ABENEZER TAREKEGN | Jimma University, Ethiopia (original) (raw)

Uploads

Drafts by ABENEZER TAREKEGN

The entire work of court is measured by final judgment it gives on a case at hand, regarding crim... more The entire work of court is measured by final judgment it gives on a case at hand, regarding criminal case the aim of Ethiopian criminal law is to ensure order, peace and the security of the state, its Peoples and inhabitants for the public good. If the final judgment does not serve this aim it will bring public chaos, so imposing punishment needs great care. Imprisonment is one type of punishment provided in FDRE criminal code. Imprisonment is a restriction on freedom of movement. Depending on the seriousness of the crime committed and the behavior of the offender, it is divided into two main categories in the Criminal Code: simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. As per article 106 of criminal code simple imprisonment is a sentence applicable to crime of a not very serious nature committed by person who is not a serious danger to society. As opposed to simple imprisonment, article 108 of criminal code rigorous imprisonment is a sentence applicable only to crimes of grave nature committed by criminals who are particularly dangerous to society. The criminal code elaborates Individuality as the basic principle of punishment in criminal law; every punishment should take into consideration the personal behavior of criminal, but the current practice of the court shows that they failed to consider individuality of criminal due to sentencing guideline. Ethiopian Sentencing guideline had been adopted and revised to minimize its defects; still the revision couldn't make the guidelines free from defects. Regarding the crime of Grave willful injury, Theft and aggravated theft the criminal code had adopted rigorous and simple imprisonment alternatively. Article 26/1/C of the guideline clearly provides that the step that should be taken into consideration when there is rigorous and simple imprisonment alternatively exists. But the existing practices shows that courts failed to consider a procedure provided under article 26 and decides the criminal matters without differentiating & justifying simple and rigorous imprisonment. Concerning these three crimes the imprisonment punishment is provided alternatively this obliges the court to opt either simple or rigorous imprisonment; however our courts failed to consider this and mentions that as provided in the sentencing guideline without justifying their reason why they opt for rigorous imprisonment. The court failed to use power to analyze individuality of criminals and, freely disposed their discretionary power to choose simple imprisonment even if the two punishments exist on criminal code alternatively. The more confusion is related with the guideline which is enacted crime based rather than punishmet based. This is leading our courts to punish criminals by non rehabilitative penalty, i.e. punishing non dangerous criminal by dangerous penalty which is contrary to the very purpose of our criminal code. This paper aims at disvulgating the guideline problems and it is non doctrinally conducted paper. Thus, it tries to analyze the major legal gaps in sentencing guideline and its effects on the right of criminal. For this purpose, the primary data and the secondary data from court decisions, law books, law articles, law journal, newspaper etc. have been used. In nutshell this paper is a humble attempt to doctrinally examine major legal gaps in sentencing guideline and its effects on the right of criminal from legal perspective.

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a program in which tariffs are reduced or not imposed ... more Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a program in which tariffs are reduced or not imposed on imports coming from certain developing economies. The main objective of such a program is to foster economic growth in developing countries by increasing revenue from exports. The European Union (EU) and United State of America's (USA) Generalized System of Preference programs are considered to be the two strongest and most pro conditional tariff-preference systems in the world. They both offer tariff reductions to developing countries complying with the rules imposed on them.However while the European Union imposes heavy environmental criteria on one of its GSP programs. The US, on the other hand, does not have any environmental conditionality in its GSP.

Foreign investment can be either in Foreign direct investment or in Foreign portfolio investment ... more Foreign investment can be either in Foreign direct investment or in Foreign portfolio investment form.
Non-direct investment - also referred to as ‘foreign portfolio investment’/FPI - takes place when
companies, financial institutions or individuals buy stakes in companies on a foreign stock exchange,
which help to strengthen the domestic capital markets by enhancing liquidity and contribute to
improving their functioning. Among common law and civil law legal system common law is more
protective of portfolio investment and it’s better for Ethiopia to proceed towards predominance of
common law legal system to be more protective of FPI. Under Investment regime it’s pivotal to define
investment in different approaches because it forms the spinal column of applicability of Bilateral
Investment Treaty/BIT and jurisdiction under the BIT. The investment laws generally envisage one of
the two approaches to defining ‘investment’ they are either asset-based or enterprise-based
approaches. Currently, these two Approaches are being applied on definition of “investment” in the
over 3000 investment treaties, while the asset based approach is more inclusive of portfolio investment,
the enterprise based approach is more exclusive of FPI, it more encourages foreign direct investment.
When we intrusively look at the Ethiopian legal regime on FPI there is BIT and Domestic laws which is
expected to be analyzed. The aim of this paper is to doctrinally assess portfolio investment under
Ethiopian legal framework. For this purpose, the secondary data from law books, law articles, law
journal, newspaper etc. have been used. While Most of the Ethiopia BIT Provides recognition and
protection for foreign portfolio investment by following asset based approach of investment, Even
though they are not currently in force the Ethiopian BIT with Brazil - Ethiopia BIT (2018), Ethiopia -
Qatar BIT (2017) and Ethiopia - South Africa BIT (2008) expressly makes foreign portfolio investment
out of protection. So we see that the Ethiopian BIT stands both sides i.e. protecting and unprotecting
PFI. Again while some BIT contains host state law requirement some of them does not contain it, this
creates discrimination among foreign investors. When we see domestic laws the Ethiopian Investment
proclamation no 1180/2020 with the regulation enacted following it the Ethiopian Domestic Investment
laws defines investment in enterprise based approach, which is mainly exclusive of Foreign portfolio
investment. However there is implied protection for portfolio investment within Ethiopian domestic
investment laws, especially jointly reading of Newly enacted investment proclamation number
1180/2020 and Ethiopian capital market proclamation number 1248/2021 tip-off there is implied
protection for Portfolio investments Even if it is not express and has its own defect.

