathways toward peaceful resolution. 8.4 STUDY POPULATION This study is primarily document-based and qualitative , so the population is conceptual rather than composed of individuals. The “study population” consists of all relevant historical, legal, and contemporary documents that provide evidence on Ethiopia’s governance, territorial claims, and the Assab port issue. Specifically, the population includes: Archival and historical documents : Ethiopian imperial records, Italian colonial correspondences, trade and administrative logs, and maps that capture pre-colonial sovereignty, tribute relationships, and colonial interventions. Legal and post-colonial instruments : UN resolutions, treaties, federation agreements, and post-secession legal documents that define administrative boundaries, sovereignty, and succession principles. Secondary literature : Peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports analyzing Ethiopia–Eritrea relations, colonial legacies, and comparative studies of post-colonial boundary disputes. Contemporary sources : Official reports, policy statements, and media coverage from organizations such as the African Union, IGAD, and the United Nations, which reflect modern diplomatic and strategic positions regarding Assab. By defining the population in terms of these documentary sources, the study ensures a comprehensive and representative coverage of all historical, legal, and contemporary evidence relevant to understanding the Assab question, Ethiopia’s claims, and regional geopolitical dynamics. 8.4 DATA COLLECTION The study employed a comprehensive documentary analysis approach to gather historical and legal materials related to Assab and Eritrea. The data were collected from libraries, national archives, and credible online repositories, including colonial correspondences, treaties, maps, and administrative records. These documents provided essential evidence of Ethiopia’s pre-colonial governance, Italian colonial interventions, and post-colonial legal arrangements, enabling a detailed reconstruction of territorial and political dynamics in the Horn of Africa. A secondary literature review was conducted to supplement primary data, drawing on peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and reports that examine Ethiopia–Eritrea relations, the legacies of colonialism, and regional geopolitics. This literature provided critical contextual understanding, theoretical perspectives, and comparative insights from similar post-colonial boundary disputes, helping to frame the Assab issue within broader historical and geopolitical narratives. In addition, contemporary sources were incorporated to capture current policy, diplomatic, and strategic developments. Official reports and statements from organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) were reviewed to assess ongoing negotiations, regional security concerns, and economic implications of Assab’s status. All collected documents were systematically imported into NVivo 12 for qualitative data management. The software enabled organized coding, thematic categorization, and rigorous analysis, ensuring that historical, legal, and contemporary sources were integrated to identify patterns, relationships, and insights relevant to Ethiopia’s claims over Assab and the broader Ethiopia–Eritrea dispute. 8.5 DATA ANALYSIS CODING STRUCTURE The study employed thematic analysis using NVivo 12 software for coding, aligned with the research objectives, questions, and thematic eras. It is designed so that parent nodes capture broad themes, child nodes break these into focused sub-themes, and sub-child nodes capture detailed aspects and supporting evidence. The complete thematic analysis framework is presented in Table 2 here under. This structured approach aligns with the historical-comparative, legal-historical, and geopolitical focus of the research, providing a systematic roadmap to generate rigorous insights and critical solutions. Table 2 Thematic Analysis Framework of study Parent Node (Broad Theme) Child Node (Sub-Theme) Sub-Child Node (Detailed Aspect / Evidence) Historical Governance & Sovereignty Pre-Colonial Ethiopian Administration Medri Bahri administrative system; Office of Bahr Negash; Tribute and military obligations; Integration of highlands and Massawa; Imperial suzerainty under Yohannes IV Afar Sultanates and Local Governance Governance structures of Assab and Aussa; Autonomy from Medri Bahri; Local political hierarchy; Tribute relationships with Ethiopian Empire Resilience Against External Challenges Ottoman occupation of Massawa (1557); Egyptian attempts to expand inland; Ras Alula's military resistance; Continuity of Ethiopian sovereignty in the highlands Colonial Intervention & Legacy Italian Acquisition and Motives 1869 purchase of Assab by Rubattino Shipping Company from Afar Sultanate; Evidence of Assab's autonomous status; Italian strategic motives for using Assab as a springboard Colonial Territorial Amalgamation Forced merger of Medri Bahri, Assab, and Ottoman/Egyptian coastal holdings; Creation of the colony of Eritrea (1890); Consolidation of provinces (Hamasien, Seraye, Akele Guzai) Imposed Identity and Geography Imposition of the name "Eritrea"; Erasure of historical Ethiopian governance; Creation of colonial administrative structures; Renaming and administrative centralization Legal-Historical Sovereignty Continuity of Ethiopian Claims Historical governance and administration; Legal continuity post-World War II; UN 1952 federation reaffirming Ethiopian sovereignty over Assab and Eritrea Contested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession Limitations of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia's (TGE) consent; Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood; International law principles on territorial integrity vs. self-determination Treaty and Archival Evidence 1869 Contract of Assab and Ras Lumah; Colonial archives; Legal precedents on territorial succession Geopolitical & Strategic Dimensions Strategic Importance of Red Sea Access Economic and security imperatives for Ethiopia; Assab as a regional trade and security chokepoint; Importance for trade and access to maritime routes Role of External Actors Egypt’s historical and contemporary intervention; Support for Eritrean separatists; Influence on GERD negotiations and Red Sea access; Role of international actors (AU, UN, IGAD) Regional Power Dynamics Eritrea’s military and economic control over Assab; Strategic leverage against Ethiopia; Regional security dynamics and military posturing Post-Colonial & Contemporary Implications Ethiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations 1993 secession referendum; 2018 peace agreement; Current diplomatic stalemate; Ethiopia's cooperative proposals vs. Eritrea's refusal Global Comparative Cases British India princely states (Hyderabad, Junagadh); French West Africa federations; Nigeria; Lessons on artificial borders and long-term post-colonial disputes Conflict Resolution Mechanisms African Union border doctrine and mediation; UN conflict resolution mechanisms; Treaty-based access solutions (long-term leases, joint port authorities, economic corridors) Source Developed from literature survey (2025). 9. DISCUSION Historical Governance & Sovereignty: Pre-Colonial Ethiopian Administration : Medri Bahri was a fully integrated province of the Ethiopian Empire, administered through the Office of the Bahr Negash, a regional viceroy directly accountable to the emperor. Established and reinforced under Zara Yaqob, this office combined military, administrative, and economic authority to project imperial power and ensure loyalty. Tribute and military obligations, including payments of luxury goods by Bahr Negash Dori to Emperor Lebna Dengel, affirmed both political subordination and economic integration. The inclusion of Massawa within this system created a continuous corridor linking highlands and coast, where trade revenues strengthened imperial capacity without granting local autonomy. The resilience of this governance is evident in the nineteenth century under Yohannes IV, when, despite centuries of Ottoman and Egyptian coastal presence, Medri Bahri remained firmly aligned with the Ethiopian Empire, with leaders like Ras Alula defending imperial authority, demonstrating that external footholds did not undermine highland sovereignty. Afar Sultanates and Local Governance The Afar Sultanates of Assab and Aussa were politically autonomous polities under Ethiopian suzerainty, maintaining independent governance and local hierarchies while managing internal affairs, trade routes, and coastal territories. Unlike Medri Bahri, which was directly administered by the Bahr Negash, these sultanates exercised local decision-making and military authority, illustrating the decentralized and layered nature of imperial governance. Tribute payments in goods or livestock acknowledged Ethiopian sovereignty while preserving autonomy, allowing the Empire to assert authority without direct administration. This autonomy was instrumental in maintaining regional stability, facilitating trade, and managing strategic coastal areas such as Assab. Resilience Against External Challenges Despite Ottoman occupation of Massawa in 1557 and later Egyptian attempts to extend inland, Ethiopian sovereignty in the highlands remained intact. Ottoman and Egyptian forces were limited to coastal footholds and could not displace entrenched local authority. Military leadership by figures such as Ras Alula reinforced imperial control, demonstrating the durability and resilience of Ethiopian governance against external pressures. Colonial Intervention and Legacy: Italian Acquisition and Motives : In 1869, the Rubattino Shipping Company purchased Assab from the local Afar sultans for 6000 Italian lire, highlighting the port’s autonomous status under Ethiopian suzerainty. This was a commercial transaction rather than a conquest. Italy’s acquisition aimed to establish a strategic foothold on the Red Sea littoral, using Assab as a coaling station and springboard for northward expansion into the Horn of Africa. Colonial Territorial Amalgamation In 1890, Italy forcibly merged Medri Bahri, the autonomous territory of Assab, and former Ottoman and Egyptian coastal holdings to create the colony of Eritrea, consolidating the highland provinces of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzai under a single colonial administration. Imposed Identity and Geography Italy imposed the name “Eritrea” on the newly consolidated territory, erasing centuries of Ethiopian governance and local identities. Colonial authorities created centralized administrative structures, renamed historical provinces, and established a governance system designed to serve colonial objectives rather than reflect existing political or cultural realities. Legal-Historical Sovereignty and Continuity of Ethiopian Claims Legal-historical evidence consistently demonstrates the continuity of Ethiopian sovereignty over Assab and the wider Eritrean territories. For centuries, Ethiopian imperial authority exercised governance—directly in the highlands and indirectly through tributary arrangements in coastal regions—establishing an unbroken chain of administrative presence. After World War II, this historical sovereignty was reaffirmed through international legal processes, culminating in the 1952 UN-brokered federation, which formally recognized Ethiopia as the sovereign state to which Eritrea (including Assab) was legally attached. This continuity underscores that Ethiopian claims rest not on modern political assertions but on longstanding historical and legal foundations. Contested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession The legitimacy of Eritrea’s secession remains contested because the Transitional Government of Ethiopia lacked a fully constituted constitutional mandate, and its consent created significant legal uncertainty. When evaluated through the Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood, particularly the requirements of a stable government, a clearly defined territory, and an independent basis for sovereignty, Eritrea’s emergence as a state occurred under exceptional and politically driven circumstances rather than through the standard legal pathway. International law places great importance on both territorial integrity and self-determination, yet secession is recognized only in limited situations such as decolonization or extreme denial of internal self-government. Eritrea did not fit these recognized categories, which makes the process and outcome of its secession legally unusual and open to dispute. Treaty and Archival Evidence Treaty and archival records, including the 1869 Contract of Assab and Ras Lumah, provide clear evidence of Assab’s prior political status under Afar rulers within the Ethiopian imperial sphere, rather than as an independent or foreign-held territory. Colonial archives further document how Italy’s acquisition relied on transactions with local authorities rather than any sovereign Eritrean entity, underscoring the absence of a pre-colonial state that could legally transfer territory. These materials also align with established legal principles on territorial succession, which recognize historical sovereignty and valid chains of title. Together, the treaty and archival evidence affirm the continuity of Ethiopian territorial claims and expose the colonial origins of the later Eritrean boundaries. Geopolitical & Strategic Dimensions: Strategic Importance of Red Sea Access : The Red Sea has long been central to Ethiopia’s economic and security strategy, making uninterrupted maritime access a core national priority. Assab, situated at a strategic chokepoint along major global trade routes, served not only as a commercial outlet for Ethiopia’s hinterland but also as a critical node for regional security and diplomatic leverage. Control over Assab enabled Ethiopia to engage in international commerce, secure supply chains, and maintain a balance of power in a region shaped by rival coastal actors. Its geographic position made it indispensable for both economic integration and national security planning. Role of External Actors External actors have consistently shaped the political dynamics surrounding Eritrea and Ethiopia, with Egypt playing the most persistent and disruptive role. Historically, Egypt supported Eritrean separatist movements as part of a broader strategy to weaken Ethiopia and secure influence over Red Sea routes and Nile politics. This pattern continues in contemporary disputes, including Egypt’s efforts to leverage GERD negotiations and Red Sea access to limit Ethiopia’s regional power. Meanwhile, international and regional organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD have attempted to mediate tensions but often lack the enforcement mechanisms needed to counter entrenched geopolitical interests. These actors collectively influence the balance of power, conflict dynamics, and diplomatic outcomes in the Horn of Africa. Regional Power Dynamics Eritrea’s control over Assab provides potential military and economic leverage, allowing it to influence regional security and assert strategic pressure on Ethiopia. As a key maritime hub, the port can facilitate power projection, trade, and regional military posturing. However, its full value depends on Ethiopia’s use for import and export activities. Without cooperation with Ethiopia, Assab’s economic and strategic potential remains limited, highlighting the necessity of collaborative management for mutual development. Post-colonial and Contemporary Implications: Ethiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations : Since Eritrea’s 1993 secession referendum, Ethiopia-Eritrea relations have been shaped by cycles of tension and negotiation. The 2018 peace agreement offered a framework for normalization, yet a persistent diplomatic stalemate continues, with Ethiopia advocating cooperative approaches to trade, security, and Red Sea access, while Eritrea has largely resisted engagement. This impasse underscores the challenges of translating formal agreements into practical cooperation. Global Comparative Cases Global comparative cases, including the princely states of British India such as Hyderabad and Junagadh, French West Africa federations, and Nigeria, illustrate how colonial-era artificial borders and administrative arrangements often created enduring post-colonial disputes. These cases show that externally imposed territorial units, disconnected from historical governance or local identities, tend to generate long-term political, social, and economic challenges. Conflict Resolution Mechanism : Conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa can draw on multiple mechanisms, including the African Union’s border doctrine and mediation processes, United Nations conflict resolution frameworks, and treaty-based solutions such as long-term leases, joint port authorities, and shared economic corridors. These tools offer structured approaches to manage disputes, facilitate cooperation, and balance sovereignty with practical access to strategic assets. 10. KEY FINDINGS Pre Colonial Ethiopian Administration of Medri Bahri Medri Bahri functioned as a fully integrated province of the Ethiopian Empire, governed through the Bahr Negash within a well-defined hierarchical system that sustained clear lines of authority for centuries. Tribute and military obligations demonstrate continuous Ethiopian sovereignty over the region, a continuity that persisted despite Ottoman and Egyptian attempts to assert coastal influence. This enduring allegiance underscores the resilience of Ethiopian political structures and the depth of imperial integration in the northern highlands. It was Italian colonial intervention that disrupted this long-standing order, creating an artificial territorial entity that severed a functioning imperial province; the idea of a distinct Eritrean historical identity is therefore a product of colonial engineering rather than a pre-colonial reality. Afar Sultanates and local governance Assab and Aussa functioned as autonomous Afar sultanates with their own structured governance systems, distinct political hierarchies, and locally rooted authority that enabled effective control of trade routes and coastal resources, all while remaining under the overarching suzerainty of the Ethiopian Empire. Their autonomy from Medri Bahri illustrates the Empire’s flexible and layered model of governance, which relied on tribute rather than direct administration to assert sovereignty. This arrangement allowed the Afar rulers to manage strategically important coastal zones such as Assab with stability and effectiveness, a factor that later heightened European commercial interest in the area. Together, these features reveal the complexity of pre-colonial Ethiopian statecraft and challenge simplistic portrayals of its governance as uniformly centralized, highlighting instead a negotiated and multifaceted structure of authority in the Red Sea region. Resilience against external challenges Ethiopian sovereignty in the northern highlands was resilient and enduring, surviving external pressures from Ottoman and Egyptian forces, with local leadership, including Ras Alula, effectively defending imperial authority and maintaining continuity of governance despite coastal occupations. Colonial Intervention and Legacy: Italian Acquisition and Motives : Assab’s sale demonstrates that European colonial presence initially exploited autonomous local polities rather than displacing entrenched Ethiopian authority, and that Italian intervention was driven by strategic and commercial motives rather than historical sovereignty over the territory. Colonial Territorial Amalgamation This territorial amalgamation imposed an artificial political entity that disregarded historical Ethiopian governance and local autonomy, highlighting the colonial origin of Eritrea as a construct rather than a pre-existing nation. Imposed Identity and Geography The colonial amalgamation of Medri Bahri, Assab, and coastal holdings created an artificial political entity that disregarded historical Ethiopian governance and local autonomy, deliberately masking the region’s historical connection to Ethiopia and presenting Eritrea as a separate territory despite its lack of independent political identity. Legal-Historical Sovereignty and Continuity of Ethiopian Claims The post-war international settlement, especially the 1952 UN federation, did not create new Ethiopian rights but confirmed pre-existing sovereignty, demonstrating that Ethiopia’s legal and historical authority over Assab and Eritrea represents continuity, not innovation, in international law. Contested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession Eritrea’s independence in 1993 resulted from an exceptional political arrangement rather than a complete legal process, because it relied on the consent of a transitional authority with an uncertain mandate and did not meet the established legal grounds for remedial secession. This leaves a significant legitimacy gap in the legal foundation of the Eritrean state. Treaty and Archival Evidence Treaty and archival evidence demonstrate that Assab was legally and politically embedded within the Ethiopian imperial sphere long before Italian involvement, and that Italy’s acquisition rested on agreements with local Afar authorities rather than any sovereign Eritrean entity. This confirms that Eritrea’s later territorial boundaries did not emerge from pre-existing statehood but were constructed through colonial transactions that disrupted, rather than reflected, established Ethiopian territorial continuity. Geopolitical & Strategic Dimensions: Strategic Importance of Red Sea Access : The strategic value of Assab underscores that its separation from Ethiopia was not the product of historical or political logic but the outcome of externally driven colonial and post-colonial interventions that undermined Ethiopia’s longstanding geopolitical imperatives. Role of External Actors The involvement of external powers, particularly Egypt, reveals that Eritrean separatism and Red Sea territorial disputes are not merely local or historical events but are deeply embedded in broader geopolitical strategies aimed at constraining Ethiopia’s regional influence and access its access to vital Red Sea littoral areas. Regional Power Dynamics Assab’s strategic and economic significance depends on cooperation with Ethiopia, revealing that Eritrea’s control alone does not guarantee leverage or development. Sustainable benefits from the port require collaborative use, making bilateral engagement essential for realizing its full potential. Post-colonial and Contemporary Implications: Ethiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations : Lasting regional stability and development depend on Eritrea’s constructive engagement with Ethiopia, as unilateral control of strategic assets like Assab is insufficient. Regional and international bodies such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD must facilitate negotiations to reduce tensions in the Horn of Africa. Colonial Comparative Cases The experience of other former colonies shows that artificial colonial boundaries, as in Eritrea, often create lasting conflict and hinder state-building, highlighting the need for involved nations to cooperate and resolve disputes peacefully. