The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution confines the power of regional states over water to administration of watercourse that flows within their respective territories. Various proclamations introduce an integrated approach to water resources management through the application of proper and integrated master planning. To this end, a new institutional framework is established through the creation of Basins’ Development Authority at national level. The previously established Basin High Councils and Authorities were implementing integrated water management within their respective basins and the powers and obligations of the basin based high councils and authorities are transferred to the newly established National Basin High Council and Basins Development Authority. Some adjustments are necessary due to federalism and issues related to the constitutional framework of water resources that have been overlooked. When the Water Resources Management Proclamation and other water laws are read together with the various provisions of the FRDE Constitution, they lack clarity save the power of the federal government to enact framework legislation over water resources within states’ territories. Works undertaken by the federal profit-oriented public enterprises transforming water into an economic good on the lands that are administered by the regional states is an area of on-going controversy. I argue that regional states should claim their constitutional right to levy and collect land use fee from profit making federal public enterprises that are engaged in transforming water into economic good within the framework of integrated water resources management system. Key terms Water · Water resources · Federalism · Water law · Integrated water resources management · Ethiopia
{"title":"Competing Water Resource Demands in Ethiopia’s Federal System: Infancy of the Law toward Integrated Management","authors":"Abiy Chelkeba","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.1","url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution confines the power of regional states over water to administration of watercourse that flows within their respective territories. Various proclamations introduce an integrated approach to water resources management through the application of proper and integrated master planning. To this end, a new institutional framework is established through the creation of Basins’ Development Authority at national level. The previously established Basin High Councils and Authorities were implementing integrated water management within their respective basins and the powers and obligations of the basin based high councils and authorities are transferred to the newly established National Basin High Council and Basins Development Authority. Some adjustments are necessary due to federalism and issues related to the constitutional framework of water resources that have been overlooked. When the Water Resources Management Proclamation and other water laws are read together with the various provisions of the FRDE Constitution, they lack clarity save the power of the federal government to enact framework legislation over water resources within states’ territories. Works undertaken by the federal profit-oriented public enterprises transforming water into an economic good on the lands that are administered by the regional states is an area of on-going controversy. I argue that regional states should claim their constitutional right to levy and collect land use fee from profit making federal public enterprises that are engaged in transforming water into economic good within the framework of integrated water resources management system. Key terms Water · Water resources · Federalism · Water law · Integrated water resources management · Ethiopia","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43062342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ethiopia’s Justice System Reform Program has not achieved the pledges that were promised since 2002. One of the sources for the impediments was ‘revolutionary democracy’ because its ‘democratic’ limb represented the pursuits of justice system reform while its ‘revolutionary’ limb caused impediments to the reform. This involves various manifestations of ‘revolutionary democracy’ which include institutional discontinuity, ethnic politics and reluctance to land reform. Disruptions owing to periodic changes in institutional structures (and mandates) adversely affect institutional memory and continuity in Ethiopia’s justice system reform. The second impediment relates to problems in law and order owing to the risky experiment in ethnic politics that has nurtured ethnic radicalism and hostilities along linguistic lines thereby creating pressures on the justice sector. It has also impeded attainments in the first two dimensions of good governance, (i.e. voice and accountability) because genuine voice of citizens envisages rational choice as opposed to ethnicity. The third trap which is among the manifestations of ‘revolutionary democracy’ involves rigidity against reforming Ethiopia’s land law which has handcuffed broad-based economic performance thereby impairing the resource base of all reform pursuits (including justice system reform). The way forward thus envisages not only addressing the external manifestations of the problems in the justice system, but also requires directly addressing the root causes of the impediments. Key terms Justice system reform · Good governance · Nation building · Land tenure security; Ethnic politics · Ethiopia
