Western Sahara Between Law and Political Accommodation: The Ambiguity of the British Position and the Steadfastness of Algeria

While some Western nations persist in their path of ostensible neutrality and ambiguous stances, Algeria has raised a clear, resolute, and coherent voice. It did not hesitate to express “regret” over the British shift regarding the Western Sahara issue, as London endorsed Morocco’s autonomy plan. The statement issued by the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was more than a diplomatic response; it was a renewed declaration that Algeria does not compromise on principles, nor does it remain silent at the expense of oppressed peoples.

At a time when certain capitals are redrawing the maps of legitimacy according to the logic of interests, Algeria has realigned the compass of international law to its true orientation: rights before might, and legitimacy before gain.

By: AminaSmatti

When Law Speaks: Self-Determination Is Not an Option—It Is an Obligation

The right to self-determination is not a political slogan but a binding principle enshrined in international legal texts. UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960 states explicitly: “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights.” Similarly, Article 1(2) of the UN Charter affirms the development of friendly relations among nations “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Furthermore, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares: “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

These texts place upon the international community an unequivocal legal obligation: there can be no solution to the Western Sahara conflict outside the will of the Sahrawi people. Any proposal not subjected to a free referendum by the Sahrawis is, from a legal standpoint, null and void.

Britain’s Duality: Support Without Recognition?

The UK’s support for the Moroccan autonomy plan—without recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the territory—appears as a diplomatic balancing act on a tightrope. On one hand, Britain seeks to align with geopolitical shifts and court Rabat; on the other, it attempts to uphold its international commitments.

Yet this contradiction collapses under legal scrutiny. In its 1975 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected Morocco’s claims of sovereignty over Western Sahara, confirming that the territory was not terra nullius (land without a master), but also not Moroccan. Subsequent UN missions have never adopted the Moroccan plan as a basis for resolution. UN envoys such as Christopher Ross and Peter Van Walsum have described it as “a political proposal lacking credible elements for a lasting solution.”

Therefore, Britain’s partial shift constitutes a breach of a foundational norm in international law: the non-recognition of occupation-based faitsaccomplis.

The Moroccan Autonomy Plan: A Glossy Wrapper for an Illegitimate Core

Since 2007, Morocco has promoted its autonomy plan as a “realistic solution.” But international law tells a different story. First, the proposal has never been put to a referendum among the Sahrawis. Second, the United Nations has never issued a resolution deeming it an “acceptable solution.” Third, the initiative has not received a single recommendation from the Security Council designating it as a basis for negotiation.

It is, thus, a proposal lacking UN endorsement, popular acceptance, and legal legitimacy. What Rabat is effectively doing is repackaging the same scheme year after year in the hope that the international community will eventually tire of advocating for legality and surrender to the colonial status quo.

Algeria: The Voice of Justice When the World Falls Silent

Algeria is not a party to the conflict—but it is a party to principle. Having paid for its freedom with 1.5 million martyrs, Algeria understands well the cost of having self-determination denied to a defenseless people. Since 1975, it has consistently called for decolonization in Western Sahara. It has sheltered refugees, defended the cause at the United Nations, and condemned legal and political deviations.

True to international legitimacy, Algeria did not hesitate to express its reservations regarding the latest British stance—not out of confrontation, but from a position of moral and legal sovereignty.

Beyond the Statement: The Responsibility of the International Community

While Algeria has fulfilled its ethical and legal duty, the onus now lies with the major global powers. Will London accept to inscribe its support into the growing record of international contradictions? Can it be justified to impose a political project on the Sahrawis without their consultation—simply because it suits the interests of certain powers?

Today, more than ever, the international community must return to the founding principles of the United Nations: decolonization, the rejection of territorial acquisition by force, and, above all, the respect for the will of peoples. Any circumvention of these principles undermines the very foundation of international law and fosters a dangerous logic of domination.

Algeria Does Not Change—Because Principles Do Not Erode

The Algerian statement was not a reaction—it was an articulation of a coherent vision grounded in the values of the state. Algeria did not deviate from its established discourse; instead, it reaffirmed its position among the defenders of noble causes.

At a time when states are crumbling under the weight of pragmatism, Algeria remains a sanctuary of law, commitment, and solidarity with the oppressed. In taking its stand today, Algeria is investing in a moral and historical legacy that will not be erased.

Just as it supported South Africa in its struggle and stood by Palestine in its plight, Algeria now stands with the Sahrawis—not out of interest, but out of conviction that justice is not measured by profit, but by conscience.

And to those who fail to grasp this—let them read history more carefully.