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms : Effective resolution of territorial and access disputes requires combining regional and international mediation with legally binding cooperative arrangements, ensuring that strategic resources like Assab benefit all parties while reducing the risk of prolonged conflict. 11. SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS The analysis of current literature confirms that the Assab issue is deeply anchored in Ethiopia’s historical governance and administrative structures, disrupted by colonial interventions and compounded by post-colonial legal ambiguities. Ethiopian sovereignty over the region predates Italian colonization, which imposed artificial boundaries and constructed a separate Eritrean identity. Post-World War II instruments, including the 1952 UN federation, reaffirmed Ethiopia’s historical authority, yet contemporary tensions persist due to Eritrea’s unilateral stance and external influences such as Egypt. Comparative cases highlight that such disputes are characteristic of broader colonial boundary distortions across Africa and Asia. Crucially, the separation of Eritrea itself was carried out with consent from the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi, which lacked constitutional legitimacy, rendering the secession legally questionable. These findings emphasize the need for evidence-based diplomacy and international mediation to restore regional stability and promote cooperative development. 12. DISCUSSION The findings demonstrate that the Assab question is not merely a territorial dispute but a complex historical and legal issue shaped by centuries of Ethiopian governance, colonial disruption, and post-colonial misinterpretation. Ethiopia’s pre-colonial authority extended from the highlands to the Afar coastal regions and the Red Sea corridor, institutionalized through the Bahr Negash administration, tributary obligations, and integrated political structures (Pankhurst, 1997 ; Erlich, 1996 ). Italian colonial intervention disrupted this continuity by purchasing Assab and creating Eritrea as an artificial entity, imposing boundaries and identities that obscured Ethiopia’s legitimate governance legacy (Bertazzini, 2018 ; Rubenson, 1976 ). Post-colonial legal instruments, including the 1952 UN federation, reaffirmed Ethiopia’s sovereignty, yet Eritrea’s 1993 secession, sanctioned by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi without constitutional legitimacy, raises questions about its legality (Studeersnel, n.d.; Mwaihomba, 2017 ). Contemporary tensions reflect both the enduring impact of colonial boundary engineering and external geopolitical interference, particularly Egypt’s strategic manipulation of the Ethiopia–Eritrea relationship to limit Ethiopia’s maritime and regional influence (Hassen, 2023 ; Miran, 2015 ). Eritrea’s control of Assab provides potential leverage but its full value depends on cooperation with Ethiopia, highlighting the need for bilateral engagement and evidence-based diplomacy. Comparative cases from India, French West Africa, and Nigeria illustrate that artificial colonial borders often generate persistent disputes over identity, sovereignty, and resource control, reinforcing the relevance of historical, legal, and institutional perspectives (Erlich, 2024; Zewde, 2001 ). Overall, resolving the Assab issue requires historical honesty, legal clarity, and cooperative regionalism. Recognition of Ethiopia’s pre-colonial governance, post-colonial legal continuity, and lessons from global experiences provides a foundation for sustainable conflict resolution, equitable access to strategic maritime resources, and long-term stability in the Horn of Africa. 13. CONCLUSION The study concludes that the Assab question is a multidimensional issue rooted in Ethiopia’s historical governance, disrupted by colonial manipulation, and complicated by post-colonial legal ambiguities and regional power rivalries. Evidence confirms that Ethiopia’s sovereignty over Assab predates Italian colonization, and that colonial boundary reconfigurations artificially detached the port from its historical and administrative context. Post-colonial legal frameworks, including the 1952 federation, further reinforce Ethiopia’s legitimate claim. Importantly, the consent given by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi cannot legitimize Eritrea’s secession or the control of Assab, as the transitional authority lacked constitutional mandate to make decisions of such critical and sovereign significance. Contemporary geopolitical tensions reflect enduring colonial legacies rather than genuine shifts in ownership. These findings underscore the necessity of grounding diplomatic dialogue and policy decisions in historical truth, legal continuity, and regional cooperation. Sustainable resolution of the Assab dispute requires a balanced approach that respects Ethiopia’s historical rights, ensures equitable access to the Red Sea, and promotes regional stability through constructive engagement, mutual economic benefit, and international mediation based on verified historical and legal evidence. 14. RECOMMENDATION Acknowledge Historical and Legal Continuity : Diplomatic and policy frameworks should formally recognize Ethiopia’s historical sovereignty over Assab and its integration within pre-colonial governance structures. This acknowledgment provides a legal and historical foundation for negotiations and prevents disputes from being framed purely as territorial contestation. Establish Bilateral Cooperative Mechanisms : Sustainable management of Assab requires structured cooperation between Ethiopia and Eritrea, including joint port administration, shared trade facilitation, and coordinated security arrangements. This ensures that the port’s economic and strategic potential benefits both parties. Engage Regional and International Mediators : Bodies such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD should actively facilitate negotiations to bridge political gaps, mitigate tensions, and encourage mutually agreed solutions grounded in historical and legal evidence. Clarify Legitimacy and Legal Authority : Future agreements should explicitly address the legal shortcomings of Eritrea’s secession, particularly the transitional government’s lack of mandate in 1993, to prevent disputes over the legitimacy of unilateral territorial claims and reinforce rule-based governance. Protect Strategic and Economic Interests : Policies should safeguard Red Sea access for Ethiopia while ensuring Eritrea benefits from the port through cooperative economic arrangements, preventing unilateral exploitation and regional instability. Learn from Comparative Colonial Legacies : Regional policymakers should integrate lessons from other post-colonial contexts, where artificial boundaries created long-term conflicts, emphasizing conflict prevention, historical awareness, and peaceful dispute resolution. Implement Legally Binding Conflict Resolution Mechanisms : Agreements over Assab and similar strategic areas should be anchored in enforceable treaties, including long-term leases, economic corridors, or joint management authorities, to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of future disputes. 15. DIRECTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Legal and Constitutional Analysis : Investigate the constitutional and international legal aspects of Eritrea’s secession, particularly the Transitional Government of Ethiopia’s consent and its legal limitations. This could clarify enduring sovereignty questions and inform future treaty or negotiation frameworks. Socio-Cultural and Identity Studies : Examine the historical and contemporary identities of populations in Assab, Medri Bahri, and the Afar lowlands, including oral histories and local governance traditions. Understanding these social dynamics can provide insights into how historical governance and colonial interventions shaped modern political loyalties and perceptions. Security and Strategic Studies : Explore the military and strategic dimensions of Red Sea access, including the implications of Eritrea’s control of Assab for regional security, maritime trade, and Ethiopia’s strategic posture. This could include modeling scenarios for cooperative security frameworks. Policy and Conflict Resolution Evaluation : Analyze the effectiveness of existing regional and international conflict resolution mechanisms, including AU, UN, and IGAD interventions, to identify gaps and propose enhanced diplomatic frameworks for similar post-colonial disputes. Longitudinal Comparative Studies : Conduct longitudinal studies comparing pre-colonial governance structures with post-colonial outcomes to quantify how colonial interventions altered political, economic, and social systems over time. 16. POLICY IMPLICATION Regional Security and Joint Defense Cooperation : Incorporate joint security and monitoring mechanisms for the Assab corridor to prevent unilateral military use or disruptions. This would build trust and ensure that the port serves purely commercial and developmental purposes rather than being a source of strategic tension. Legal and Institutional Frameworks : Establish binding legal agreements, possibly under AU or IGAD oversight, to formalize Ethiopia’s rights of access and to define dispute resolution mechanisms. This would prevent ambiguity over sovereignty claims and reinforce compliance with international law. International Mediation and Monitoring : Encourage structured involvement of neutral international actors (UN, AU, IGAD) to facilitate negotiations, monitor implementation, and mediate disputes related to port usage, trade, and security. Economic Diversification and Infrastructure Development : Beyond just bilateral policies, recommend coordinated infrastructure projects linking Assab to inland Ethiopian economic hubs, including transport, logistics, and industrial corridors. This ensures the port’s economic potential benefits both countries and incentivizes cooperation. Public Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement : Engage local communities, private sector actors, and civil society in both countries to ensure transparency, accountability, and local buy-in for cooperative policies. This would reduce political friction and foster grassroots support for shared management of the port. Declarations Ethical Approval This study did not involve any human participants, interviews, surveys, or experiments that would require ethical clearance. The research relied exclusively on secondary data obtained from publicly available and credible sources, including institutional reports, databases, and academic publications. Therefore, formal ethical approval was not applicable. Consent to Participate Since the study did not include the collection of primary data or direct engagement with individuals, obtaining informed consent from participants was not required. All data used were secondary and publicly accessible, ensuring compliance with standard ethical research practices. Consent to Publish Not applicable. As the sole author of this study, I hold full rights to the work, and no external consent is required for its publication. Funding: Not applicable. This research received no specific grant or financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. It is sponsored by the author of this study personally. Clinical trial number : Not applicable. This study is based on secondary data analysis and does not involve any clinical trial or human participants. Therefore, a clinical trial registration number is not applicable. References Adler E (1997) Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. Eur J Int Relat 3(3):319–363 African Union (2002) African Union Border Program: Framework document. African Union African Union (2015) African Union border program: Guidelines and practices. African Union Commission, Addis Ababa Anderson B (1991) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). Verso Anderson D (1991) Imagined communities and the African context. J Afr Stud 12(1):45–67 Bahru Zewde (2001) A history of modern Ethiopia, 1855–1991, 2nd edn. Ohio University Press Bertazzini A (2018) Colonial Eritrea: Historical construction and legacies. J Horn Afr Stud 5(2):101–124 Bertazzini M (2018) Italy and the Horn of Africa: Colonial ambitions and local resistance (1869–1896). J Afr History 59(3):349–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853718000467 Boone C (2003) Political topographies of the African state: Territorial authority and institutional choice. Cambridge University Press Chandra B (2008) India’s struggle for independence. Penguin Books Chandra K (2008) Constructing boundaries and identity: Colonial legacies in South Asia and Africa. Comp Politics 40(2):127–145 Cerulli E (1941) Afar ethnography and social organization. Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Rome Clapham C (2002) Rewriting Ethiopian history. Ann d'Éthiopie 18(1):37–54 Clapham C (2017) Africa and the international system: The politics of state survival. Cambridge University Press Clapham C (2017) The Horn of Africa: State politics and international relations. Routledge Clapham C (2017) The Horn of Africa: State formation, political economy, and regional dynamics. Hurst Connell D (2005) Rethinking revolution: New perspectives on the Eritrean revolution, 1991–1993. Red Sea Connell D, Killion T (2011) Historical dictionary of Eritrea, 2nd edn. Scarecrow Connell D, Killion T (2011) Historical dictionary of Eritrea, 3rd edn. Scarecrow Crawford J (2006) The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press Crawford J (2007) The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press Dalby S (1991) Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space. Routledge Erlich H (1996) Ethiopia and the Red Sea. Lynne Rienner Erlich H (1996) Ottoman and Egyptian influence in northern Ethiopia. Afr Stud Rev 39(2):1–24 Erlich H (2016) Eritrean nationalism: The role of Egypt and the Middle East. Red Sea Erlich H (2024a) The international law applicable to secession: Territorial integrity versus self-determination. Eur J Int Law 20(1):111–134 Erlich H (2024b) Maritime disputes and the Horn of Africa. J Int Maritime Law 15(1):33–52 Erlich H (2024c) Maritime disputes and the Horn of Africa: Assab and the Red Sea littoral. J Int Maritime Law 15(1):33–52 Experience Eritrea (n.d.). Medri Bahri . https://www.experienceeritrea.com/medribahri Fanon F (1963) The wretched of the earth. Grove Franck TM (1992) The emerging right to democratic governance. Am J Int Law 86(1):46–91 Franck TM (1992) The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford University Press Galtung J (1971) A structural theory of imperialism. J Peace Res 8(2):81–117 Gwilliam K (2011) Africa’s transport infrastructure. The World Bank Gwilliam K (2011) Landlocked access and transport corridors. Transp Policy 18(1):1–12 Hassen M (2023) The Afar: A history. Addis Ababa University Hassen M (2023) Afar political structures and coastal sovereignty. J Ethiop Stud 56(1):77–102 Heinlein P (2022) Regional rivalry and external intervention. Afr Secur Rev 31(2):145–162 Herbst J (2000) States and power in Africa. Princeton University Press International Court of Justice (1971) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion). ICJ Reports, 1971, 16 International Court of Justice (1975) Western Sahara advisory opinion. International Court of Justice (1986) Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) (Judgment of 22 December 1986). ICJ Reports, 1986, 554 International Court of Justice (2010) Kosovo advisory opinion. International Court of Justice (2023) State responsibility and legality of secession. International Crisis Group (2021) Bridging the Gap on the Nile (No. 271) International Crisis Group (2021) Eritrea-Ethiopia: The Red Sea access dilemma (Africa Report No. 298) Jacquin-Berdal D (2002) Revolutionary networks: Eritrean Liberation Front. Hurst Kaplan RD (2010) Monsoon. Random House Kaplan RD (2010) The revenge of geography. Random House Kaplan RD (2010) The geography of strategic access. Foreign Aff 89(2):50–64 Kaplan S (1999) The Beta Israel: Falasha in Ethiopia. NYU Kaplan S (1999) Ethiopia’s northern provinces. J Afr History 40(1):45–67 Kleiche-Dray M, Blumenthal A (2012) Geopolitics and port negotiations. J Iber Latin Am Res 18(1):1–12 Kleiche-Dray M, Blumenthal J (2012) Treaty-based access for landlocked states. Int Law Rev 14(3):89–114 Krasner SD (1999) Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press Leibniz Institute for Regional and International Studies (2023) Secession as a political fact in international law. Lewis IM (1994) Peoples of the Horn of Africa, 3rd edn. Red Sea Lewis, I. M. (1994). Peoples of the Horn of Africa: Afar, Somali… International African Institute. Lyons T (2009) Eritrean–Ethiopian relations. In: Reid R (ed) The Ethiopian state at the end of the twentieth century. Red Sea, pp xx–xx Mamdani M (1996) Citizen and subject. Princeton University Press Marcus HG (1994) A history of Ethiopia. University of California Press Miran J (2015) Red Sea citizens. Indiana University Press Miran J (2015) The Red Sea coast under Ethiopian authority. J Horn Stud 8(2):55–78 Menon J, Warr P (2013) Regional economic corridors in Asia. Asian Dev Rev 30(2):145–167 Montevideo Convention on the (1933) Rights and Duties of States, Dec. 26 Mwaihomba A (2017) State creation: Legitimacy of unilateral secession. University of Cape Town Mwaihomba D (2017) Statehood criteria in international law. Dar es Salaam OHCHR (2015) Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea. Tuathail Ó, G (1996) Critical geopolitics. University of Minnesota Press Pankhurst R (1967) Economic history of Ethiopia. Lalibela House Pankhurst R (1997) The Ethiopian borderlands. Red Sea Pankhurst R (1997) Historical dictionary of Ethiopia, 2nd edn. Scarecrow Reid R (2011) Frontiers of violence in northeast Africa. Oxford University Press Reid R (2011) Frontiers of empire: Italy, Ethiopia, and the Red Sea. Oxford University Press Reuters (2024) Reuters news report on contemporary diplomatic developments . Reuters Rubenson S (1976) The survival of Ethiopian independence. Heinemann Rubenson S (1976) Ras Alula and Ethiopian sovereignty. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies Said EW (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books Saleh M (n.d.). Afar sultanates and the political history of the Danakil Coast. Unpublished Shaw MN (2017) International law, 8th edn. Cambridge University Press Studeersnel J (n.d.). Eritrea’s independence referendum: Legal and political assessment. Unpublished manuscript Studeersnel J (n.d.). Statehood criteria and recognition under international law . Erasmus University Rotterdam Tadesse M (1999) Egyptian involvement in Eritrean separatism. Afr Secur Rev 8(1):45–62 Tekeste N (1997) Italian colonialism in Eritrea, 1882–1941: Policies, praxis and impact. Red Sea Tekeste N (1997) The Eritrean struggle for independence. Uppsala University Treaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah (2017) Treaty contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah . http://www.example.com Trimingham JS (1952) Islam in Ethiopia. Oxford University Press Tvedt T (2010) The River Nile in the age of the British. I.B. Tauris Tvedt T (2024) Territorial integrity and the law of secession. SpringerLink Tvedt T (2024) Water, borders, and geopolitics. J Afr Political Stud 22(1):11–39 Young RJC (2001) Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, 1st edn. Blackwell, Oxford United Nations General Assembly (1952) Report of the United Nations Commissioner for Eritrea. A/2188. United Nations United Nations General Assembly (1952) Resolution 390 A (V): Eritrea: Report of the United Nations Commissioner. United Nations United Nations (1952) UN General Assembly Resolution 390 A (V): Eritrea–Ethiopia Federation. United Nations Wallerstein I (1974) The modern world-system. Academic Wendt A (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it. Int Org 46(2):391–425 Zewde B (2001) A History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1991, 2nd edn. James Currey; Athens: Ohio University Press; Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, Oxford Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8415600","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":563570277,"identity":"ef7787ea-a44d-4cc7-b244-196310cd7612","order_by":0,"name":"Brehanu Borji Ayalew","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5501-2762","institution":"Hawassa University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Brehanu","middleName":"Borji","lastName":"Ayalew","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-21 06:55:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99308574,"identity":"fc38fe48-3fe0-48eb-a523-7825bc2683b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:08:47","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":76712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"HistoricalContinuityandColonialDisruptionsintheNorthernRedSea.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/79d7ba8e45ab22d714a26c35.docx"},{"id":98851364,"identity":"6a5a3677-a580-4001-a63e-7a191bd1cfed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-23 06:27:05","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8415600.