@maakhiri1
There are two forces that have equal and opposing views, very much like a coin with two faces.
1. Self-determination
2. Territorial Integrity.
Both are equally regarded in Court of law when it comes to these sort of issues. And there are very good example of when the two views were applied to nation states or breakup of nation states.
The following 3 factors give weight to which side of the coin face that lands. These include:
1. Fait Accompli - which means the facts on the ground support way too much one side of the coin-face. For example, in Somaliland's case, territorial integrity of Somalia doesn't apply. As the facts speak for itself that there is no territorial integrity for Somalia that exists. Lets face it, Somalia has completely failed as a state.
Hence, self-determination face has too much weight. The coin lands on that face.
2. Historic events/issues; i.e. Attempted genocide, uprooting of civilians, Government Pogroms designed to target a specific ethnic group, race, clan or religious sect. And the very likely hood of such historic events to happen again, and There is a clear historic accounts that support why Somaliland wishes to terminate the Union of the 1960.
3. The overwhelming support of local people for such cause.
Having said the above, with regards to Sool, Sanaag and Togdheer (Buuhoodle being a distrcit of Togdheer). If a vote were to be held today in those 3 regions, the overwhelming majority will choose to remain with Somaliland.
There is no one that will come here and tell us to break up Sool/Sanaag/Togdheer into clan borders. That doesn't work in International court of law. The legal boundary of region/subregions must remain.
If you go through the legal way, Somaliland wins. If you see the fact on the ground, Somaliland wins.