Intellectual property, 2022

ABSTRACT In this modern global environment of rapid technological change, new issues frequently a... more ABSTRACT
In this modern global environment of rapid technological change, new issues frequently arise that
challenge the operation of patent law. 3D Printing/Three dimensional printing is among new technology
recently evolved in patent arena, it’s a technology that builds physical objects directly from 3D
computer-aided design (CAD) data and adds different materials, layer-by-layer, with the help of a 3D
printer.3D Bioprinting is a promising technology a subset of 3D printing that involves the fabrication of
a functional living human tissue or organ constructed from a 3D digital model. While there were patents
on the bioprinting process filed already and some even approved, the problem of patentability of
bioprinting products still remains unsolved. Because, printing from biological materials presents
different public policy considerations than printing from non-biological materials. When experimenting
with human genetic materials, emerging technological and scientific advances attract strong political,
Legal and ethical /moral/religious debates and the societal scrutiny is further heightened because the
genetic materials are from humans. The objective of this paper is to analyze the patentability of 3d
Bioprinted organ under TRIPS and Ethiopian patent law and its effects on human right. This paper is
purely doctrinally conducted paper. Thus, it tries to doctrinally analyze the major legal issues related
with 3D bioprinted product. For this purpose, the secondary data from law books, law articles, law
journal, newspaper etc. have been used. The paper examines the opposing arguments in light of the legal
framework relating to the patentability of tissue engineering product and its implications for IP,
especially for patents, at international and domestic (Ethiopia) level. It assesses the consequences (Pros
and cons) of granting or denying 3D bioprinting patents on the human right. The human right issue is
examined from the perspective of the Human right documents and patent standards (and flexibilities) as
required by the TRIPS Agreement. Finally, the author recommend on major points with a view to provide
a solution to the major legal problems that surrounds patentability of 3D bioprinted product and Human
right issues so identified by this paper and also to make a right balance between the two competing
interests of Patentee and the Human right while regulating the patentability of 3D Bioprinted organ. In
nutshell this paper is a humble attempt to examine international and national law relating to patents on
3D bioprinted inventions from a doctrinal perspective.
Keywords: Patents, TRIPS, 3D printing, 3D Bioprinting

Trade Name vs Company name Under Ethiopian Law, 2022

A single business firm can have a company name and trade name. A company name/firm name is one at... more A single business firm can have a company name and trade name. A company name/firm name is one attribute of a legal personality of the firm. Any business organization gets legal personality upon registration , to be registered name is a pre criteria set by law. After registration business organization needs trade name for identification and advertisement of its product and business organization can have trade name and a business is consist of incorporeal elements, among them one is trade-name. A Trade name/business name is one of the first things that connect a customer to a company’s products or service. A business organization can have a legal or registered name as well as a Business or trade name but these have important differences and registration requirements exist for the protection of business organization and customers. These two names are different in purpose and scope, but under Ethiopian Commercial registration and Licensing Proclamation and its amendments, regarding these two words there is ambiguity and vagueness of law and this causes difficulty of understanding these two names under these proclamations. In this paper I am going to elaborate the definition of a company name/firm name and Trade/Business name, the difference between a Business Name and a Company Name, and the importance of this distinction, Identifying currently existing legal terminology problem in Ethiopian Commercial registration and Licensing Proclamation (proclamation no 980/2016 & proclamation no 1150/2019) and making possible recommendation.

Negligence Homicide Under Ethiopian Criminal Law, 2021

Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. I... more Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of different vehicles. It is characterized as a death caused by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. This crime is criminalized under article 543 of Ethiopian criminal code and the article has three sub articles. Regarding this crime there is divergence of standing among legal scholars on whether article 543/3 has relation with 543/1 or it's continuation of 543/2, so this paper focuses on identifying the existing problem and recommends possible solutions.