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/22763fdb4b3ca2b25a980647.json"},{"id":99308338,"identity":"a1b584d2-7432-4050-9f9d-68d2e9ce3bce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:08:17","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":193000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84156000enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/bb54658883dfd25802f66a0a.xml"},{"id":99308341,"identity":"fec3940a-7581-4a58-a9fe-4c221780e60e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:08:17","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":188585,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84156000structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/37e81023e6a26ca9a20d8678.xml"},{"id":99308464,"identity":"4cf9dea0-a78e-453c-9e3d-21fed4a56ab6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:08:37","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":207457,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/a5396b31e4410d07104e6aff.html"},{"id":99322557,"identity":"6b2d4826-b4d8-49df-a542-84349281eae1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:43:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3063035,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415600/v1/262aba69-0514-49cd-810f-73cb332f48c6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHistorical Continuity and Colonial Disruptions in the Northern Red Sea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and the Evolving Status of the Port of Assab from Pre-Colonial to Post-Colonial Periods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa, particularly concerning sovereignty and access to the Red Sea, is a subject of intense historical debate and critical contemporary importance. At the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental tension between the region's deep historical structures and the artificial boundaries imposed by a later colonial order. This study posits that an accurate understanding of the current stalemate over the port of Assab must begin with a clear distinction between two historically separate trajectories: the integrated imperial province of Medri Bahri (including the port of Massawa) and the distinct Afar-administered territory of Assab, whose forced amalgamation under Italian rule created a contested legacy that endures to this day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe historical record demonstrates a clear and enduring political continuity. Following the Solomonic Restoration in 1270, the Ethiopian Empire established and maintained the province of Medri Bahri, comprising the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, as a coherent and integral component of its imperial system. Governed by the imperial vassal, the Bahr Negash, this region, including the strategic port of Massawa, was politically, economically, and militarily aligned with the Solomonic state for more than five centuries through tribute, military service, and consistent resistance to external challenges. This sovereignty was repeatedly reaffirmed over the course of its long imperial administration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn stark contrast, the port of Assab followed a separate historical path, existing within the sphere of autonomous Afar sultanates with no pre-colonial political connection to the northern highlands. This separation is empirically evidenced by the fact that Assab was purchased by the Italian Rubattino Shipping Company directly from local Afar rulers in 1869 a transaction that would have been impossible had it been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire or integrated into the Medri Bahri administration. Italy\u0026rsquo;s colonial project was incremental; after acquiring Assab, it occupied Massawa in 1885 and militarily conquered the Ethiopian highlands, consolidating these historically unrelated territories into the artificial colonial construct of \"Eritrea\" in 1890. This act deliberately severed the Red Sea coast from its historical Ethiopian framework, creating a new territorial entity where none had existed before.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe colonial legacy of this arbitrary border continues to fuel modern conflict. The port of Assab, once Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s primary maritime outlet, has become a focal point of tension since Eritrea's independence in 1993, a secession that itself remains legally contested due to its reliance on the consent of a transitional Ethiopian government lacking a permanent constitutional mandate. Despite the optimism of the 2018 peace agreement, a deepening stalemate now threatens the region. Eritrea has militarized its border and resisted diplomatic overtures, while Ethiopia, in pursuit of regional stability and economic survival, continues to seek peaceful dialogue for guaranteed access to the Red Sea.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplicating this fragile situation is Egypt\u0026rsquo;s involvement, which mirrors its earlier opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). By strategically aligning with Eritrea, Egypt is reportedly encouraging Asmara to reject any negotiation, threatening to exacerbate hostilities and push the Horn of Africa toward renewed conflict. Ethiopia has demonstrated a consistent preference for diplomatic solutions and international mediation, but Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s categorical refusal to accept arbitration has entrenched the deadlock.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, this analysis seeks to deconstruct the colonial narrative and re-establish the historical verity that challenges Eritrea's exclusive claim over Assab. By examining the conceptual frameworks of colonial legacy and legal-historical sovereignty, and by presenting empirical evidence from regional history, this study provides a robust foundation for arguing that resolving the issue of Ethiopia's legitimate need for Red Sea access requires acknowledging this complex history. The path forward lies not in revisiting borders through conflict, but in pursuing diplomatic solutions and impartial international mediation, as underscored by regional institutions, to secure enduring peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. HISTORICAL/ CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 HISTORICAL AND CONCEPTUAL LITERATURE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Colonial Legacy and Territorial Formation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of colonial legacy refers to the enduring political, legal, and social structures imposed by colonial powers, which continue to shape post-colonial governance, identity, and territorial disputes (Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Mamdani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). In the Horn of Africa, Italys creation of \"Eritrea\" represents a quintessential example of colonial re-engineering. The Italian administration deliberately consolidated historically distinct regions, the Ethiopian highland province of Medri Bahri including Massawa, the Afar coastal territories including Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian coastal holdings, into a single artificial colony (Bertazzini \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Rubenson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis colonial restructuring parallels global imperial strategies, including British restructuring of princely states in India and French federation of diverse ethnic regions in West Africa (Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). These interventions systematically disrupted local governance, masked historical claims, and created enduring sources of post-colonial territorial disputes. The colonial renaming of established Ethiopian provinces like Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzai served to obscure their long-standing ties to the Ethiopian Empire and fabricate a new political geography (Connell \u0026amp; Killion, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Sovereignty and Territorial Ownership in Historical Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSovereignty constitutes the ultimate authority a state exercises over a defined territory (Krasner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In pre-modern contexts like the Ethiopian Empire, sovereignty functioned as relational and flexible, operating through indirect authority and tributary arrangements rather than rigidly defined borders. The Empire exercised suzerainty over the Medri Bahri highlands through the vassal office of the Bahr Negash while maintaining tributary relationships with the Afar Sultanate of Aussa, which governed the Assab region (Marcus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Zewde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, Saleh, n.d.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis historical understanding of sovereignty demonstrates that territorial ownership must be evaluated through historical governance, legal continuity, and cultural ties rather than solely through modern administrative maps. The Italian purchase of Assab from local Afar rulers in 1869 and the subsequent colonial conquest represented temporary disruptions rather than legitimate transfers of sovereignty (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Rubenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e), as post-colonial arrangements reaffirmed Ethiopia's historical and legal continuity in the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3 Historical Reconstruction of Identity and Geography\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eColonial powers systematically redefined geography and political identity to facilitate control and administration. Italy imposed the name \"Eritrea,\" derived from the classical Latin \u003cem\u003eMare Erythraeum\u003c/em\u003e (Red Sea), on a fragmented region, deliberately erasing preexisting political and cultural links to Ethiopia (Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Mamdani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Clapham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This top-down reconstruction created a centralized colonial identity intended to replace the localized, culturally grounded identities of Medri Bahri and autonomous Afar polities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual tension between indigenous, historically continuous political structures and externally imposed nation-state boundaries remains crucial for understanding contemporary territorial disputes. Ethiopia's historical sovereignty over the Red Sea coast predates and exists independently of the colonial creation of \"Eritrea\" (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Clapham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), challenging modern narratives that derive legitimacy solely from colonial boundary-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.4 Historical Continuity of Medri Bahri and Distinct History of Assab\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.4.1 The Solomonic Restoration and Integration of Medri Bahri\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe historical record demonstrates clear political continuity following the Solomonic Restoration in 1270, when the Ethiopian Empire established and maintained Medri Bahri as a coherent frontier province comprising the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, along with the strategic port of Massawa (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). This territory functioned as Ethiopia's northern maritime gateway, governed through the office of the Bahr Negash (King of the Sea), a vassal authority whose power derived directly from the Ethiopian emperor (Connell \u0026amp; Killion, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePankhurst (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) notes that during the reign of Emperor Zara Yāqob (1433\u0026ndash;1468), the title of \u003cb\u003eBahr Negash\u003c/b\u003e gained significant prestige as the emperor elevated its authority above other local chiefs to extend imperial influence across the northern highlands and toward the Red Sea coast (pp. 100\u0026ndash;104). Zara Yāqob also established a \u003cb\u003emilitary colony of Maya warriors\u003c/b\u003e in the region to reinforce imperial control and ensure the loyalty of local administrators (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e, p. 102). Although the Bahr Negash exercised considerable autonomy in administration, taxation, and military affairs, both Pankhurst (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) and \u003cem\u003eEncyclopaedia Aethiopica\u003c/em\u003e (as cited in Wikipedia, 2025) affirm that the office remained subordinate to\u0026mdash;and legitimized by\u0026mdash;the authority of the central monarchy. Connell and Killion (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) similarly underscore that the Bahr Negash was not an independent ruler but a vassal official whose power derived from imperial appointment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003eadministrative center at Debarwa\u003c/b\u003e, located south of modern Asmara, functioned as the political seat from which inland districts and coastal territories were governed, while \u003cb\u003eHirgigo served as the primary mainland administrative base for maritime affairs\u003c/b\u003e (Trimingham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e; Miran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.4.2 TRIBUTE, MILITARY SERVICE, AND POLITICAL INTEGRATION\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThroughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the political relationship between Medri Bahri and the Solomonic Ethiopian Empire remained firmly established through tribute, administrative hierarchy, and shared military interests. This continuity, however, predates the Solomonic Restoration of 1270 and extends back into the period of the Zagwe rulers, who maintained imperial authority across the northern highlands and their associated coastal spheres. Although less is written about the administrative structures of the Zagwe period in Medri Bahri, available historical evidence indicates that the northern regions including the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay remained within the political orbit of the Ethiopian state long before the Solomonic line returned to the throne (Kaplan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Trimingham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the restoration of the Solomonic dynasty, this imperial continuity became even more clearly defined. The rulers of Medri Bahri, most notably Bahr Negash Dori, regularly paid tribute to Ethiopian emperors such as Lebna Dengel, offering high value goods including horses, fine textiles, carpets, and luxury items (Pankhurst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Tribute functioned as both an economic obligation and an expression of political loyalty, demonstrating the deep economic and administrative integration of the region into the wider imperial system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authority of the Bahr Negash extended across the highland districts and reached the Red Sea coast. His jurisdiction included Hirgigo, the principal mainland coastal settlement that served as the provisioning and logistical base for Massawa. This dual authority ensured that Medri Bahri remained internally cohesive and consistently aligned with the Ethiopian court. The administrative seat at Debarwa further reinforced the primacy of highland governance over both inland and coastal territories, creating a stable and unified political system (Kaplan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Miran \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMassawa, despite its commercial prosperity and active trade with merchants from Arabia, Yemen, and the wider Red Sea basin, never developed into an autonomous political center (Miran \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Its economic vibrancy strengthened its ability to support the tribute obligations of Medri Bahri rather than undermining Ethiopian authority. The port functioned as the maritime outlet of the highlands, and its operations remained firmly embedded within Ethiopian administrative structures (Pankhurst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Miran \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHirgigo, also known historically as Arkiko, played an even more central administrative role. Long before Massawa rose to prominence under the Ottomans, Hirgigo served as the primary coastal base of the Bahr Negash, overseeing tribute, coastal governance, and the management of maritime affairs (Trimingham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Goods from the highlands typically passed through Hirgigo before reaching Massawa, and its inhabitants provided the labor, supplies, and logistical services that sustained the port. This interdependence demonstrates that Massawa was commercially important but politically subordinate to Hirgigo and to the highland authority centered in Debarwa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Ottoman occupation of Massawa in 1557 introduced only a partial alteration to this long-standing arrangement. Although the Ottomans fortified the port and used it as a military outpost, Hirgigo remained the seat of local authority, and the Naibs, hereditary chiefs based in Hirgigo, administered the surrounding territories on behalf of the Ottomans, ensuring that effective political authority remained centered on the mainland rather than on the island port itself (Erlich \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Trimingham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e). This administrative pattern continued into the nineteenth century, long before Italy created the colonial entity named Eritrea and established Asmara as its capital (Zewde \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Reid \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all available records including Ethiopian royal chronicles, Portuguese eyewitness accounts, and modern scholarly analyses, there is no historical evidence that Massawa or the northern highlands operated as independent political units before external intervention. Both the coast and the interior were integral parts of a unified Ethiopian imperial structure, governed through the authority of the Bahr Negash and connected to the throne through tribute, economic integration, and administrative continuity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe combined evidence from the Zagwe period, the Solomonic Restoration, the tribute system of the Bahr Negash, the inland and coastal administrative hierarchy centered in Debarwa and Hirgigo, and the absence of any autonomous political formation in Massawa all demonstrate an unbroken pattern of Ethiopian governance on the northern Red Sea coast. This long-established political order predates and fundamentally contradicts later colonial inventions, particularly the Italian creation of the artificial entity called Eritrea. The historical and administrative continuity of Medri Bahri and its Red Sea interface is therefore not a colonial construct but a deeply rooted Ethiopian imperial reality that endured for centuries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.5 External Challenges and Resilient Sovereignty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen Ottoman forces under Ozdemir Pasha advanced into the Red Sea littoral in 1557, they captured Massawa, Hirgigo (Arqiqo) and several nearby islands and coastal settlements. These conquests formed the basis of the Ottoman Eyalet of Habesh, a maritime foothold intended to secure Red Sea routes, counter Portuguese influence, and protect Muslim traders and pilgrims rather than to develop a deep territorial administration in the Ethiopian interior. The initial advance was rapid, but two structural factors ensured that Ottoman control remained essentially coastal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, Ottoman military logistics and force composition were suited to garrisoning ports and controlling sea lanes, not to sustaining long term inland occupation. Expeditionary units composed of janissaries, cavalry detachments, and naval personnel could seize harbors and adjacent lowlands, but they lacked the supply lines, administrative cadres, and acclimatized manpower needed to pacify the rugged interior for extended periods. Ottoman policy therefore concentrated on fortifications, customs posts, and naval stations at Massawa, Hirgigo, and Suakin rather than comprehensive inland rule. Contemporary and later accounts confirm these priorities and show that the Ottomans invested in coastal defenses, port administration, and maritime infrastructure, not in building provincial governance in the highlands (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the social and political geography of the interior rendered sustained Ottoman rule impracticable. The highlands of Hamasien, Akele Guzay, and Seraye were governed by entrenched elites under the Bahr Negash and other authorities aligned with the Solomonic state. The terrain favored highland armies and localized rule, and Ottoman attempts to project power inland quickly met resistance. Although Ottoman forces briefly occupied Debarwa during the 1557 campaign, these gains were temporary and local rulers, supported by the Ethiopian imperial military, repeatedly reasserted control. Shifting alliances and uprisings, including the fluctuating loyalties of the Bahr Negash himself, made permanent Ottoman administration unachievable. By the late sixteenth century, a clear practical division had emerged: the Ottomans held the littoral, while the Solomonic polity maintained effective authority over the highlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA related consequence of these military and geographic limits is that Assab was never part of Ottoman Habesh (Trimingham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. The Afar lowlands around Assab lay to the southeast of the Ottoman coastal sphere and were dominated by the Afar sultanates of Dankali and Aussa, which retained their own political systems. There is no historical evidence that Assab fell under sustained Ottoman administration or that it was integrated into the Eyalet of Habesh. Assab appears in the colonial record only much later when it was purchased by the Rubattino shipping company and subsequently transferred to Italy in the 1880s. This acquisition, and its later use as an Italian staging point for northward expansion, confirms that Assab lay outside Ottoman and Egyptian authority prior to European intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEgyptian rule after 1865 similarly remained confined to the coast. Although Egyptian administrators took control of Massawa, their attempts to expand inland were defeated decisively by Ras Alula Abanega in the 1870s (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Rubenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). These victories reaffirmed Ethiopian sovereignty over the northern highland provinces and demonstrated that foreign coastal footholds, whether Ottoman or Egyptian, never translated into control over Ethiopian territory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.6 The Distinct Historical Trajectory of Assab\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the integrated administration of Medri Bahri, Assab followed a distinct historical path. While ultimately under the suzerainty of the Ethiopian Empire, Assab remained politically and administratively autonomous. It was governed by Afar-speaking sultanates, particularly the Sultanates of Aussa and Dankali, which exercised local authority over the port and surrounding territories (Hassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike Medri Bahri, Assab was never incorporated into the domain of the Bahr Negash; it had its own indigenous governance structures and maintained separate administrative, political, and economic networks, even while recognizing Ethiopian overlordship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis autonomy is demonstrated by Italy\u0026rsquo;s 1869 purchase of Assab from the local Afar sultans for 6000 Italian lire (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026ldquo;Treaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah,\u0026rdquo; 2017). The transaction was a commercial agreement rather than an act of conquest or direct colonization. Italy targeted Assab precisely because it was legally transferable under the sultans\u0026rsquo; authority and outside the direct administration of Medri Bahri. The sale provided Italy with a strategic foothold on the Red Sea coast, which it later developed into a coaling station and used as a base for northward expansion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe historical significance of this episode lies in highlighting Assab\u0026rsquo;s unique position: it was under Ethiopian suzerainty but administratively autonomous, and it was never governed by the Bahr Negash. This distinction confirms that Assab\u0026rsquo;s incorporation into European colonial structures occurred not through the displacement of established Ethiopian authority, but via a commercial transaction with the local Afar rulers, reflecting the complex and layered nature of imperial and local sovereignty in the northern Red Sea littoral.