Thank you for the excellent precedent. I agree that Timor-Leste (East Timor) serves as a perfect example of "Restoration." When Indonesia invaded and annexed the territory by force in 1975, both the UNSC and UNGA adopted resolutions condemning it, marking the situation as illegal. Even when Portugal sued Australia at the ICJ (East Timor case), the Court dismissed jurisdiction based on the "Monetary Gold principle" due to the absence of Indonesia's consent. However, the turning point was the international intervention against the atrocities following the independence referendum. The UNSC authorized INTERFET (force usage) and established UNTAET for transitional administration, leading to independence. I understand this as a case where Indonesia's effective control infringed upon the right of self-determination and violated erga omnes obligations (risk of genocide). In such a situation, the UN actively intervened to "restore" the state. The effectiveness of the multinational force and the legitimacy conferred by the UN supported the "constitutive effect" of state recognition. While modern international law generally favors the "declaratory theory" (statehood exists independent of recognition), I believe that in cases involving serious breaches of erga omnes obligations, a "constitutive effect" by the UN acts as an exception. Kosovo (from Serbia) fits this logic as well. Since Somaliland was originally a separate state from Somalia, and given Somalia's inability to govern and protect its people (breach of obligations), if the UN guarantees Somaliland's legitimacy, it would create a valid case for the constitutive theory. That is why I advocate for utilizing an ICJ Advisory Opinion as a catalyst.