The entire work of court is measured by final judgment it gives on a case at hand, regarding crim... more The entire work of court is measured by final judgment it gives on a case at hand, regarding criminal case the aim of Ethiopian criminal law is to ensure order, peace and the security of the state, its Peoples and inhabitants for the public good. If the final judgment does not serve this aim it will bring public chaos, so imposing punishment needs great care. Imprisonment is one type of punishment provided in FDRE criminal code. Imprisonment is a restriction on freedom of movement. Depending on the seriousness of the crime committed and the behavior of the offender, it is divided into two main categories in the Criminal Code: simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. As per article 106 of criminal code simple imprisonment is a sentence applicable to crime of a not very serious nature committed by person who is not a serious danger to society. As opposed to simple imprisonment, article 108 of criminal code rigorous imprisonment is a sentence applicable only to crimes of grave nature committed by criminals who are particularly dangerous to society. The criminal code elaborates Individuality as the basic principle of punishment in criminal law; every punishment should take into consideration the personal behavior of criminal, but the current practice of the court shows that they failed to consider individuality of criminal due to sentencing guideline. Ethiopian Sentencing guideline had been adopted and revised to minimize its defects; still the revision couldn't make the guidelines free from defects. Regarding the crime of Grave willful injury, Theft and aggravated theft the criminal code had adopted rigorous and simple imprisonment alternatively. Article 26/1/C of the guideline clearly provides that the step that should be taken into consideration when there is rigorous and simple imprisonment alternatively exists. But the existing practices shows that courts failed to consider a procedure provided under article 26 and decides the criminal matters without differentiating & justifying simple and rigorous imprisonment. Concerning these three crimes the imprisonment punishment is provided alternatively this obliges the court to opt either simple or rigorous imprisonment; however our courts failed to consider this and mentions that as provided in the sentencing guideline without justifying their reason why they opt for rigorous imprisonment. The court failed to use power to analyze individuality of criminals and, freely disposed their discretionary power to choose simple imprisonment even if the two punishments exist on criminal code alternatively. The more confusion is related with the guideline which is enacted crime based rather than punishmet based. This is leading our courts to punish criminals by non rehabilitative penalty, i.e. punishing non dangerous criminal by dangerous penalty which is contrary to the very purpose of our criminal code. This paper aims at disvulgating the guideline problems and it is non doctrinally conducted paper. Thus, it tries to analyze the major legal gaps in sentencing guideline and its effects on the right of criminal. For this purpose, the primary data and the secondary data from court decisions, law books, law articles, law journal, newspaper etc. have been used. In nutshell this paper is a humble attempt to doctrinally examine major legal gaps in sentencing guideline and its effects on the right of criminal from legal perspective.

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a program in which tariffs are reduced or not imposed ... more Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a program in which tariffs are reduced or not imposed on imports coming from certain developing economies. The main objective of such a program is to foster economic growth in developing countries by increasing revenue from exports. The European Union (EU) and United State of America's (USA) Generalized System of Preference programs are considered to be the two strongest and most pro conditional tariff-preference systems in the world. They both offer tariff reductions to developing countries complying with the rules imposed on them.However while the European Union imposes heavy environmental criteria on one of its GSP programs. The US, on the other hand, does not have any environmental conditionality in its GSP.

Foreign investment can be either in Foreign direct investment or in Foreign portfolio investment ... more Foreign investment can be either in Foreign direct investment or in Foreign portfolio investment form.
Non-direct investment - also referred to as ‘foreign portfolio investment’/FPI - takes place when
companies, financial institutions or individuals buy stakes in companies on a foreign stock exchange,
which help to strengthen the domestic capital markets by enhancing liquidity and contribute to
improving their functioning. Among common law and civil law legal system common law is more
protective of portfolio investment and it’s better for Ethiopia to proceed towards predominance of
common law legal system to be more protective of FPI. Under Investment regime it’s pivotal to define
investment in different approaches because it forms the spinal column of applicability of Bilateral
Investment Treaty/BIT and jurisdiction under the BIT. The investment laws generally envisage one of
the two approaches to defining ‘investment’ they are either asset-based or enterprise-based
approaches. Currently, these two Approaches are being applied on definition of “investment” in the
over 3000 investment treaties, while the asset based approach is more inclusive of portfolio investment,
the enterprise based approach is more exclusive of FPI, it more encourages foreign direct investment.
When we intrusively look at the Ethiopian legal regime on FPI there is BIT and Domestic laws which is
expected to be analyzed. The aim of this paper is to doctrinally assess portfolio investment under
Ethiopian legal framework. For this purpose, the secondary data from law books, law articles, law
journal, newspaper etc. have been used. While Most of the Ethiopia BIT Provides recognition and
protection for foreign portfolio investment by following asset based approach of investment, Even
though they are not currently in force the Ethiopian BIT with Brazil - Ethiopia BIT (2018), Ethiopia -
Qatar BIT (2017) and Ethiopia - South Africa BIT (2008) expressly makes foreign portfolio investment
out of protection. So we see that the Ethiopian BIT stands both sides i.e. protecting and unprotecting
PFI. Again while some BIT contains host state law requirement some of them does not contain it, this
creates discrimination among foreign investors. When we see domestic laws the Ethiopian Investment
proclamation no 1180/2020 with the regulation enacted following it the Ethiopian Domestic Investment
laws defines investment in enterprise based approach, which is mainly exclusive of Foreign portfolio
investment. However there is implied protection for portfolio investment within Ethiopian domestic
investment laws, especially jointly reading of Newly enacted investment proclamation number
1180/2020 and Ethiopian capital market proclamation number 1248/2021 tip-off there is implied
protection for Portfolio investments Even if it is not express and has its own defect.