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs an integrated theoretical framework combining post-colonial theory, legal-historical sovereignty theory, strategic-geopolitical theory, and complementary theoretical perspectives to analyze the complex dimensions of the Assab dispute. These theoretical perspectives provide complementary lenses through which to examine the historical roots, legal contradictions, and contemporary geopolitical implications of Ethiopia's claim to Red Sea access.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Post-Colonial Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-colonial theory provides the foundational framework for understanding how colonial interventions continue to shape governance, identity, and territorial legitimacy long after independence (Said, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Fanon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1963\u003c/span\u003e; Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This theoretical approach reveals how imperial powers systematically imposed artificial political boundaries and identities, deliberately erasing pre-existing governance systems and historical claims to facilitate colonial control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the Horn of Africa context, Italy\u0026rsquo;s creation of Eritrea exemplifies these colonial dynamics. Through the consolidation of historically distinct territories, the Ethiopian highland province of Medri Bahri, the autonomous Afar coastal region including Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian holdings, Italy fabricated a colonial entity that masked Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical sovereignty (Bertazzini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). The renaming of established Ethiopian provinces and the imposition of centralized administrative structures served to create a new political identity divorced from historical realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theory explains the persistent nature of disputes over Assab by highlighting how colonial experiences created legacies of fragmented identities and contested borders. The fabricated narrative of a pre-colonial \"Eritrean\" entity continues to justify post-colonial sovereignty claims, despite overwhelming historical evidence of Ethiopian administration and influence. Post-colonial theory thus provides the critical analytical tools to deconstruct colonial narratives and understand their enduring power in shaping contemporary Horn of Africa geopolitics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Critical Geopolitics Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritical geopolitics theory complements post-colonial analysis by examining how political spaces are socially constructed, represented, and practiced through discourses of power and territory (\u0026Oacute; Tuathail, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Dalby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This framework reveals how dominant narratives about Eritrea's territorial integrity are not neutral descriptions but politically constructed representations that serve specific power interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theory helps deconstruct how Eritrea's current borders are presented as natural and inevitable, despite their origins in colonial cartography (Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). It examines the \"spatial scripts\" that frame Assab as inherently Eritrean territory, analyzing how these narratives are produced, disseminated, and normalized in international diplomacy, academic discourse, and media representations. Critical geopolitics also illuminates how Ethiopia's historical claims are often framed as \"revisionist\" or \"expansionist,\" demonstrating how language and categorization serve to reinforce the status quo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this approach analyzes the practice of geopolitics, showing how Eritrea's control of Assab enables specific forms of regional influence and how Ethiopia's landlocked status constrains its strategic options. By examining both the representation and practice of territory, critical geopolitics provides essential tools for understanding how spatial arrangements perpetuate power asymmetries in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Legal-Historical Sovereignty Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal-historical sovereignty theory establishes that territorial claims derive legitimacy from historical continuity and legal recognition over time, rather than from momentary possession or conquest (Franck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Crawford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This framework emphasizes that sovereignty is constituted through enduring patterns of governance, legal succession, and uninterrupted political authority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplied to the Ethiopian context, this theory demonstrates that Ethiopia's claim to the Red Sea coast rests on centuries of documented historical governance. The Ethiopian Empire maintained suzerainty over Medri Bahri through the institutional office of the Bahr Negash while exercising tributary authority over the Afar Sultanates governing Assab (Marcus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Zewde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This established a continuous chain of political authority that colonial intervention temporarily disrupted but never legitimately terminated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a legal-historical perspective, Italy's purchase of Assab from local Afar rulers cannot confer legitimate sovereignty to the subsequent colonial construct of \"Eritrea,\" particularly since no such political entity existed at the time of the transaction (Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The post-World War II legal arrangements, including the 1952 UN federation that incorporated Eritrea within Ethiopia's sovereignty, reaffirmed this historical and legal continuity. This theoretical framework thus enables a normative distinction between de facto colonial administration and de jure sovereign claims grounded in historical precedent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Strategic-Geopolitical Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic-geopolitical theory emphasizes the decisive influence of geographic location and resource access on state behavior, particularly in regions of vital strategic importance (Kaplan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Clapham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This perspective illuminates how control over strategic territories shapes national security calculations, economic development, and regional power dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Horn of Africa, and specifically the Red Sea corridor containing Assab, represents a critical global chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy transportation. Ethiopia's position as Africa's second-most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing economies makes secure Red Sea access not merely a historical claim but an existential economic imperative. Conversely, Eritrea's control over Assab provides strategic leverage and influences its regional security calculations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorical interventions in the region, including Italy's colonial expansion and Egypt's contemporary involvement, demonstrate how strategic imperatives consistently drive territorial disputes. Egypt\u0026rsquo;s role in maintaining Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s dependency over maritime access further illustrates this dynamic (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Tvedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The competition over Assab reflects the convergence of historical legitimacy claims with vital contemporary economic and security interests. This theoretical approach bridges historical analysis with policy relevance, highlighting that the Assab dispute represents a quintessential geopolitical challenge where historical claims and strategic necessities are inextricably linked.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.5 Dependency Theory and Core-Periphery Dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDependency theory, particularly through the lens of core-periphery relationships (Wallerstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e; Galtung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e), offers insights into how the current territorial arrangement perpetuates structural inequalities. This framework analyzes how Eritrea's control over Assab creates a dependent relationship where Ethiopia's economic development is constrained by its landlocked status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theory helps explain how control over strategic infrastructure\u0026mdash;in this case, maritime ports\u0026mdash;enables peripheral states to exert disproportionate influence over larger neighboring economies. It illuminates the structural violence inherent in arrangements that force landlocked states to depend on transit neighbors for essential economic lifelines. Furthermore, dependency theory provides tools for analyzing how external powers, particularly Egypt, benefit from and reinforce this core-periphery dynamic to maintain regional hegemony.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis perspective also reveals how the colonial creation of artificial borders established structural dependencies that continue to shape post-colonial relationships. By examining the economic dimensions of territorial control, dependency theory complements geopolitical analysis by highlighting how spatial arrangements produce and reproduce economic inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.6 Constructivist International Relations Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructivist theory (Wendt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Adler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) provides essential insights into how identities, norms, and social constructions shape the Assab dispute. This approach examines how \"Eritrean\" and \"Ethiopian\" identities have been socially constructed and how these constructions influence territorial claims and diplomatic interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theory analyzes how colonial boundaries, initially artificial impositions, have gained social meaning through decades of practice, institutionalization, and international recognition (Herbst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). It helps explain why these borders, despite their colonial origins, now appear natural and legitimate to many observers. Constructivism also illuminates how changing regional norms about territorial integrity, self-determination, and decolonization have shaped the evolution of the dispute over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this approach examines how shared understandings, intersubjective meanings, and normative contexts constrain and enable certain policy options. It helps explain why certain diplomatic solutions appear feasible while others seem unimaginable within the current normative framework of African border politics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.7 International Legal Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical framework is further refined through analysis of key international legal principles that govern statehood, territorial integrity, and self-determination. The Montevideo Conventions criteria for statehood\u0026mdash;permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and international capacity\u0026mdash;provide the foundational legal test for assessing Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s claims (Studeersnel, n.d.; Mwaihomba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These criteria emphasize that recognition alone cannot constitute legal statehood without meeting substantive requirements of governance and territorial control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe principle of territorial integrity, enshrined in the UN Charter and reinforced through African Union doctrines, prohibits the unilateral fragmentation of sovereign states except under narrowly defined exceptional circumstances (ICJ, 2023; Leibniz Institute, 2023). The Ethiopia-Eritrea situation in 1993 fell outside recognized exceptions for legitimate secession, as it neither represented decolonization nor responded to systematic oppression justifying territorial partition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical tension between self-determination and territorial integrity further complicates the legal assessment. While self-determination grants people\u0026rsquo;s rights to determine political status, UN resolutions and international jurisprudence consistently subordinate this principle to territorial integrity outside colonial contexts (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Trimingham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e; Tvedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Eritrea's secession, relying on a transitional Ethiopian government's consent rather than constitutionally sanctioned procedures, occupies uncertain legal territory that continues to generate scholarly debate and practical challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis integrated theoretical framework enables comprehensive analysis of the Assab dispute across historical, legal, economic, and strategic dimensions, providing the conceptual tools necessary to evaluate competing claims and identify potential pathways toward resolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 EMPIRICAL AND CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section synthesizes the empirical evidence from regional history, colonial documentation, and contemporary geopolitical analysis to substantiate the study's core arguments regarding Ethiopia's historical sovereignty and the artificial construction of Eritrea.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Historical Continuity of Ethiopian Sovereignty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empirical record demonstrates uninterrupted Ethiopian sovereignty over the Red Sea littoral through the integrated province of Medri Bahri. Authoritative sources consistently document that the highland districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, together with the port of Massawa, formed a coherent administrative unit under the Bahr Negash, whose authority derived directly from the Ethiopian Emperor (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Connell \u0026amp; Killion, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The administrative capital at Debarwa and the coastal headquarters at Hirgigo maintained Ethiopia's maritime governance for over five centuries, with tribute systems and military arrangements confirming political integration (Trimingham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e; Miran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eForeign interventions including the Ottoman establishment of the Eyalet of Habesh in 1557 and Egyptian control from 1865 remained strictly limited to coastal enclaves. Historical accounts document that Ottoman attempts to expand inland failed against Ethiopian resistance (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), while Egyptian forces under Kamal Ismail Pasha were decisively defeated by Ras Alula Abanega in the 1870s, reaffirming Ethiopian control over its northern provinces (Rubenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Distinct Historical Trajectory of Assab\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence establishes that Assab followed a separate historical path under Afar sultanates, particularly the Sultanate of Aussa and Dankali polities (Lewis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Hassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Cerulli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1941\u003c/span\u003e; Trimingham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1952\u003c/span\u003e). The 1869 purchase of Assab by the Rubattino Shipping Company from local Afar sultans Ibrahim and Hasan ibn Ahmed provides conclusive proof of this separation, as the transaction would have been impossible had Assab been under Ottoman, Egyptian, or Medri Bahri administration (\"Treaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah,\" 2017). Italy's specific targeting of Assab precisely because of its autonomous status underscores its distinct political trajectory separate from the Ethiopian highlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Colonial Amalgamation and Artificial Construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian colonial archives reveal the deliberate process of territorial fabrication that created Eritrea in 1890. Italy's incremental expansion from securing Assab in 1882, occupying Massawa in 1885 (Zewde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), to conquering the highland provinces culminated in the forced amalgamation of three historically distinct regions: the Ethiopian province of Medri Bahri, autonomous Afar territories around Assab, and former Ottoman Egyptian coastal holdings (Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This colonial construction mirrored imperial practices in French West Africa and British India, where artificial political units generated enduring post-colonial conflicts (Boone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Chandra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.4 Contested Legality of Eritrean Secession\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational Court of Justice advisory opinions provide an important legal framework for evaluating the procedural and substantive validity of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession and the continuing status of Assab. The Western Sahara Advisory Opinion affirmed that the right to self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the people and must be carried out through lawful procedures that respect existing sovereign authority (ICJ, 1975; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It also clarified that historical or political claims cannot substitute for a valid legal mechanism of territorial transfer (Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The Namibia Advisory Opinion similarly held that any alteration in sovereignty must be undertaken by a competent authority operating within a recognized legal order (ICJ, 1971; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These principles are relevant to the Horn of Africa because the separation of Eritrea required a legitimate and constitutionally authorized act of the Ethiopian state rather than informal political arrangements formed during the liberation struggle (Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Tekeste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Kosovo Advisory Opinion further contributes to this legal assessment. It concluded that declarations of independence are not prohibited under international law, but that their effects depend on compliance with the domestic constitutional framework of the parent state (ICJ, 2010; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This observation is significant because Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s 1993 referendum and subsequent independence occurred at a time when Ethiopia lacked a ratified constitution that permitted the dismemberment of sovereign territory (Crawford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tekeste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). The transitional