Moges Z E W I D D U Teshome | University of Dundee (original) (raw)

Uploads

Books by Moges Z E W I D D U Teshome

The objective of this article is to illuminate the interrelationship among the three triumvirate ... more The objective of this article is to illuminate the interrelationship among the three triumvirate concepts: Rule of law, democracy and good governance, on the one hand and their contributions towards an endeavour to realize sustainable development in Ethiopia. Whether these concepts are mutually exclusive or symbiotically intertwined, whether one is a precondition for the enthronement of the other and if any development strategy can be conceived of without a due respect and protection of others, will be analysed. To this end, theoretical discussions are made and followed by critical insight into the legislative, Institutional and practical framework of democracy, rule of law and good governance in Ethiopia. The result of this analysis indicates that in principle, democracy and rule of law are ostensibly provided in Ethiopia but in practice and even by virtue of some pervasive statutes; democratic culture, supremacy of the law and good governance fades in oblivion. What prevails in Ethiopia is more of 'rule by law' and less of rule of law. Rife corruption, maladministration, ethnic tension, ignorance, lack of democratic culture, unfair distribution of wealth, disguised laws, political economy, non-inclusive political structure, weak and dependent Institutions and judicial partisanship are primordial factors responsible for the underdevelopment of Ethiopia. Institutional reforms, equitable distribution of resources, provision of quality education, freedom of press, academic independence, building democratic culture, inclusive and participatory political system, among other recommendations, are the necessary conditions to ensure rule of law, democracy and good governance and lay foundation for sustainable development.

Drafts by Moges Z E W I D D U Teshome

Abstract It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens fr... more Abstract
It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens from the worst crimes of concern to humanity is incumbent upon each individual state. However, when a given state manifestly fails to discharge its duty, the international community has both moral and legal obligations to intervene. To this end, the ICC is established as a ‘watchdog’ to bring an end to impunity for international crimes. The functioning of the Court is underpinned by the cardinal principle of complementarity whereby the states, which are both willing and able, are vested with a primacy of jurisdiction to enforce international criminal justice. This is, in turn, founded on the rationales of respect for the sovereignty of states, recognition of the primary duty of states and efficiency concerns.
Notwithstanding complementarity, the Court has been overwhelmed by cases from the African continent ever since its inception, which partly led to the African States’ allegation that the Court has been abusing the complementarity regime.
This paper seeks to address whether the above claim is justifiable. It contends that the critical analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence on admissibility in light of the rationales and elements of complementarity, by and large, evinces that the Court has been properly and consistently applying the complementarity regime. Notably, the two-prong test of admissibility applied by the Court is well-grounded in the Statute. Nonetheless, while the decisions of the Court in the Sudan and Kenya admissibility cases are mostly defensible, its findings in the Libya (Gaddafi case) are, however, flawed. As a way forward, the paper suggests that a broad interpretation of complementarity gives effect to the primacy of domestic forums through a ‘reverse’ cooperation scheme, clear and less stringent standard of proof and accommodation of plurality of justice by recognising alternative justice mechanisms. Regarding the proposed regional complementarity, however, though legally not impossible, it is practically untenable.
Keywords: the Statute, the ICC (the Court), Chambers, complementarity, regional complementarity, the core crimes, national jurisdictions, admissibility and alternative justice.

LLM Paper, 2017

Abstract It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens fr... more Abstract
It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens from the worst crimes of concern to humanity is incumbent up on each individual state. However, when a given state manifestly fails to discharge its duty, the international community has both moral and legal obligations to intervene. To this end, the ICC is established as a ‘watch dog’ to bring an end to impunity for international crimes. The functioning of the Court is underpinned by the cardinal principle of complementarity whereby the states, which are both willing and able, are vested with a primacy of jurisdiction to enforce international criminal justice. This is, in turn, founded on the rationales of respect for the sovereignty of states, recognition of the primary duty of states and efficiency concerns.
Notwithstanding complementarity, the Court has been overwhelmed by cases from African continent ever since its inception, which partly led to the African States’ allegation that the Court has been abusing the complementarity regime.
This paper seeks to address whether the above claim is justifiable. It contends that the critical analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence on admissibility in light of the rationales and elements of complementarity, by and large, evinces that the Court has been properly and consistently applying the complementarity regime. Notably, the two-prong test of admissibility applied by the Court is well grounded in the Statute. Nonetheless, while the decisions of the Court in the Sudan and Kenya admissibility cases are mostly defensible, its findings in the Libya (Gaddafi case) are, however, flawed. As a way forward, the paper suggests that a broad interpretation of complementarity gives effect to primacy of domestic forums through a ‘reverse’ cooperation scheme, clear and less stringent standard of proof and accommodation of plurality of justice by recognising alternative justice mechanisms. Regarding the proposed regional complementarity, however, though legally not impossible, it is practically untenable.
Keywords: the Statute, the ICC (the Court), Chambers, complementarity, regional complementarity, the core crimes, national jurisdictions, admissibility and alternative justice.

LLM Paper, 2017

Abstract It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens fr... more Abstract
It is a well-established principle that a primary responsibility to protect citizens from the worst crimes of concern to humanity is incumbent up on each individual state. However, when a given state manifestly fails to discharge its duty, the international community has both moral and legal obligations to intervene. To this end, the ICC is established as a ‘watch dog’ to bring an end to impunity for international crimes. The functioning of the Court is underpinned by the cardinal principle of complementarity whereby the states, which are both willing and able, are vested with a primacy of jurisdiction to enforce international criminal justice. This is, in turn, founded on the rationales of respect for the sovereignty of states, recognition of the primary duty of states and efficiency concerns.
Notwithstanding complementarity, the Court has been overwhelmed by cases from African continent ever since its inception, which partly led to the African States’ allegation that the Court has been abusing the complementarity regime.
This paper seeks to address whether the above claim is justifiable. It contends that the critical analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence on admissibility in light of the rationales and elements of complementarity, by and large, evinces that the Court has been properly and consistently applying the complementarity regime. Notably, the two-prong test of admissibility applied by the Court is well grounded in the Statute. Nonetheless, while the decisions of the Court in the Sudan and Kenya admissibility cases are mostly defensible, its findings in the Libya (Gaddafi case) are, however, flawed. As a way forward, the paper suggests that a broad interpretation of complementarity gives effect to primacy of domestic forums through a ‘reverse’ cooperation scheme, clear and less stringent standard of proof and accommodation of plurality of justice by recognising alternative justice mechanisms. Regarding the proposed regional complementarity, however, though legally not impossible, it is practically untenable.
Keywords: the Statute, the ICC (the Court), Chambers, complementarity, regional complementarity, the core crimes, national jurisdictions, admissibility and alternative justice.