{"title":"Ethiopia’s Justice System Reform at Crossroads: Impediments relating to Institutional Continuity, Ethnic Politics and the Land Regime","authors":"E. N. Stebek","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.2","url":null,"abstract":"Ethiopia’s Justice System Reform Program has not achieved the pledges that were promised since 2002. One of the sources for the impediments was ‘revolutionary democracy’ because its ‘democratic’ limb represented the pursuits of justice system reform while its ‘revolutionary’ limb caused impediments to the reform. This involves various manifestations of ‘revolutionary democracy’ which include institutional discontinuity, ethnic politics and reluctance to land reform. Disruptions owing to periodic changes in institutional structures (and mandates) adversely affect institutional memory and continuity in Ethiopia’s justice system reform. The second impediment relates to problems in law and order owing to the risky experiment in ethnic politics that has nurtured ethnic radicalism and hostilities along linguistic lines thereby creating pressures on the justice sector. It has also impeded attainments in the first two dimensions of good governance, (i.e. voice and accountability) because genuine voice of citizens envisages rational choice as opposed to ethnicity. The third trap which is among the manifestations of ‘revolutionary democracy’ involves rigidity against reforming Ethiopia’s land law which has handcuffed broad-based economic performance thereby impairing the resource base of all reform pursuits (including justice system reform). The way forward thus envisages not only addressing the external manifestations of the problems in the justice system, but also requires directly addressing the root causes of the impediments. Key terms Justice system reform · Good governance · Nation building · Land tenure security; Ethnic politics · Ethiopia","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47877963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Africa, traditional conflict resolution is based on values, norms, cultures and beliefs as practiced by the members of the community. Thus, traditional conflict resolution decisions are readily accepted by the community. However, colonialism had very serious impact on African values, norms, cultures and beliefs. It disregarded, undermined and weakened them. Cultural hegemony (as a result of colonialism) and legal transplantation (without adequate attention to traditional systems) have adversely affected traditional conflict resolution in Africa. Nonetheless, the continuous use of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms across African communities clearly demonstrates that they still have a role to play. The article aims to assess the institution of traditional conflict resolution in Africa with particular emphasis on South Africa and Ethiopia. Both countries are multiethnic societies with a variety of cultures, languages and religions. Ethiopia maintained its freedom from colonial rule with the exception of a short-lived Italian occupation and from 1936 to 1941. South Africa was a Dutch colony from 1662 to 1815, a British colony from1910 to 1948 and under the Apartheid era from 1948 to1994. Using case studies of South Africa and Ethiopia, the article examines some of the successes and challenges faced by traditional conflict resolution institutions. The opportunities offered to them by the two legal systems are also examined . The two systems are not selected for the purpose of comparative analysis compared, but are examined as self representative examples in their own historical, political and legal contexts. Key terms Tradition · Conflict · Traditional conflict resolution · South Africa · Ethiopia
{"title":"Traditional African Conflict Resolution: The Case of South Africa and Ethiopia","authors":"T. B. Ghebretekle, M. Rammala","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.4","url":null,"abstract":"In Africa, traditional conflict resolution is based on values, norms, cultures and beliefs as practiced by the members of the community. Thus, traditional conflict resolution decisions are readily accepted by the community. However, colonialism had very serious impact on African values, norms, cultures and beliefs. It disregarded, undermined and weakened them. Cultural hegemony (as a result of colonialism) and legal transplantation (without adequate attention to traditional systems) have adversely affected traditional conflict resolution in Africa. Nonetheless, the continuous use of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms across African communities clearly demonstrates that they still have a role to play. The article aims to assess the institution of traditional conflict resolution in Africa with particular emphasis on South Africa and Ethiopia. Both countries are multiethnic societies with a variety of cultures, languages and religions. Ethiopia maintained its freedom from colonial rule with the exception of a short-lived Italian occupation and from 1936 to 1941. South Africa was a Dutch colony from 1662 to 1815, a British colony from1910 to 1948 and under the Apartheid era from 1948 to1994. Using case studies of South Africa and Ethiopia, the article examines some of the successes and challenges faced by traditional conflict resolution institutions. The opportunities offered to them by the two legal systems are also examined . The two systems are not selected for the purpose of comparative analysis compared, but are examined as self representative examples in their own historical, political and legal contexts. Key terms Tradition · Conflict · Traditional conflict resolution · South Africa · Ethiopia","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43112866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-examination particularly in the context of criminal trial is a human right recognized in international human rights law and the Ethiopian constitution. However, states are increasingly facing another pressing policy consideration – protecting prosecution witnesses who could otherwise be subject to intimidation, and who could even risk their lives for providing evidence in the administration of criminal justice. Witness protection has become an important public interest that justifies the restriction of the right to cross-examination. Without such protection, witnesses could be uncooperative for fear of reprisal and, in view of this, many countries (including Ethiopia) have introduced measures restricting face-to-face examination through, among others, the suppression of witness identity. A review of foreign academic literature and foreign case law reveals that, when considering demands for anonymity, courts exercise maximum caution to ensure that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not unduly infringed. The writer argues that a recent constitutional ruling by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry in favor of withholding the identity of prosecution witnesses has failed to properly balance between the right to cross-examine against protecting witnesses. The ruling is likely to have a negative effect on fair trial and can adversely affect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Ethiopia Key terms Anti-Terrorism Proclamation · Council of Constitutional Inquiry · Right to cross-examination · Ethiopian Constitution · Fair trial · Protection of witnesses and whistleblowers