government that endorsed the referendum did not possess constitutional authority to authorize secession, leaving a legal gap that international law has never fully resolved (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the process unfolded in a context of intense regional rivalry and external intervention, which shaped political decisions and influenced local power dynamics (Heinlein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, the process that produced Eritrean independence did not align with recognized requirements for lawful territorial change (Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Tekeste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the post-independence period, governance and human rights challenges further complicated Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s political legitimacy. Reports by international organizations highlight systemic violations, authoritarian control, and limited accountability, reflecting ongoing tensions in state authority and governance structures (OHCHR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These issues underscore that legal recognition of independence does not automatically resolve questions of legitimacy and effective governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Frontier Dispute case between Burkina Faso and Mali further reinforces these principles. The Court ruled that inherited borders, including those resulting from colonial administration, must remain intact unless a clear and valid legal act authorizes their modification (ICJ, 1986; Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This principle is central to the case of Assab because Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty over the Red Sea coastline historically predates and operates independently of Italian colonial boundary-making (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024c\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). No constitutionally valid act of the Ethiopian state formally transferred Assab or the wider Red Sea littoral to a newly created Eritrean state (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024c\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, control over Assab carries significant strategic and economic implications for regional connectivity and trade, similar to the importance of regional economic corridors in other contexts (Menon \u0026amp; Warr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). When viewed collectively, these ICJ positions and scholarly assessments indicate that the process leading to Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession contained serious legal deficiencies, that the status of Assab remains tied to unresolved questions of territorial legitimacy under international law, and that regional geopolitical pressures and economic considerations further complicated the legality and practice of secession (Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024c\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Heinlein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Tekeste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; OHCHR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Menon \u0026amp; Warr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.5 Egyptian Geopolitical Intervention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchival evidence documents Egypt's systematic support for Eritrean separatism as part of its broader strategy to weaken Ethiopia. Historical records show Egyptian sponsorship of the Eritrean Liberation Front from its 1960 founding in Cairo, including military training in Alexandria and propaganda support through Sawt al Arab media (Tadesse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Jacquin Berdal, 2002). This pattern continued through Egyptian influence on UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali's endorsement of Eritrean independence and persists in contemporary efforts to block Ethiopian port access, particularly during GERD negotiations (International Crisis Group, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.6 Contemporary Geopolitical Stalemate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent diplomatic impasse reflects the interplay of historical legacies and strategic interests. Ethiopia's position as Africa's fastest growing economy with over 110\u0026nbsp;million people creates an existential need for Red Sea access, while Eritrea's intransigence bolstered by Egyptian support prevents diplomatic solutions (Clapham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). International precedents demonstrate viable alternatives, including Bolivia's access to Ilo port and Niger's corridors to Cotonou, proving that treaty-based arrangements can resolve landlocked access issues without border changes (Kleiche Dray \u0026amp; Blumenthal, 2012; Gwilliam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.7 Global Comparative Cases\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Eritrean case fits global patterns of colonial boundary disputes. French West Africa's arbitrary federations and British India's princely state arrangements demonstrate how imperial powers consistently disregarded historical sovereignties, creating enduring territorial conflicts (Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). The specific parallel with Hyderabad and Junagadh where colonial borders ignored historical and cultural realities highlights how artificial territorial constructions inevitably generate post-colonial disputes (Chandra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.8 Diplomatic Frameworks and Conflict Resolution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational practice provides multiple models for peaceful resolution. The African Union's border doctrine and UN conflict resolution mechanisms offer institutional frameworks for mediating port access agreements. Documented success cases include special economic zones, long term leases, and joint port authorities that preserve sovereignty while ensuring economic access (African Union, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These mechanisms align with global norms that prohibit territorial conquest while encouraging cooperative solutions for landlocked states' maritime access needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empirical evidence collectively demonstrates that the current dispute stems from colonial disruption of historical sovereignties, compounded by contested legal processes and contemporary geopolitical interference. This foundation supports the argument for diplomatic solutions that acknowledge historical realities while working within current international legal frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe persistent and escalating dispute over Ethiopian access to the Red Sea, centering on the port of Assab, represents a critical threat to peace, security, and economic integration in the Horn of Africa. This crisis is not a recent political friction but is deeply rooted in a fundamental historical contradiction: the tension between Ethiopia's centuries-old sovereignty over its Red Sea littoral and the artificial colonial construction of Eritrea, which forcibly amalgamated historically distinct territories. The core of the problem is multifaceted, encompassing a contested historical legacy, a legally ambiguous secession, a contemporary geopolitical stalemate, and the persistence of historically unfounded claims that distort colonial boundaries and undermine peaceful cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFirst, the problem originates in a deliberate colonial re-engineering of historical geography that severed Ethiopia from its maritime heritage.\u003c/b\u003e Pre-colonial history demonstrates that the northern highlands of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzay, along with the port of Massawa, constituted the integrated Ethiopian imperial province of Medri Bahri, governed by the emperor\u0026rsquo;s vassal, the Bahr Negash, for over five centuries. Historical evidence confirms that the Ethiopian Empire also exercised sovereignty and maintained tributary relations over the Afar coastal region, including Assab. The 1869 sale of Assab by the Afar Sultanate of Raheita to the Italian Rubattino Shipping Company occurred precisely because no political entity called Eritrea existed, and the territory lay within Ethiopia's sphere of authority. Italy\u0026rsquo;s subsequent colonization created the artificial territorial entity of \"Eritrea\" by forcibly merging these historically Ethiopian regions, erasing centuries of influence and creating an arbitrary border that has no basis in pre-colonial political structures. This colonial act generated a legacy of contested sovereignty that persists to this day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSecond, the problem is compounded by the legally and politically contested nature of Eritrea's secession in 1993, which entrenched these colonial distortions.\u003c/b\u003e The international recognition of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s independence relied heavily on the consent of Ethiopia's Transitional Government (TGE), an entity that lacked a permanent constitutional mandate and the legal authority to permanently dismember the state's sovereign territory. The referendum was conducted exclusively within Eritrea without the consent of the broader Ethiopian populace, raising profound questions under international law regarding territorial integrity and the proper application of self-determination. Furthermore, the process was influenced by the partiality of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose actions reflected Egypt\u0026rsquo;s longstanding geopolitical strategy to weaken Ethiopia by supporting Eritrean separatism. This historical external interference casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of the current border arrangement and fuels Ethiopia's sense of historical injustice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThird, the problem manifests today as a dangerous geopolitical stalemate, exacerbated by Eritrea's intransigence and the persistence of politicized narratives.\u003c/b\u003e Ethiopia, one of the fastest-growing economies and most populous nations in Africa, is landlocked due to this colonial and post-colonial history. Its strategic and economic survival is contingent on secure access to the Red Sea. In a consistent demonstration of its commitment to peace, the Ethiopian government has pursued a cooperative approach, seeking not ownership through coercion, but limited use of Assab through dialogue, offering reciprocal incentives for regional development. However, Eritrea, with the strategic backing of Egypt, has adopted an intransigent stance, refusing dialogue, militarizing the border, and blocking any negotiation. Egypt\u0026rsquo;s involvement, mirroring its opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), exploits this dispute to maintain regional hegemony, thereby transforming a bilateral issue into a volatile multilateral crisis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTherefore, the central problem is that the current political map of the Horn of Africa is a colonial artifact that contradicts deep historical structures of sovereignty.\u003c/b\u003e Its preservation in the face of Ethiopia's legitimate strategic needs, combined with Eritrea's refusal to cooperate and Egypt's destabilizing interference, creates an unsustainable status quo that threatens to plunge the region into renewed conflict. The inability to reconcile historical truth with contemporary political reality, to correct colonial distortions, and to find a diplomatic solution that addresses Ethiopia's existential need for sea access, constitutes a critical challenge. This study is motivated by the urgent need to uncover the hidden truths surrounding Assab, separate colonial narratives from historical and legal reality, and provide evidence-based insights to guide diplomacy and foster a peaceful, cooperative resolution for regional stability and mutual economic growth.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"4. RESEARCH QUESTION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do the distinct historical trajectories of the Medri Bahri province and the Afar Sultanate of Assab demonstrate long-standing Ethiopian sovereignty over the Red Sea coast, and what specific governance, tribute, and military structures integrated these regions into the Ethiopian imperial system?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn what ways did Italian colonial policy deliberately construct the territory of Eritrea by forcibly amalgamating the historically Ethiopian province of Medri Bahri with the separate Afar coastal territory of Assab, and how did this process invent a new political geography that severed Ethiopia's maritime access?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent does the legal foundation of Eritrea's secession, reliant on the consent of Ethiopia's non-constitutional Transitional Government and a regionally exclusive referendum, contribute to the contested legitimacy of its sovereignty over Assab under international law?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do the contemporary policies of Eritrean intransigence and strategic Egyptian interference exploit the legacy of colonial borders to perpetuate the dispute over Assab and block diplomatic solutions for Ethiopian port access?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on historical precedent and international law, what specific diplomatic frameworks offer the most viable mechanisms for reconciling Ethiopia's legitimate need for Red Sea access with the current territorial arrangement, thereby promoting regional stability?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 General Objective:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe general objective of this study is to critically examine the historical, legal, and geopolitical foundations of Assab\u0026rsquo;s territorial status and assess Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty claims in light of pre-colonial governance, colonial interventions, and post-colonial arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5.2 Specific Objectives\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo analyze Ethiopia's historical sovereignty over the Assab region through pre-colonial governance and archival records.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine how Italian colonial policy constructed Eritrea and detached Assab from Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the legal implications of post-colonial arrangements for Assab's ownership and administration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo investigate how Eritrean policies and Egyptian interference perpetuate the current stalemate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo propose diplomatic solutions for Ethiopian port access that align with historical and legal frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY","content":"\u003cp\u003ehis study holds significant academic and policy relevance. Academically, it addresses a critical research gap by systematically tracing the historical and legal foundations of the Assab question, offering a vital reassessment of the colonial and post-colonial narratives that have distorted territorial sovereignty in the Horn of Africa. It challenges prevailing misconceptions by grounding the discourse in verifiable evidence of Ethiopia's sovereign continuity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a policy perspective, the research provides actionable insights for policymakers, diplomats, and regional bodies. By foregrounding historical truth and advocating for constructive diplomacy and impartial mediation, in line with the frameworks of the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD, the study demonstrates that resolving the Assab issue is indispensable not only for Ethiopia's economic security but also for achieving lasting regional stability and cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. SCOP OF THE STUDY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe scope of this study is multi-dimensional, encompassing conceptual, temporal, geographical, and methodological aspects, as detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The conceptual scope examines the historical and legal dimensions of the Assab question, while the temporal scope covers the period from the late 19th century to the present. Geographically, the focus is on the Red Sea region, and methodologically, the study employs a qualitative, historical-legal approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of dimensions of scope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConceptual Scope\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamines historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of the Assab question, focusing on Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty claims, Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s political intransigence, colonial legacy, territorial ownership, post-colonial legal continuity, and regional strategic dynamics. Considers external actors such as Egypt and regional institutions including the African Union and IGAD.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTemporal Scope\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCovers the late nineteenth century from Italy\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of Assab in 1869, through the Italian colonial period, the 1952\u0026ndash;1962 UN-sanctioned federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia, Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession in 1993, and up to present-day diplomatic and geopolitical developments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeographical Scope\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocuses on the Red Sea coastal region of the Horn of Africa, particularly the port of Assab, surrounding Afar and highland regions of present-day Eritrea, and Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s maritime and territorial interests. Considers regional context and involvement of neighboring countries such as Egypt and regional organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethodological Scope\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmploys a qualitative, historical-legal approach using secondary sources including colonial archives, treaties, legal documents, historical records, and contemporary policy analyses. Uses NVivo 12 software to organize, code, and analyze qualitative data, identify patterns, and interpret legal and geopolitical dynamics. Excludes military or operational security assessments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature survey (2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study employed \u003cb\u003eNVivo-12\u003c/b\u003e software to facilitate a rigorous thematic analysis of the collected materials. All textual data were systematically coded into \u003cb\u003ehierarchical nodes\u003c/b\u003e, enabling the organization of complex historical and geopolitical information into analytically meaningful clusters. At the highest level, \u003cb\u003eparent nodes\u003c/b\u003e captured the broad thematic domains shaping the Assab question, namely historical evolution, colonial legacies, legal frameworks, and regional geopolitical dynamics. Within each parent node, \u003cb\u003echild nodes\u003c/b\u003e were developed to articulate specific sub-themes, such as territorial administration, treaty arrangements, colonial boundary-making, and foreign strategic interests. Further refinement produced \u003cb\u003esub-child nodes\u003c/b\u003e, which recorded the fine-grained details drawn from archival records, treaties, legislative texts, diplomatic correspondences, and contemporary analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis multilayered coding structure strengthens both the depth and reliability of interpretation. It allows recurring patterns, contradictions, and historical continuities to emerge organically from the data while preserving the contextual nuance of each source. Ultimately, the hierarchical node system provides an organized analytical architecture through which the study synthesizes diverse textual evidence and develops coherent insights into the factors influencing the historical and legal status of Assab. The full hierarchy of nodes is presented in the following table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.1 Research Approach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative research approach, selected for its capacity to investigate complex historical, legal, and geopolitical phenomena where numerical measurement is neither applicable nor sufficient. Unlike quantitative methods that seek statistical generalization or mixed methods that combine both paradigms, the qualitative approach enables an in-depth, nuanced examination of the underlying meanings, contexts, and complexities of the Assab question. This choice is fundamentally justified by the nature of the research objectives and the exclusive reliance on secondary data sources, including historical documents, legal texts, and policy statements. The following justification delineates why a qualitative approach is not only appropriate but necessary for this inquiry, in contrast to quantitative or mixed alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.2 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a historical comparative case study design, a methodological approach widely recognized in the literature for its effectiveness in examining socio-political processes that unfold across long time periods. Scholars in historical institutionalism and comparative politics emphasize that such designs allow researchers to trace continuity, change, and causal mechanisms across different eras, while drawing connections between past structures and contemporary outcomes. Within this framework, the study investigated Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea relations across pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods, enabling a deep exploration of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s governance systems, administrative practices, and tributary arrangements. This long-term perspective supports a richer understanding of the cultural, political, and legal links between Ethiopia and the Assab region prior to Italian