Mekelle/Tel Aviv/Nairobi/Pretoria/London፡
When Peace Agreements Fail
Re-Examining the Ethiopia–Eritrea Settlement Amid Regional Security and Red Sea Pressures
Horn of Africa Geopolitical Review (HAGR)
Twenty five years after the signing of the Algiers Agreement, the peace framework that ended the Ethiopia–Eritrea war is again under serious strain. What was designed as a definitive settlement is now being reassessed as military tensions resurface, legal arguments sharpen, and broader regional pressures, including Ethiopia’s strategic access to the Red Sea, enter the debate.
For legal scholars and regional analysts, the dispute has moved beyond political disagreement. It is increasingly viewed as a question of treaty compliance, regional security architecture, and the long-term stability of the Horn of Africa.
A settlement under pressure
The Algiers Agreement, concluded in 2000 with strong international mediation, sought to end the 1998–2000 war, normalize relations, and permanently resolve the border dispute. At its core was the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission, whose ruling both states accepted as final and binding. The agreement was intended to anchor a stable post-war order.
The 2018 rapprochement between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki appeared to revive that order. Diplomatic relations were restored, borders reopened, and the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on the assumption that the Algiers framework had finally been implemented.
That assumption has since weakened. Following the Tigray war from 2020 to 2022 and particularly during 2025 and early 2026, Ethiopia has formally accused Eritrea of maintaining troops inside Ethiopian territory, coordinating with armed non-state actors, and expanding military deployments along multiple border sectors. Eritrea has rejected these accusations, but the return of militarized confrontation has altered the nature of the dispute.
From political tension to legal breach
Under international law, the reappearance of cross-border military activity after a peace settlement transforms a diplomatic dispute into a question of treaty compliance. Legal experts increasingly point to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as the governing framework.
Article 60 of the convention allows a party to suspend or terminate a treaty if the other party commits a material breach. Such a breach includes violations of provisions essential to the treaty’s object and purpose, or actions that defeat those purposes altogether.
Here is a tight, neutral, third-party rewrite of that paragraph only, with the responsibility clearly attributed to the Eritrean government, while maintaining a professional journalistic tone and avoiding inflammatory language:
The Algiers Agreement was explicit in its aims: ending hostilities, preserving territorial integrity, preventing interference, and demarcating the border. Ethiopian legal scholars argue that these commitments have been undermined by the actions of the Eritrean government, including the continued presence of Eritrean troops inside Ethiopian territory, coordination with armed non-state actors, and expanded military deployments along multiple border sectors. According to this view, such actions not only call into question the legal viability of the agreement itself, but also risk destabilizing Ethiopia’s internal security and the broader peace of the Horn of Africa.
This position is no longer confined to academic or legal debate. It has been formally articulated by the Ethiopian government itself. In a diplomatic letter dated 7 February 2026, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia accused the Eritrean government of occupying Ethiopian territory, providing material support to militant groups, and conducting joint military operations with non-state armed actors along Ethiopia’s northern and northwestern borders. The letter described these actions not as isolated incidents, but as acts of escalation and outright aggression that violate Ethiopia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In the same communication, Ethiopia formally demanded the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean forces from its territory and the cessation of all forms of cooperation with armed groups operating inside Ethiopia. While sharply critical, the letter also signaled a willingness to pursue a diplomatic resolution.
Addis Ababa stated that, should Eritrea comply with these demands, Ethiopia would be prepared to engage in good-faith negotiations toward a comprehensive settlement of outstanding issues, including maritime affairs and access to the Red Sea through the port of Assab. Framed as a goodwill gesture, the message positioned dialogue and negotiated security arrangements as alternatives to continued confrontation, while underscoring that the existing peace framework cannot remain credible in the face of ongoing military violations.
This argument does not challenge Eritrea’s status as a sovereign state. Rather, it questions whether the peace framework established in 2000 remains legally operative.
Beyond borders: a regional order at risk
Many observers continue to interpret the Ethiopia–Eritrea dispute as a disagreement over border lines. Analysts increasingly argue that this view underestimates the stakes. The Algiers Agreement was not merely a border treaty. It functioned as the legal foundation of the post-war regional order in the Horn of Africa.