{"title":"The Right to Cross-Examination and Witness Protection in Ethiopia: Comparative Overview","authors":"Tadesse Melaku","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-examination particularly in the context of criminal trial is a human right recognized in international human rights law and the Ethiopian constitution. However, states are increasingly facing another pressing policy consideration – protecting prosecution witnesses who could otherwise be subject to intimidation, and who could even risk their lives for providing evidence in the administration of criminal justice. Witness protection has become an important public interest that justifies the restriction of the right to cross-examination. Without such protection, witnesses could be uncooperative for fear of reprisal and, in view of this, many countries (including Ethiopia) have introduced measures restricting face-to-face examination through, among others, the suppression of witness identity. A review of foreign academic literature and foreign case law reveals that, when considering demands for anonymity, courts exercise maximum caution to ensure that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not unduly infringed. The writer argues that a recent constitutional ruling by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry in favor of withholding the identity of prosecution witnesses has failed to properly balance between the right to cross-examine against protecting witnesses. The ruling is likely to have a negative effect on fair trial and can adversely affect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Ethiopia Key terms Anti-Terrorism Proclamation · Council of Constitutional Inquiry · Right to cross-examination · Ethiopian Constitution · Fair trial · Protection of witnesses and whistleblowers","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45662594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Communal land is among the key factors in the enhancement of rural livelihood because it enables mixed farming practices. Although communal lands are prime sources of livelihood in rural farming communities, empirical evidence shows gaps in their legal recognition and protection in Ethiopia. There are encroachments which include government intrusion, informal land sale, distribution, and handing out land (selling communal land in informal markets) as Kebele’s contribution for development projects. These factors entrench poverty by sidelining the rural poor at the grassroots whose life is anchored on these lands. These problems also entail violation of human rights of the rural population. This article interrogates the misconception which tends to consider communal lands (customary land tenure) as res nullius (ownerless property) while such lands are in fact res communis (community property). The article uses the Hadiya Zone as a case study. It is argued that there is the need for the effective implementation and amendment of land laws which require political will to ensure tenure security of communal lands thereby securing and diversifying the livelihoods of poor smallholder rural farmers and ensuring human rights . Key terms Communal lands · Livestock · Poverty · Livelihoods · Rural Poor · Tenure security
{"title":"Res Nullius vs. Res Communis in Matters of Communal Lands of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia","authors":"Daniel Behailu Gebreamanuel, Getiso Detamo Mekebo","doi":"10.4314/mlr.v12i1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.4","url":null,"abstract":"Communal land is among the key factors in the enhancement of rural livelihood because it enables mixed farming practices. Although communal lands are prime sources of livelihood in rural farming communities, empirical evidence shows gaps in their legal recognition and protection in Ethiopia. There are encroachments which include government intrusion, informal land sale, distribution, and handing out land (selling communal land in informal markets) as Kebele’s contribution for development projects. These factors entrench poverty by sidelining the rural poor at the grassroots whose life is anchored on these lands. These problems also entail violation of human rights of the rural population. This article interrogates the misconception which tends to consider communal lands (customary land tenure) as res nullius (ownerless property) while such lands are in fact res communis (community property). The article uses the Hadiya Zone as a case study. It is argued that there is the need for the effective implementation and amendment of land laws which require political will to ensure tenure security of communal lands thereby securing and diversifying the livelihoods of poor smallholder rural farmers and ensuring human rights . Key terms Communal lands · Livestock · Poverty · Livelihoods · Rural Poor · Tenure security","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41716756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores historical experiences in France and Brazil and the contemporary constitutional set-up in China where parliaments are empowered to adjudicate constitutional issues. It also identifies the lessons thereof for the constitutional design in Ethiopia. Comparison among three legal regimes has been made with regard to the rationales and contexts under which legislative or non-legislative parliaments were entrusted with the power of interpreting constitutions. The experience in France (1799 to 1946), Brazil (1824-1891) and China’s current practice in constitutional interpretation are examined. The experiences across time in different jurisdictions are used to analyze the extent to which (non-)legislative assemblies are appropriate organs to adjudicate constitutional issues. The Constitution of Ethiopia is expected to take lessons from the difficulties encountered from the experiences of France, Brazil and China and resort to other institutional choices for constitutional adjudication. Key terms Constitutional adjudication · Constitutional courts · Parliament · House of Federation