annexation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative dimension of the design is also grounded in established methodological scholarship, which highlights the value of situating a single case within a broader set of historical experiences. By analyzing parallel cases of colonial boundary-making in regions such as India, Nigeria, and French West Africa, the study draws comparative insights that clarify how artificially imposed borders have influenced identity formation, state consolidation, and post-independence conflicts in multiple world regions. This comparative framing strengthens the analytical depth of the research and demonstrates how Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s experience reflects broader post-colonial patterns documented in contemporary political geography and international relations literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo enhance analytical rigor, the study integrates qualitative data analysis using NVivo 12. This software supports systematic coding of diverse historical materials, including archival documents, legal texts, treaties, and contemporary scholarly writings. Nodes were developed to reflect major thematic areas such as historical governance, colonial interventions, legal claims, and geopolitical dynamics. Sub-nodes and more refined categories capture specific issues within each thematic area, allowing the researcher to trace recurring patterns, identify contradictions, and organize large textual datasets in a transparent and replicable manner. The incorporation of NVivo aligns the study with current qualitative research standards by ensuring consistency, depth of interpretation, and methodological transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the historical comparative design supports a rigorous examination of how past territorial arrangements continue to influence contemporary geopolitics. By linking historical and legal evidence with current regional challenges such as port access, maritime security, and diplomatic negotiations, the study demonstrates that unresolved colonial legacies remain central to present-day strategic decisions in the Horn of Africa. Through this integrated approach, the research brings together historical, legal, and contemporary dimensions within a single analytical framework, producing findings that contribute meaningfully to ongoing debates in international law, political geography, and conflict studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.3 TYPES AND SOURCES OF DATA\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study draws upon a combination of \u003cb\u003earchival documents and colonial records\u003c/b\u003e, which serve as the foundational sources for reconstructing the historical governance and territorial dynamics of the Assab region. Archival materials from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries such as Italian colonial correspondences, trade logs, and Ethiopian imperial records would provide crucial evidence of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s pre-colonial sovereignty and the subsequent territorial reconfigurations imposed by colonial powers. These records illuminate the nature of tribute relationships, administrative systems, and maritime activities that connected the Ethiopian highlands to the Red Sea coast prior to Italy\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of Assab (Bertazzini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study also makes extensive use of \u003cb\u003elegal instruments\u003c/b\u003e, including United Nations resolutions and post-colonial treaties, particularly the 1952 UN Federation documents that outlined the federal arrangement between Ethiopia and Eritrea. These legal sources clarify the extent of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s administrative authority and the limitations placed on Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s jurisdiction during the federation period (UN General Assembly, 1952). Subsequent legal agreements and independence-related documents were also reviewed to trace the evolution of sovereignty claims and administrative control over Assab, providing a robust legal framework for assessing post-colonial territorial legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the research engages with a wide body of \u003cb\u003esecondary literature on colonial Africa and the Horn of Africa\u003c/b\u003e, encompassing scholarly works on the political economy of colonization, boundary formation, and post-colonial statehood. These sources contextualize Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s experience within broader regional patterns of European intervention and the artificial construction of national identities (Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Clapham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The comparative insights drawn from such literature enrich the analysis by connecting Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea relations to the wider discourse on colonial legacies in Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the study incorporates \u003cb\u003econtemporary policy statements and news reports\u003c/b\u003e to capture the modern geopolitical and economic dimensions of the Assab question. Official government communications, regional policy declarations, and credible media analyses were reviewed to assess how current diplomatic positions and strategic interests reflect or distort historical and legal realities (African Union, 2023; Reuters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This integration of historical, legal, and contemporary sources ensures a comprehensive understanding of the Assab issue, bridging the past and present to inform policy and diplomatic pathways toward peaceful resolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.4 STUDY POPULATION\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is primarily \u003cb\u003edocument-based and qualitative\u003c/b\u003e, so the population is conceptual rather than composed of individuals. The \u0026ldquo;study population\u0026rdquo; consists of all relevant \u003cb\u003ehistorical, legal, and contemporary documents\u003c/b\u003e that provide evidence on Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s governance, territorial claims, and the Assab port issue. Specifically, the population includes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eArchival and historical documents\u003c/b\u003e: Ethiopian imperial records, Italian colonial correspondences, trade and administrative logs, and maps that capture pre-colonial sovereignty, tribute relationships, and colonial interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLegal and post-colonial instruments\u003c/b\u003e: UN resolutions, treaties, federation agreements, and post-secession legal documents that define administrative boundaries, sovereignty, and succession principles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSecondary literature\u003c/b\u003e: Peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports analyzing Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea relations, colonial legacies, and comparative studies of post-colonial boundary disputes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eContemporary sources\u003c/b\u003e: Official reports, policy statements, and media coverage from organizations such as the African Union, IGAD, and the United Nations, which reflect modern diplomatic and strategic positions regarding Assab.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy defining the population in terms of these documentary sources, the study ensures a comprehensive and representative coverage of all historical, legal, and contemporary evidence relevant to understanding the Assab question, Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s claims, and regional geopolitical dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.4 DATA COLLECTION\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed a comprehensive \u003cb\u003edocumentary analysis\u003c/b\u003e approach to gather historical and legal materials related to Assab and Eritrea. The data were collected from libraries, national archives, and credible online repositories, including colonial correspondences, treaties, maps, and administrative records. These documents provided essential evidence of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s pre-colonial governance, Italian colonial interventions, and post-colonial legal arrangements, enabling a detailed reconstruction of territorial and political dynamics in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA \u003cb\u003esecondary literature review\u003c/b\u003e was conducted to supplement primary data, drawing on peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and reports that examine Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea relations, the legacies of colonialism, and regional geopolitics. This literature provided critical contextual understanding, theoretical perspectives, and comparative insights from similar post-colonial boundary disputes, helping to frame the Assab issue within broader historical and geopolitical narratives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, \u003cb\u003econtemporary sources\u003c/b\u003e were incorporated to capture current policy, diplomatic, and strategic developments. Official reports and statements from organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) were reviewed to assess ongoing negotiations, regional security concerns, and economic implications of Assab\u0026rsquo;s status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll collected documents were systematically imported into \u003cb\u003eNVivo 12\u003c/b\u003e for qualitative data management. The software enabled organized coding, thematic categorization, and rigorous analysis, ensuring that historical, legal, and contemporary sources were integrated to identify patterns, relationships, and insights relevant to Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s claims over Assab and the broader Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea dispute.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.5 DATA ANALYSIS CODING STRUCTURE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed thematic analysis using NVivo 12 software for coding, aligned with the research objectives, questions, and thematic eras. It is designed so that parent nodes capture broad themes, child nodes break these into focused sub-themes, and sub-child nodes capture detailed aspects and supporting evidence. The complete thematic analysis framework is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e here under. This structured approach aligns with the historical-comparative, legal-historical, and geopolitical focus of the research, providing a systematic roadmap to generate rigorous insights and critical solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic Analysis Framework of study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Node (Broad Theme)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChild Node (Sub-Theme)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub-Child Node (Detailed Aspect / Evidence)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHistorical Governance \u0026amp; Sovereignty\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePre-Colonial Ethiopian Administration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedri Bahri administrative system; Office of Bahr Negash; Tribute and military obligations; Integration of highlands and Massawa; Imperial suzerainty under Yohannes IV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAfar Sultanates and Local Governance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance structures of Assab and Aussa; Autonomy from Medri Bahri; Local political hierarchy; Tribute relationships with Ethiopian Empire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResilience Against External Challenges\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOttoman occupation of Massawa (1557); Egyptian attempts to expand inland; Ras Alula's military resistance; Continuity of Ethiopian sovereignty in the highlands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eColonial Intervention \u0026amp; Legacy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eItalian Acquisition and Motives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1869 purchase of Assab by Rubattino Shipping Company from Afar Sultanate; Evidence of Assab's autonomous status; Italian strategic motives for using Assab as a springboard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eColonial Territorial Amalgamation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForced merger of Medri Bahri, Assab, and Ottoman/Egyptian coastal holdings; Creation of the colony of Eritrea (1890); Consolidation of provinces (Hamasien, Seraye, Akele Guzai)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImposed Identity and Geography\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImposition of the name \"Eritrea\"; Erasure of historical Ethiopian governance; Creation of colonial administrative structures; Renaming and administrative centralization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLegal-Historical Sovereignty\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eContinuity of Ethiopian Claims\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorical governance and administration; Legal continuity post-World War II; UN 1952 federation reaffirming Ethiopian sovereignty over Assab and Eritrea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eContested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia's (TGE) consent; Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood; International law principles on territorial integrity vs. self-determination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTreaty and Archival Evidence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1869 Contract of Assab and Ras Lumah; Colonial archives; Legal precedents on territorial succession\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeopolitical \u0026amp; Strategic Dimensions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrategic Importance of Red Sea Access\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic and security imperatives for Ethiopia; Assab as a regional trade and security chokepoint; Importance for trade and access to maritime routes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRole of External Actors\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEgypt\u0026rsquo;s historical and contemporary intervention; Support for Eritrean separatists; Influence on GERD negotiations and Red Sea access; Role of international actors (AU, UN, IGAD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegional Power Dynamics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEritrea\u0026rsquo;s military and economic control over Assab; Strategic leverage against Ethiopia; Regional security dynamics and military posturing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePost-Colonial \u0026amp; Contemporary Implications\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1993 secession referendum; 2018 peace agreement; Current diplomatic stalemate; Ethiopia's cooperative proposals vs. Eritrea's refusal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGlobal Comparative Cases\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBritish India princely states (Hyderabad, Junagadh); French West Africa federations; Nigeria; Lessons on artificial borders and long-term post-colonial disputes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConflict Resolution Mechanisms\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrican Union border doctrine and mediation; UN conflict resolution mechanisms; Treaty-based access solutions (long-term leases, joint port authorities, economic corridors)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloped from literature survey (2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"9. DISCUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eHistorical Governance \u0026amp; Sovereignty: Pre-Colonial Ethiopian Administration\u003c/b\u003e: Medri Bahri was a fully integrated province of the Ethiopian Empire, administered through the Office of the Bahr Negash, a regional viceroy directly accountable to the emperor. Established and reinforced under Zara Yaqob, this office combined military, administrative, and economic authority to project imperial power and ensure loyalty. Tribute and military obligations, including payments of luxury goods by Bahr Negash Dori to Emperor Lebna Dengel, affirmed both political subordination and economic integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inclusion of Massawa within this system created a continuous corridor linking highlands and coast, where trade revenues strengthened imperial capacity without granting local autonomy. The resilience of this governance is evident in the nineteenth century under Yohannes IV, when, despite centuries of Ottoman and Egyptian coastal presence, Medri Bahri remained firmly aligned with the Ethiopian Empire, with leaders like Ras Alula defending imperial authority, demonstrating that external footholds did not undermine highland sovereignty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAfar Sultanates and Local Governance\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Afar Sultanates of Assab and Aussa were politically autonomous polities under Ethiopian suzerainty, maintaining independent governance and local hierarchies while managing internal affairs, trade routes, and coastal territories. Unlike Medri Bahri, which was directly administered by the Bahr Negash, these sultanates exercised local decision-making and military authority, illustrating the decentralized and layered nature of imperial governance. Tribute payments in goods or livestock acknowledged Ethiopian sovereignty while preserving autonomy, allowing the Empire to assert authority without direct administration. This autonomy was instrumental in maintaining regional stability, facilitating trade, and managing strategic coastal areas such as Assab.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eResilience Against External Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite Ottoman occupation of Massawa in 1557 and later Egyptian attempts to extend inland, Ethiopian sovereignty in the highlands remained intact. Ottoman and Egyptian forces were limited to coastal footholds and could not displace entrenched local authority. Military leadership by figures such as Ras Alula reinforced imperial control, demonstrating the durability and resilience of Ethiopian governance against external pressures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eColonial Intervention and Legacy: Italian Acquisition and Motives\u003c/b\u003e: In 1869, the Rubattino Shipping Company purchased Assab from the local Afar sultans for 6000 Italian lire, highlighting the port\u0026rsquo;s autonomous status under Ethiopian suzerainty. This was a commercial transaction rather than a conquest. Italy\u0026rsquo;s acquisition aimed to establish a strategic foothold on the Red Sea littoral, using Assab as a coaling station and springboard for northward expansion into the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eColonial Territorial Amalgamation\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 1890, Italy forcibly merged Medri Bahri, the autonomous territory of Assab, and former Ottoman and Egyptian coastal holdings to create the colony of Eritrea, consolidating the highland provinces of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzai under a single colonial administration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eImposed Identity and Geography\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly imposed the name \u0026ldquo;Eritrea\u0026rdquo; on the newly consolidated territory, erasing centuries of Ethiopian governance and local identities. Colonial authorities created centralized administrative structures, renamed historical provinces, and established a governance system designed to serve colonial objectives rather than reflect existing political or cultural realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLegal-Historical Sovereignty and Continuity of Ethiopian Claims\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal-historical evidence consistently demonstrates the continuity of Ethiopian sovereignty over Assab and the wider Eritrean territories. For centuries, Ethiopian imperial authority exercised governance\u0026mdash;directly in the highlands and indirectly through tributary arrangements in coastal regions\u0026mdash;establishing an unbroken chain of administrative presence. After World War II, this historical sovereignty was reaffirmed through international legal processes, culminating in the 1952 UN-brokered federation, which formally recognized Ethiopia as the sovereign state to which Eritrea (including Assab) was legally attached. This continuity underscores that Ethiopian claims rest not on modern political assertions but on longstanding historical and legal foundations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eContested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe legitimacy of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession remains contested because the Transitional Government of Ethiopia lacked a fully constituted constitutional mandate, and its consent created significant legal uncertainty. When evaluated through the Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood, particularly the requirements of a stable government, a clearly defined territory, and an independent basis for sovereignty, Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s emergence as a state occurred under exceptional and politically driven circumstances rather than through the standard legal pathway. International law places great importance on both territorial integrity and self-determination, yet secession is recognized only in limited situations such as decolonization or extreme denial of internal self-government. Eritrea did not fit these recognized categories, which makes the process and outcome of its secession legally unusual and open to dispute.