When such frameworks erode, history suggests that stability cannot be restored through dialogue alone. In several post-conflict regions, peace agreements required restructuring when one party resumed the use of force, often accompanied by international monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Strategic comparisons and security design
Some analysts draw cautious historical parallels with post-war Europe, particularly the approach taken toward Germany after 1945. The Allied strategy focused on preventing renewed instability through demilitarization, external security guarantees, and conditional reintegration.
The comparison is not about punishment or loss of sovereignty. It reflects a broader principle: when a highly militarized state repeatedly engages beyond its borders, bilateral diplomacy may be insufficient. The challenge becomes one of regional security architecture rather than political reconciliation alone.
Self-defense and legal thresholds
Another dimension shaping the debate is the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. If a state can demonstrate the presence of foreign troops on its territory or coordinated cross-border military activity, international law permits proportionate defensive measures.
Here, credibility depends on evidence rather than political claims. This requirement has encouraged some Ethiopian legal and policy circles to emphasize documentation and legal processes over unilateral military action.
The Red Sea question and existential pressure
Alongside border and treaty issues, Ethiopia’s quest for reliable access to the Red Sea has increasingly been framed by Ethiopian policymakers as an existential question. With a population exceeding 130 million and no direct maritime outlet, Ethiopia remains the world’s most populous landlocked country.
Analysts note that access to the sea is not presented by Addis Ababa as a territorial demand, but as a strategic necessity linked to economic survival, trade security, and long-term national stability. In this context, prolonged regional instability and unresolved security arrangements along Ethiopia’s northern corridor amplify domestic and external pressures.
This debate has broader implications for Europe. Migration flows from East Africa continue to intensify, driven by conflict, economic constraints, and regional insecurity. Some analysts argue that addressing migration solely at destination points overlooks structural causes. Without stable regional security frameworks and viable economic corridors, including maritime access for large inland states, displacement pressures are likely to grow.
From this perspective, Europe’s engagement is not only diplomatic but strategic. Strengthening stability at the source, rather than managing migration downstream, is increasingly viewed as a shared interest.
Rethinking the peace framework
Within Ethiopia, a growing legal argument suggests the focus should not be on Eritrea’s independence, which would lack legal basis and risk diplomatic isolation. Instead, the argument centers on whether repeated violations have rendered the post-2000 peace framework ineffective.
If accepted internationally, this position could reopen discussions on border implementation, introduce new security guarantees, and shift mediation efforts from arbitration to enforcement and monitoring. The issue would be reframed as a failure of a peace regime rather than a revival of historical animosity.
A fragile regional equilibrium
Recent developments highlight a deeper structural weakness in the Horn of Africa. The 2018 reconciliation reduced diplomatic hostility but did not establish enforceable mechanisms to prevent renewed confrontation. The Tigray war exposed this gap, and current tensions have reinforced it.
Peace agreements without enforcement risk becoming symbolic. Legal rulings without compliance lose relevance. International law erodes gradually when violations produce no structural response.
The road ahead
Should Ethiopia pursue a legal rather than military route, analysts suggest a likely path would involve formally documenting alleged treaty violations, invoking material breach under the Vienna Convention, suspending obligations under the Algiers framework, and seeking international security guarantees or monitoring arrangements.
Such approaches are not unprecedented. Several modern peace settlements have required restructuring when original frameworks failed to regulate behavior on the ground.
Conclusion
The Ethiopia–Eritrea relationship is entering a new phase. The core issue is no longer solely history, identity, or border demarcation. It is whether a peace settlement can survive when its foundational commitments are repeatedly challenged, and whether the regional order can adapt to emerging strategic realities, including Ethiopia’s maritime access and mounting migration pressures.
Challenging Eritrea’s statehood would find little support in international law. Questioning the continued validity of the Algiers peace order, however, represents a legally coherent and internationally intelligible position.
For the Horn of Africa, and for external stakeholders such as Europe, the debate is increasingly about building a peace system that prevents future conflict, manages strategic pressures, and addresses instability at its source, rather than reacting to its consequences.
———-
Editor’s Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in articles published by Horn News Hub are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or editorial stance of Horn News Hub. Publication does not imply endorsement.