{"title":"Constitutional Adjudication by Parliaments: Lessons from Comparative Experience","authors":"Belachew Girma","doi":"10.4314/mlr.v12i1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.2","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores historical experiences in France and Brazil and the contemporary constitutional set-up in China where parliaments are empowered to adjudicate constitutional issues. It also identifies the lessons thereof for the constitutional design in Ethiopia. Comparison among three legal regimes has been made with regard to the rationales and contexts under which legislative or non-legislative parliaments were entrusted with the power of interpreting constitutions. The experience in France (1799 to 1946), Brazil (1824-1891) and China’s current practice in constitutional interpretation are examined. The experiences across time in different jurisdictions are used to analyze the extent to which (non-)legislative assemblies are appropriate organs to adjudicate constitutional issues. The Constitution of Ethiopia is expected to take lessons from the difficulties encountered from the experiences of France, Brazil and China and resort to other institutional choices for constitutional adjudication. Key terms Constitutional adjudication · Constitutional courts · Parliament · House of Federation","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43830939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sovereignty is a doctrine of power that constitutes and vests supreme political power in the state, including criminal lawmaking power. However, this supreme power of exercising coercive state power through the criminal law is not unlimited. Because the justifications for sovereignty are also justifications for criminal lawmaking power of the state, they are discussed together. After presenting the justification and legitimacy of sovereignty and the criminal lawmaking power of the sovereign, this article discusses criminalization power of the state in three parts: the limitation inherent in the notion of sovereignty, in constitutionalism and the bill of rights. Finally, it reviews the practice of criminalisation in Ethiopia. Key terms Sovereignty · Criminalization · Legitimacy · Principle theory · Legislative rationality · Coordination theory
{"title":"Sovereignty, Legitimacy and Fundamental Rights as Limitations to Criminalisation Power of the State","authors":"S. K. Assefa","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I1.5","url":null,"abstract":"Sovereignty is a doctrine of power that constitutes and vests supreme political power in the state, including criminal lawmaking power. However, this supreme power of exercising coercive state power through the criminal law is not unlimited. Because the justifications for sovereignty are also justifications for criminal lawmaking power of the state, they are discussed together. After presenting the justification and legitimacy of sovereignty and the criminal lawmaking power of the sovereign, this article discusses criminalization power of the state in three parts: the limitation inherent in the notion of sovereignty, in constitutionalism and the bill of rights. Finally, it reviews the practice of criminalisation in Ethiopia. Key terms Sovereignty · Criminalization · Legitimacy · Principle theory · Legislative rationality · Coordination theory","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I1.5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45833953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"SHARING THOUGHTS: What is the Jail Man Doing?","authors":"S. K. Assefa","doi":"10.4314/mlr.v12i1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/mlr.v12i1.8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45404081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the Ethiopian federal dispensation legitimizes political participation based on ethnic identity, the arrangement, both through design and political practice, has led to the skewed representation of ethnic groups. The article examines these challenges and argues that in addition to the existing electoral system, difficulties pertaining to the holding of free and fair elections, ethnic voting, the role of political parties and majoritarian decision-making procedures have severely undermined the effective political participation of ethnic communities. Moreover, the manner in which electoral constituencies are formed largely benefit the politically and numerically dominant ethnic group thereby undermining the representation of ethnic minorities. Yet, in some cases, notwithstanding the existence of ethnic groups with numerical ascendancy within an electoral constituency, the political practice ensures that a ‘favored’ ethnic group, despite being a numerical minority, is made the political majority. In the veil of these obstacles, it is contended that a mere change in the electoral system alone, without due consideration to the aforementioned factors, cannot bring a full-fledged solution to the underlying problems the political system is facing. Key terms Ethnic representation · Ethno-federalism · Electoral constituencies · Ethnic minorities · Ethiopia
{"title":"Challenges of Ethnic Representation in Ethiopia and the Need for Reform","authors":"B. Dessalegn","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I1.1","url":null,"abstract":"Although the Ethiopian federal dispensation legitimizes political participation based on ethnic identity, the arrangement, both through design and political practice, has led to the skewed representation of ethnic groups. The article examines these challenges and argues that in addition to the existing electoral system, difficulties pertaining to the holding of free and fair elections, ethnic voting, the role of political parties and majoritarian decision-making procedures have severely undermined the effective political participation of ethnic communities. Moreover, the manner in which electoral constituencies are formed largely benefit the politically and numerically dominant ethnic group thereby undermining the representation of ethnic minorities. Yet, in some cases, notwithstanding the existence of ethnic groups with numerical ascendancy within an electoral constituency, the political practice ensures that a ‘favored’ ethnic group, despite being a numerical minority, is made the political majority. In the veil of these obstacles, it is contended that a mere change in the electoral system alone, without due consideration to the aforementioned factors, cannot bring a full-fledged solution to the underlying problems the political system is facing. Key terms Ethnic representation · Ethno-federalism · Electoral constituencies · Ethnic minorities · Ethiopia","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I1.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44594698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：