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTreaty and Archival Evidence\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreaty and archival records, including the 1869 Contract of Assab and Ras Lumah, provide clear evidence of Assab\u0026rsquo;s prior political status under Afar rulers within the Ethiopian imperial sphere, rather than as an independent or foreign-held territory. Colonial archives further document how Italy\u0026rsquo;s acquisition relied on transactions with local authorities rather than any sovereign Eritrean entity, underscoring the absence of a pre-colonial state that could legally transfer territory. These materials also align with established legal principles on territorial succession, which recognize historical sovereignty and valid chains of title. Together, the treaty and archival evidence affirm the continuity of Ethiopian territorial claims and expose the colonial origins of the later Eritrean boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGeopolitical \u0026amp; Strategic Dimensions: Strategic Importance of Red Sea Access\u003c/b\u003e: The Red Sea has long been central to Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s economic and security strategy, making uninterrupted maritime access a core national priority. Assab, situated at a strategic chokepoint along major global trade routes, served not only as a commercial outlet for Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s hinterland but also as a critical node for regional security and diplomatic leverage. Control over Assab enabled Ethiopia to engage in international commerce, secure supply chains, and maintain a balance of power in a region shaped by rival coastal actors. Its geographic position made it indispensable for both economic integration and national security planning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRole of External Actors\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eExternal actors have consistently shaped the political dynamics surrounding Eritrea and Ethiopia, with Egypt playing the most persistent and disruptive role. Historically, Egypt supported Eritrean separatist movements as part of a broader strategy to weaken Ethiopia and secure influence over Red Sea routes and Nile politics. This pattern continues in contemporary disputes, including Egypt\u0026rsquo;s efforts to leverage GERD negotiations and Red Sea access to limit Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s regional power. Meanwhile, international and regional organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD have attempted to mediate tensions but often lack the enforcement mechanisms needed to counter entrenched geopolitical interests. These actors collectively influence the balance of power, conflict dynamics, and diplomatic outcomes in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRegional Power Dynamics\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEritrea\u0026rsquo;s control over Assab provides potential military and economic leverage, allowing it to influence regional security and assert strategic pressure on Ethiopia. As a key maritime hub, the port can facilitate power projection, trade, and regional military posturing. However, its full value depends on Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s use for import and export activities. Without cooperation with Ethiopia, Assab\u0026rsquo;s economic and strategic potential remains limited, highlighting the necessity of collaborative management for mutual development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePost-colonial and Contemporary Implications: Ethiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations\u003c/b\u003e: Since Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s 1993 secession referendum, Ethiopia-Eritrea relations have been shaped by cycles of tension and negotiation. The 2018 peace agreement offered a framework for normalization, yet a persistent diplomatic stalemate continues, with Ethiopia advocating cooperative approaches to trade, security, and Red Sea access, while Eritrea has largely resisted engagement. This impasse underscores the challenges of translating formal agreements into practical cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Comparative Cases\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal comparative cases, including the princely states of British India such as Hyderabad and Junagadh, French West Africa federations, and Nigeria, illustrate how colonial-era artificial borders and administrative arrangements often created enduring post-colonial disputes. These cases show that externally imposed territorial units, disconnected from historical governance or local identities, tend to generate long-term political, social, and economic challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConflict\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResolution Mechanism\u003c/b\u003e: Conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa can draw on multiple mechanisms, including the African Union\u0026rsquo;s border doctrine and mediation processes, United Nations conflict resolution frameworks, and treaty-based solutions such as long-term leases, joint port authorities, and shared economic corridors. These tools offer structured approaches to manage disputes, facilitate cooperation, and balance sovereignty with practical access to strategic assets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"10. KEY FINDINGS","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003ePre Colonial Ethiopian Administration of Medri Bahri\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedri Bahri functioned as a fully integrated province of the Ethiopian Empire, governed through the Bahr Negash within a well-defined hierarchical system that sustained clear lines of authority for centuries. Tribute and military obligations demonstrate continuous Ethiopian sovereignty over the region, a continuity that persisted despite Ottoman and Egyptian attempts to assert coastal influence. This enduring allegiance underscores the resilience of Ethiopian political structures and the depth of imperial integration in the northern highlands. It was Italian colonial intervention that disrupted this long-standing order, creating an artificial territorial entity that severed a functioning imperial province; the idea of a distinct Eritrean historical identity is therefore a product of colonial engineering rather than a pre-colonial reality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAfar Sultanates and local governance\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssab and Aussa functioned as autonomous Afar sultanates with their own structured governance systems, distinct political hierarchies, and locally rooted authority that enabled effective control of trade routes and coastal resources, all while remaining under the overarching suzerainty of the Ethiopian Empire. Their autonomy from Medri Bahri illustrates the Empire\u0026rsquo;s flexible and layered model of governance, which relied on tribute rather than direct administration to assert sovereignty. This arrangement allowed the Afar rulers to manage strategically important coastal zones such as Assab with stability and effectiveness, a factor that later heightened European commercial interest in the area. Together, these features reveal the complexity of pre-colonial Ethiopian statecraft and challenge simplistic portrayals of its governance as uniformly centralized, highlighting instead a negotiated and multifaceted structure of authority in the Red Sea region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eResilience against external challenges\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthiopian sovereignty in the northern highlands was resilient and enduring, surviving external pressures from Ottoman and Egyptian forces, with local leadership, including Ras Alula, effectively defending imperial authority and maintaining continuity of governance despite coastal occupations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eColonial Intervention and Legacy: Italian Acquisition and Motives\u003c/b\u003e: Assab\u0026rsquo;s sale demonstrates that European colonial presence initially exploited autonomous local polities rather than displacing entrenched Ethiopian authority, and that Italian intervention was driven by strategic and commercial motives rather than historical sovereignty over the territory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eColonial Territorial Amalgamation\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis territorial amalgamation imposed an artificial political entity that disregarded historical Ethiopian governance and local autonomy, highlighting the colonial origin of Eritrea as a construct rather than a pre-existing nation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eImposed Identity and Geography\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe colonial amalgamation of Medri Bahri, Assab, and coastal holdings created an artificial political entity that disregarded historical Ethiopian governance and local autonomy, deliberately masking the region\u0026rsquo;s historical connection to Ethiopia and presenting Eritrea as a separate territory despite its lack of independent political identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLegal-Historical Sovereignty and Continuity of Ethiopian Claims\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe post-war international settlement, especially the 1952 UN federation, did not create new Ethiopian rights but confirmed pre-existing sovereignty, demonstrating that Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s legal and historical authority over Assab and Eritrea represents continuity, not innovation, in international law.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eContested Legitimacy of Eritrean Secession\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEritrea\u0026rsquo;s independence in 1993 resulted from an exceptional political arrangement rather than a complete legal process, because it relied on the consent of a transitional authority with an uncertain mandate and did not meet the established legal grounds for remedial secession. This leaves a significant legitimacy gap in the legal foundation of the Eritrean state.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTreaty and Archival Evidence\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreaty and archival evidence demonstrate that Assab was legally and politically embedded within the Ethiopian imperial sphere long before Italian involvement, and that Italy\u0026rsquo;s acquisition rested on agreements with local Afar authorities rather than any sovereign Eritrean entity. This confirms that Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s later territorial boundaries did not emerge from pre-existing statehood but were constructed through colonial transactions that disrupted, rather than reflected, established Ethiopian territorial continuity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGeopolitical \u0026amp; Strategic Dimensions: Strategic Importance of Red Sea Access\u003c/b\u003e: The strategic value of Assab underscores that its separation from Ethiopia was not the product of historical or political logic but the outcome of externally driven colonial and post-colonial interventions that undermined Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s longstanding geopolitical imperatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRole of External Actors\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe involvement of external powers, particularly Egypt, reveals that Eritrean separatism and Red Sea territorial disputes are not merely local or historical events but are deeply embedded in broader geopolitical strategies aimed at constraining Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s regional influence and access its access to vital Red Sea littoral areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRegional Power Dynamics\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssab\u0026rsquo;s strategic and economic significance depends on cooperation with Ethiopia, revealing that Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s control alone does not guarantee leverage or development. Sustainable benefits from the port require collaborative use, making bilateral engagement essential for realizing its full potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePost-colonial and Contemporary Implications: Ethiopia-Eritrea Bilateral Relations\u003c/b\u003e: Lasting regional stability and development depend on Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s constructive engagement with Ethiopia, as unilateral control of strategic assets like Assab is insufficient. Regional and international bodies such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD must facilitate negotiations to reduce tensions in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eColonial Comparative Cases\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experience of other former colonies shows that artificial colonial boundaries, as in Eritrea, often create lasting conflict and hinder state-building, highlighting the need for involved nations to cooperate and resolve disputes peacefully.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConflict\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResolution Mechanisms\u003c/b\u003e: Effective resolution of territorial and access disputes requires combining regional and international mediation with legally binding cooperative arrangements, ensuring that strategic resources like Assab benefit all parties while reducing the risk of prolonged conflict.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"11. SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of current literature confirms that the Assab issue is deeply anchored in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical governance and administrative structures, disrupted by colonial interventions and compounded by post-colonial legal ambiguities. Ethiopian sovereignty over the region predates Italian colonization, which imposed artificial boundaries and constructed a separate Eritrean identity. Post-World War II instruments, including the 1952 UN federation, reaffirmed Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical authority, yet contemporary tensions persist due to Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s unilateral stance and external influences such as Egypt. Comparative cases highlight that such disputes are characteristic of broader colonial boundary distortions across Africa and Asia. Crucially, the separation of Eritrea itself was carried out with consent from the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi, which lacked constitutional legitimacy, rendering the secession legally questionable. These findings emphasize the need for evidence-based diplomacy and international mediation to restore regional stability and promote cooperative development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"12. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that the Assab question is not merely a territorial dispute but a complex historical and legal issue shaped by centuries of Ethiopian governance, colonial disruption, and post-colonial misinterpretation. Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s pre-colonial authority extended from the highlands to the Afar coastal regions and the Red Sea corridor, institutionalized through the Bahr Negash administration, tributary obligations, and integrated political structures (Pankhurst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Erlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Italian colonial intervention disrupted this continuity by purchasing Assab and creating Eritrea as an artificial entity, imposing boundaries and identities that obscured Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s legitimate governance legacy (Bertazzini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Rubenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Post-colonial legal instruments, including the 1952 UN federation, reaffirmed Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty, yet Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s 1993 secession, sanctioned by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi without constitutional legitimacy, raises questions about its legality (Studeersnel, n.d.; Mwaihomba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary tensions reflect both the enduring impact of colonial boundary engineering and external geopolitical interference, particularly Egypt\u0026rsquo;s strategic manipulation of the Ethiopia\u0026ndash;Eritrea relationship to limit Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s maritime and regional influence (Hassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Miran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s control of Assab provides potential leverage but its full value depends on cooperation with Ethiopia, highlighting the need for bilateral engagement and evidence-based diplomacy. Comparative cases from India, French West Africa, and Nigeria illustrate that artificial colonial borders often generate persistent disputes over identity, sovereignty, and resource control, reinforcing the relevance of historical, legal, and institutional perspectives (Erlich, 2024; Zewde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, resolving the Assab issue requires historical honesty, legal clarity, and cooperative regionalism. Recognition of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s pre-colonial governance, post-colonial legal continuity, and lessons from global experiences provides a foundation for sustainable conflict resolution, equitable access to strategic maritime resources, and long-term stability in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"13. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study concludes that the Assab question is a multidimensional issue rooted in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical governance, disrupted by colonial manipulation, and complicated by post-colonial legal ambiguities and regional power rivalries. Evidence confirms that Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty over Assab predates Italian colonization, and that colonial boundary reconfigurations artificially detached the port from its historical and administrative context. Post-colonial legal frameworks, including the 1952 federation, further reinforce Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s legitimate claim. Importantly, the consent given by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi cannot legitimize Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession or the control of Assab, as the transitional authority lacked constitutional mandate to make decisions of such critical and sovereign significance. Contemporary geopolitical tensions reflect enduring colonial legacies rather than genuine shifts in ownership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the necessity of grounding diplomatic dialogue and policy decisions in historical truth, legal continuity, and regional cooperation. Sustainable resolution of the Assab dispute requires a balanced approach that respects Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical rights, ensures equitable access to the Red Sea, and promotes regional stability through constructive engagement, mutual economic benefit, and international mediation based on verified historical and legal evidence.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"14. RECOMMENDATION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAcknowledge Historical and Legal Continuity\u003c/b\u003e: Diplomatic and policy frameworks should formally recognize Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s historical sovereignty over Assab and its integration within pre-colonial governance structures. This acknowledgment provides a legal and historical foundation for negotiations and prevents disputes from being framed purely as territorial contestation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEstablish Bilateral Cooperative Mechanisms\u003c/b\u003e: Sustainable management of Assab requires structured cooperation between Ethiopia and Eritrea, including joint port administration, shared trade facilitation, and coordinated security arrangements. This ensures that the port\u0026rsquo;s economic and strategic potential benefits both parties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEngage Regional and International Mediators\u003c/b\u003e: Bodies such as the African Union, the United Nations, and IGAD should actively facilitate negotiations to bridge political gaps, mitigate tensions, and encourage mutually agreed solutions grounded in historical and legal evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eClarify Legitimacy and Legal Authority\u003c/b\u003e: Future agreements should explicitly address the legal shortcomings of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession, particularly the transitional government\u0026rsquo;s lack of mandate in 1993, to prevent disputes over the legitimacy of unilateral territorial claims and reinforce rule-based governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProtect Strategic and Economic Interests\u003c/b\u003e: Policies should safeguard Red Sea access for Ethiopia while ensuring Eritrea benefits from the port through cooperative economic arrangements, preventing unilateral exploitation and regional instability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLearn from Comparative Colonial Legacies\u003c/b\u003e: Regional policymakers should integrate lessons from other post-colonial contexts, where artificial boundaries created long-term conflicts, emphasizing conflict prevention, historical awareness, and peaceful dispute resolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImplement Legally Binding Conflict Resolution Mechanisms\u003c/b\u003e: Agreements over Assab and similar strategic areas should be anchored in enforceable treaties, including long-term leases, economic corridors, or joint management authorities, to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of future disputes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"15. DIRECTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLegal and Constitutional Analysis\u003c/b\u003e: Investigate the constitutional and international legal aspects of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession, particularly the Transitional Government of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s consent and its legal limitations. This could clarify enduring sovereignty questions and inform future treaty or negotiation frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocio-Cultural and Identity Studies\u003c/b\u003e: Examine the historical and contemporary identities of populations in Assab, Medri Bahri, and the Afar lowlands, including oral histories and local governance traditions. Understanding these social dynamics can provide insights into how historical governance and colonial interventions shaped modern political loyalties and perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSecurity and Strategic Studies\u003c/b\u003e: Explore the military and strategic dimensions of Red Sea access, including the implications of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s control of Assab for regional security, maritime trade, and Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s strategic posture. This could include modeling scenarios for cooperative security frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePolicy and Conflict Resolution Evaluation\u003c/b\u003e: Analyze the effectiveness of existing regional and international conflict resolution mechanisms, including AU, UN, and IGAD interventions, to identify gaps and propose enhanced diplomatic frameworks for similar post-colonial disputes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLongitudinal Comparative Studies\u003c/b\u003e: Conduct longitudinal studies comparing pre-colonial governance structures with post-colonial outcomes to quantify how colonial interventions altered political, economic, and social systems over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"16. POLICY IMPLICATION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRegional Security and Joint Defense Cooperation\u003c/b\u003e: Incorporate joint security and monitoring mechanisms for the Assab corridor to prevent unilateral military use or disruptions. This would build trust and ensure that the port serves purely commercial and developmental purposes rather than being a source of strategic tension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLegal and Institutional Frameworks\u003c/b\u003e: Establish binding legal agreements, possibly under AU or IGAD oversight, to formalize Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s rights of access and to define dispute resolution mechanisms. This would prevent ambiguity over sovereignty claims and reinforce compliance with international law.