Between sovereignty and necessity: International law and Ethiopia’s quest for access to the Red Sea

For over three decades since losing access to the Port of Assab in 1993, Ethiopia has pursued reliable access to the Red Sea—a quest framed as both economic necessity and strategic imperative. Ethiopia's claims, ranging from guaranteed transit to potential port ownership, demand scrutiny under international law, as existing frameworks, particularly UNCLOS, contain substantive and procedural limitations regarding Ethiopia's specific developmental aspirations. Guided by the question of whether prevailing regimes support Ethiopia's aspirations, this study employs doctrinal legal methodology and qualitative analysis. It concludes that international law imposes significant constraints on territorial acquisition: no provision supports unilateral alienation of Eritrean territory absent peaceful consent or fundamental change in circumstances. However, Ethiopia may contest this tension by foregrounding developmental needs, challenging uti possidetis, and invoking the imperative of peace. While UNCLOS affirms landlocked states' access rights, it subordinates these to negotiated agreements and respect for territorial sovereignty. The analysis underscores that, though international law prioritizes territorial integrity, evolving concerns, such as equitable development for landlocked developing states, may create normative space for enhanced maritime access and potential sovereign ownership. Ultimately, this paper delineates viable legal pathways for Ethiopia to secure maritime outlets while adhering to, and where appropriate contesting, established norms through diplomatic and legal channels.