Intellectual property, 2022

ABSTRACT In this modern global environment of rapid technological change, new issues frequently a... more ABSTRACT
In this modern global environment of rapid technological change, new issues frequently arise that
challenge the operation of patent law. 3D Printing/Three dimensional printing is among new technology
recently evolved in patent arena, it’s a technology that builds physical objects directly from 3D
computer-aided design (CAD) data and adds different materials, layer-by-layer, with the help of a 3D
printer.3D Bioprinting is a promising technology a subset of 3D printing that involves the fabrication of
a functional living human tissue or organ constructed from a 3D digital model. While there were patents
on the bioprinting process filed already and some even approved, the problem of patentability of
bioprinting products still remains unsolved. Because, printing from biological materials presents
different public policy considerations than printing from non-biological materials. When experimenting
with human genetic materials, emerging technological and scientific advances attract strong political,
Legal and ethical /moral/religious debates and the societal scrutiny is further heightened because the
genetic materials are from humans. The objective of this paper is to analyze the patentability of 3d
Bioprinted organ under TRIPS and Ethiopian patent law and its effects on human right. This paper is
purely doctrinally conducted paper. Thus, it tries to doctrinally analyze the major legal issues related
with 3D bioprinted product. For this purpose, the secondary data from law books, law articles, law
journal, newspaper etc. have been used. The paper examines the opposing arguments in light of the legal
framework relating to the patentability of tissue engineering product and its implications for IP,
especially for patents, at international and domestic (Ethiopia) level. It assesses the consequences (Pros
and cons) of granting or denying 3D bioprinting patents on the human right. The human right issue is
examined from the perspective of the Human right documents and patent standards (and flexibilities) as
required by the TRIPS Agreement. Finally, the author recommend on major points with a view to provide
a solution to the major legal problems that surrounds patentability of 3D bioprinted product and Human
right issues so identified by this paper and also to make a right balance between the two competing
interests of Patentee and the Human right while regulating the patentability of 3D Bioprinted organ. In
nutshell this paper is a humble attempt to examine international and national law relating to patents on
3D bioprinted inventions from a doctrinal perspective.
Keywords: Patents, TRIPS, 3D printing, 3D Bioprinting

Trade Name vs Company name Under Ethiopian Law, 2022

A single business firm can have a company name and trade name. A company name/firm name is one at... more A single business firm can have a company name and trade name. A company name/firm name is one attribute of a legal personality of the firm. Any business organization gets legal personality upon registration , to be registered name is a pre criteria set by law. After registration business organization needs trade name for identification and advertisement of its product and business organization can have trade name and a business is consist of incorporeal elements, among them one is trade-name. A Trade name/business name is one of the first things that connect a customer to a company’s products or service. A business organization can have a legal or registered name as well as a Business or trade name but these have important differences and registration requirements exist for the protection of business organization and customers. These two names are different in purpose and scope, but under Ethiopian Commercial registration and Licensing Proclamation and its amendments, regarding these two words there is ambiguity and vagueness of law and this causes difficulty of understanding these two names under these proclamations. In this paper I am going to elaborate the definition of a company name/firm name and Trade/Business name, the difference between a Business Name and a Company Name, and the importance of this distinction, Identifying currently existing legal terminology problem in Ethiopian Commercial registration and Licensing Proclamation (proclamation no 980/2016 & proclamation no 1150/2019) and making possible recommendation.

Negligence Homicide Under Ethiopian Criminal Law, 2021

Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. I... more Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of different vehicles. It is characterized as a death caused by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. This crime is criminalized under article 543 of Ethiopian criminal code and the article has three sub articles. Regarding this crime there is divergence of standing among legal scholars on whether article 543/3 has relation with 543/1 or it's continuation of 543/2, so this paper focuses on identifying the existing problem and recommends possible solutions.