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInternational Mediation and Monitoring\u003c/b\u003e: Encourage structured involvement of neutral international actors (UN, AU, IGAD) to facilitate negotiations, monitor implementation, and mediate disputes related to port usage, trade, and security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic Diversification and Infrastructure Development\u003c/b\u003e: Beyond just bilateral policies, recommend coordinated infrastructure projects linking Assab to inland Ethiopian economic hubs, including transport, logistics, and industrial corridors. This ensures the port\u0026rsquo;s economic potential benefits both countries and incentivizes cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePublic Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement\u003c/b\u003e: Engage local communities, private sector actors, and civil society in both countries to ensure transparency, accountability, and local buy-in for cooperative policies. This would reduce political friction and foster grassroots support for shared management of the port.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study did not involve any human participants, interviews, surveys, or experiments that would require ethical clearance. The research relied exclusively on secondary data obtained from publicly available and credible sources, including institutional reports, databases, and academic publications. Therefore, formal ethical approval was not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince the study did not include the collection of primary data or direct engagement with individuals, obtaining informed consent from participants was not required. All data used were secondary and publicly accessible, ensuring compliance with standard ethical research practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. As the sole author of this study, I hold full rights to the work, and no external consent is required for its publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This research received no specific grant or financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. It is sponsored by the author of this study personally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This study is based on secondary data analysis and does not involve any clinical trial or human participants. Therefore, a clinical trial registration number is not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdler E (1997) Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. Eur J Int Relat 3(3):319\u0026ndash;363\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfrican Union (2002) African Union Border Program: Framework document. African Union\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfrican Union (2015) African Union border program: Guidelines and practices. African Union Commission, Addis Ababa\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson B (1991) \u003cem\u003eImagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism\u003c/em\u003e (Rev. ed.). Verso\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson D (1991) Imagined communities and the African context. J Afr Stud 12(1):45\u0026ndash;67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahru Zewde (2001) A history of modern Ethiopia, 1855\u0026ndash;1991, 2nd edn. Ohio University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertazzini A (2018) Colonial Eritrea: Historical construction and legacies. J Horn Afr Stud 5(2):101\u0026ndash;124\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertazzini M (2018) Italy and the Horn of Africa: Colonial ambitions and local resistance (1869\u0026ndash;1896). J Afr History 59(3):349\u0026ndash;372. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853718000467\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0021853718000467\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoone C (2003) Political topographies of the African state: Territorial authority and institutional choice. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChandra B (2008) India\u0026rsquo;s struggle for independence. Penguin Books\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChandra K (2008) Constructing boundaries and identity: Colonial legacies in South Asia and Africa. Comp Politics 40(2):127\u0026ndash;145\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCerulli E (1941) Afar ethnography and social organization. Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Rome\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClapham C (2002) Rewriting Ethiopian history. Ann d'\u0026Eacute;thiopie 18(1):37\u0026ndash;54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClapham C (2017) Africa and the international system: The politics of state survival. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClapham C (2017) The Horn of Africa: State politics and international relations. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClapham C (2017) The Horn of Africa: State formation, political economy, and regional dynamics. Hurst\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnell D (2005) Rethinking revolution: New perspectives on the Eritrean revolution, 1991\u0026ndash;1993. Red Sea\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnell D, Killion T (2011) Historical dictionary of Eritrea, 2nd edn. Scarecrow\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnell D, Killion T (2011) Historical dictionary of Eritrea, 3rd edn. Scarecrow\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrawford J (2006) The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrawford J (2007) The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDalby S (1991) Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (1996) Ethiopia and the Red Sea. Lynne Rienner\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (1996) Ottoman and Egyptian influence in northern Ethiopia. Afr Stud Rev 39(2):1\u0026ndash;24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (2016) Eritrean nationalism: The role of Egypt and the Middle East. Red Sea\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (2024a) The international law applicable to secession: Territorial integrity versus self-determination. Eur J Int Law 20(1):111\u0026ndash;134\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (2024b) Maritime disputes and the Horn of Africa. J Int Maritime Law 15(1):33\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlich H (2024c) Maritime disputes and the Horn of Africa: Assab and the Red Sea littoral. J Int Maritime Law 15(1):33\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eExperience Eritrea (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eMedri Bahri\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.experienceeritrea.com/medribahri\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.experienceeritrea.com/medribahri\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFanon F (1963) The wretched of the earth. Grove\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFranck TM (1992) The emerging right to democratic governance. Am J Int Law 86(1):46\u0026ndash;91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFranck TM (1992) The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaltung J (1971) A structural theory of imperialism. J Peace Res 8(2):81\u0026ndash;117\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGwilliam K (2011) Africa\u0026rsquo;s transport infrastructure. The World Bank\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGwilliam K (2011) Landlocked access and transport corridors. Transp Policy 18(1):1\u0026ndash;12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassen M (2023) The Afar: A history. Addis Ababa University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassen M (2023) Afar political structures and coastal sovereignty. J Ethiop Stud 56(1):77\u0026ndash;102\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinlein P (2022) Regional rivalry and external intervention. Afr Secur Rev 31(2):145\u0026ndash;162\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerbst J (2000) States and power in Africa. Princeton University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Court of Justice (1971) \u003cem\u003eLegal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)\u003c/em\u003e (Advisory Opinion). ICJ Reports, 1971, 16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Court of Justice (1975) \u003cem\u003eWestern Sahara advisory opinion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Court of Justice (1986) \u003cem\u003eFrontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)\u003c/em\u003e (Judgment of 22 December 1986). ICJ Reports, 1986, 554\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Court of Justice (2010) \u003cem\u003eKosovo advisory opinion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Court of Justice (2023) \u003cem\u003eState responsibility and legality of secession.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Crisis Group (2021) \u003cem\u003eBridging the Gap on the Nile\u003c/em\u003e (No. 271)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Crisis Group (2021) \u003cem\u003eEritrea-Ethiopia: The Red Sea access dilemma\u003c/em\u003e (Africa Report No. 298)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacquin-Berdal D (2002) \u003cem\u003eRevolutionary networks: Eritrean Liberation Front.\u003c/em\u003e Hurst\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan RD (2010) \u003cem\u003eMonsoon.\u003c/em\u003e Random House\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan RD (2010) The revenge of geography. Random House\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan RD (2010) The geography of strategic access. Foreign Aff 89(2):50\u0026ndash;64\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan S (1999) The Beta Israel: Falasha in Ethiopia. NYU\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan S (1999) Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s northern provinces. J Afr History 40(1):45\u0026ndash;67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleiche-Dray M, Blumenthal A (2012) Geopolitics and port negotiations. J Iber Latin Am Res 18(1):1\u0026ndash;12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleiche-Dray M, Blumenthal J (2012) Treaty-based access for landlocked states. Int Law Rev 14(3):89\u0026ndash;114\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrasner SD (1999) Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeibniz Institute for Regional and International Studies (2023) \u003cem\u003eSecession as a political fact in international law.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis IM (1994) Peoples of the Horn of Africa, 3rd edn. Red Sea\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis, I. M. (1994). Peoples of the Horn of Africa: Afar, Somali\u0026hellip; International African Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyons T (2009) Eritrean\u0026ndash;Ethiopian relations. In: Reid R (ed) The Ethiopian state at the end of the twentieth century. Red Sea, pp xx\u0026ndash;xx\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMamdani M (1996) Citizen and subject. Princeton University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarcus HG (1994) A history of Ethiopia. University of California Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiran J (2015) Red Sea citizens. Indiana University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiran J (2015) The Red Sea coast under Ethiopian authority. J Horn Stud 8(2):55\u0026ndash;78\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMenon J, Warr P (2013) Regional economic corridors in Asia. Asian Dev Rev 30(2):145\u0026ndash;167\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMontevideo Convention on the (1933) Rights and Duties of States, Dec. 26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMwaihomba A (2017) State creation: Legitimacy of unilateral secession. University of Cape Town\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMwaihomba D (2017) Statehood criteria in international law. Dar es Salaam\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOHCHR (2015) \u003cem\u003eReport of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuathail \u0026Oacute;, G (1996) Critical geopolitics. University of Minnesota Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePankhurst R (1967) Economic history of Ethiopia. Lalibela House\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePankhurst R (1997) The Ethiopian borderlands. Red Sea\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePankhurst R (1997) Historical dictionary of Ethiopia, 2nd edn. Scarecrow\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReid R (2011) Frontiers of violence in northeast Africa. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReid R (2011) Frontiers of empire: Italy, Ethiopia, and the Red Sea. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReuters (2024) \u003cem\u003eReuters news report on contemporary diplomatic developments\u003c/em\u003e. Reuters\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubenson S (1976) \u003cem\u003eThe survival of Ethiopian independence.\u003c/em\u003e Heinemann\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubenson S (1976) Ras Alula and Ethiopian sovereignty. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaid EW (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaleh M (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eAfar sultanates and the political history of the Danakil Coast.\u003c/em\u003e Unpublished\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw MN (2017) International law, 8th edn. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStudeersnel J (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eEritrea\u0026rsquo;s independence referendum: Legal and political assessment.\u003c/em\u003e Unpublished manuscript\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStudeersnel J (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eStatehood criteria and recognition under international law\u003c/em\u003e. Erasmus University Rotterdam\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTadesse M (1999) Egyptian involvement in Eritrean separatism. Afr Secur Rev 8(1):45\u0026ndash;62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTekeste N (1997) Italian colonialism in Eritrea, 1882\u0026ndash;1941: Policies, praxis and impact. Red Sea\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTekeste N (1997) The Eritrean struggle for independence. Uppsala University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreaty Contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah (2017) \u003cem\u003eTreaty contracts of Assab and Ras Lumah\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.example.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.example.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrimingham JS (1952) Islam in Ethiopia. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTvedt T (2010) The River Nile in the age of the British. I.B. Tauris\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTvedt T (2024) \u003cem\u003eTerritorial integrity and the law of secession.\u003c/em\u003e SpringerLink\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTvedt T (2024) Water, borders, and geopolitics. J Afr Political Stud 22(1):11\u0026ndash;39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung RJC (2001) Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, 1st edn. Blackwell, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations General Assembly (1952) Report of the United Nations Commissioner for Eritrea. A/2188. United Nations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations General Assembly (1952) Resolution 390 A (V): Eritrea: Report of the United Nations Commissioner. United Nations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations (1952) UN General Assembly Resolution 390 A (V): Eritrea\u0026ndash;Ethiopia Federation. United Nations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWallerstein I (1974) The modern world-system. Academic\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWendt A (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it. Int Org 46(2):391\u0026ndash;425\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZewde B (2001) A History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855\u0026ndash;1991, 2nd edn. James Currey; Athens: Ohio University Press; Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Hawassa University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Assab sovereignty, colonial legacy, Ethiopia Eritrea relations, Red Sea geopolitics, and secession and international law","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the historical, legal, and geopolitical foundations of the Assab question, challenging prevailing narratives that position the port as intrinsically part of Eritrea. Drawing on archival records, colonial correspondences, legal documents, and contemporary policy sources, the research demonstrates that Assab historically functioned within Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s imperial sphere, either through direct administration as in the case of Medri Bahri or through tributary autonomy under Afar sultanates. The study employs a qualitative research approach supported by NVivo 12, enabling systematic thematic coding and comparative historical analysis across precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial periods. Findings reveal that Italian colonialism disrupted long standing Ethiopian governance structures by amalgamating unrelated territories and constructing a new political identity under the name Eritrea. Legal historical evidence, including the 1952 United Nations federation arrangement, reaffirms Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s continuity of sovereignty, while the legitimacy of Eritrea\u0026rsquo;s secession remains highly questionable due to its exceptional legal basis, the transitional nature of the government that provided consent, and the absence of full compliance with principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. The study underscores that the transitional government led by Meles Zenawi consented to the separation due to their allied position, and that the endorsement by Boutros Ghali (an Egyptian), the UN Secretary General, introduces unresolved legal ambiguities concerning the process and its international legitimacy. Geopolitically, Assab\u0026rsquo;s strategic importance for Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s access to the Red Sea illustrates how colonial boundary making and contemporary external interventions continue to influence regional power dynamics. In particular, the study demonstrates that Egypt\u0026rsquo;s involvement in the Eritrean liberation process was driven by a strategic objective to secure the secession of Eritrea and thereby block Ethiopia from maintaining access to the Red Sea, effectively contributing to Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s landlocked status. Through an integrated historical, legal, and comparative lens, the study concludes that the Assab issue is a product of colonial engineering, external geopolitical manipulation, and unresolved postcolonial legal ambiguities, with significant implications for regional stability, diplomatic negotiations, and long-term conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Historical Continuity and Colonial Disruptions in the Northern Red Sea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and the Evolving Status of the Port of Assab from Pre-Colonial to Post-Colonial Periods","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-23 06:27:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415600/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4760d9b1-bcee-4d63-be28-dd04629be310","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60013302,"name":"Anthropology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-23T06:27:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-23 06:27:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8415600","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8415600","identity":"rs-8415600","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}