Abstract

Although the nature of the Eritrean armed struggle has been a subject of heated argument, recent works indicate renowned publicists subscribing to the secessionist corner. This paper attempts to produce critical evaluation of the ‘colonial vs secession’ argument on the Eritrean struggle for self-determination. Applying analytical qualitative methodology, this research juxtaposes historical and contemporary material facts with pertinent international instruments and finds: 1) three stages where the argument has been fought: pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial.     2) each argument, colonial and secession, is not homogenous, 3) Ethiopia’s claim of Eritrea was a phenomenon born only in the second half of 1940s, and 4) Eritrean struggle was a colonial rather than a secession. Thus, concludes, recent subscriptions of international publicists to the secession side are not well grounded.