Drafts by Dejen Yemane Messele
We must defend multilateralism in all areas" 2 I. Abstract The Doha negotiation round of WTO repo... more We must defend multilateralism in all areas" 2 I. Abstract The Doha negotiation round of WTO reposes on the negotiation table forseventeen years devoid ofan efficaciousfruition. It is maladroit to wind up the negotiation due to logjams of the multilateral negotiating parties. Among other things, disparities on market access to agriculture, elimination of export and domestic subsidies on agriculture and services caused perpetual negotiation of the Doha Round. Such incongruencescraftan impasse which glooms the multilateralism of the global trade. The Author clinches that the WTO's need to transform from Doha agendas to other new agendas without triumphing an agreement on the existing agenda placedthe future of multilateralism under question.
The Doha negotiation round of WTO reposes on the negotiation table forseventeen years devoid ofan... more The Doha negotiation round of WTO reposes on the negotiation table forseventeen years devoid ofan efficaciousfruition. It is maladroit to wind up the negotiation due to logjams of the multilateral negotiating parties. Among other things, disparities on market access to agriculture, elimination of export and domestic subsidies on agriculture and services caused perpetual negotiation of the Doha Round. Such incongruencescraftan impasse which glooms the multilateralism of the global trade. The Author clinches that the WTO’s need to transform from Doha agendas to other new agendas without triumphing an agreement on the existing agenda placedthe future of multilateralism under question.
Papers by Dejen Yemane Messele
Mizan Law Review, Dec 31, 2021
This comment examines the use of coercive power in the negotiations between Ethiopia, Egypt, and ... more This comment examines the use of coercive power in the negotiations between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan on the filling and annual operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). There has been deliberate use of coercive power (the use of military, economic and political coercion) by Egypt, Sudan, and their geopolitical allies mainly since November 2019. Coupled with the use of coercion, the lower riparian negotiating parties perceive that concluding an agreement over the subject matter is a legal duty imposed on Ethiopia, not just a volitional dealing that could emanate from the spirit of cooperation and good faith. Careful interpretation of the international law regime unveils that all forms of coercion are unlawful despite the difference in the degree of illegality between military, economic and political coercion. The existence of coercion, in all its forms, would thus absolve Ethiopia's duty (if any) to conclude an agreement with the two downstream states. I argue that, Ethiopia-as victim of an unlawful coercion-has the right to withdraw from the GERD negotiations and to unilaterally proceed with the filling and operation of its sovereign dam while at the same time respecting the principles of equitable utilization and not causing significant harm which can be facilitated by a basin-wide water governance treaty rather than trilateral negotiation on a single dam project.
Blog Posts by Dejen Yemane Messele
Addis Standard , 2023
this work will (re) examine the use that international law would extend for Ethiopian reclamation... more this work will (re) examine the use that international law would extend for Ethiopian reclamation of a maritime sovereignty, which obviously brings the State of Eritrea onboard, in the Red Sea Coastal territories. Maritime Sovereignty, for the purpose of this article, shall be understood as an exercise of control and use of coastal territories, of any size, to have a direct and free access to the sea.
Addis Standard , 2018
The Ethio-Eritrea conflict marked the 20 year anniversary on May 2018 though it is in the sulk of... more The Ethio-Eritrea conflict marked the 20 year anniversary on May 2018 though it is in the sulk of no-peace-no war. After the aftermath of the war, the belligerents were moved to the Hague for an international arbitration. This piece does not delve into the causes-consequences analysis of the conflict nor verifying to whom Badme belongs to rather it aims to shed some light on the recent move of Ethiopia— ceding the flash-point of the conflict—Badme, to Eritrea.
Thus, the writers want to unravel how ceding Badme would ease bilateral tensions, and break the sanction(ed) discourse over the question of Assab. In doing so, we would unpack whether Ethiopia (re)write the governing narratives over the question of Assab or end up with déjà vu state of play. Drawing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case between Bolivia v. Chile in 2015, we would like to offer some wayouts on how the obligation to negotiate in good faith over contested seas under international law workout in claiming Assab.
Addis Insight , 2019
The internally displaced persons (IDPs) situation in Ethiopia is worsening after the recent pligh... more The internally displaced persons (IDPs) situation in Ethiopia is worsening after the recent plight of Gedeo people in Southern Ethiopia. As a result of this displacement, nearly a million ethnic Gedeo’s were displaced from the adjacent Gujji zone of Oromia region following an ethnic conflict between the Gedeo’s and the Oromo’s as the latter also backed by non-State armed actors such as—the Oromo-Liberation Front (OLF) and paramilitary groups operating in the region. The Gedeo’s displacement placed Ethiopia at number one spot in terms of the total number of IDPs in the world which is an estimate of 3.2 million people displaced surpassing the numbers in Syria and Yemen.
This blog post aims to shed some light on how the unspeakable IDPs problems persisted in recent years as a pressing social need in Ethiopia and ways to make the perpetrators accountable, in turn, end the culture of impunity. Using the recent Gedeo’s displacement as an instance, this blog post questions the government’s intervention to end impunity.
Addis Standard , 2020
Trump’s sabre-rattling remarks on Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD) that tips Egypt will blow... more Trump’s sabre-rattling remarks on Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD) that tips Egypt will blow up the dam has become a hullabaloo in Ethiopia and constitutes a breach of international law. International law governs the relationship between sovereign states on the basis of equality. The classical tenet that states are equal on the basis of the UN Charter—is now being eroded by hegemonic powerful states. Few powerful states such as—the United States, in the name of facilitating a good office, tends to coerce some states in negotiation and treaty making. This would give rise to questioning the legitimacy of powerful states’ acts under international law. This essay interrogates the notion of sovereignty—in context of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) water filling controversy mainly between Ethiopia and Egypt— in a bid to raise the debate whether Ethiopia survives the Trump’s repeated threats. In examining this, we unpack how hegemonic international law is now being resurfaced as a threat to the existing international system founded on basis of the United Nations (UN) Charter.
Uploads
Drafts by Dejen Yemane Messele
Papers by Dejen Yemane Messele
Blog Posts by Dejen Yemane Messele
Thus, the writers want to unravel how ceding Badme would ease bilateral tensions, and break the sanction(ed) discourse over the question of Assab. In doing so, we would unpack whether Ethiopia (re)write the governing narratives over the question of Assab or end up with déjà vu state of play. Drawing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case between Bolivia v. Chile in 2015, we would like to offer some wayouts on how the obligation to negotiate in good faith over contested seas under international law workout in claiming Assab.
This blog post aims to shed some light on how the unspeakable IDPs problems persisted in recent years as a pressing social need in Ethiopia and ways to make the perpetrators accountable, in turn, end the culture of impunity. Using the recent Gedeo’s displacement as an instance, this blog post questions the government’s intervention to end impunity.
Thus, the writers want to unravel how ceding Badme would ease bilateral tensions, and break the sanction(ed) discourse over the question of Assab. In doing so, we would unpack whether Ethiopia (re)write the governing narratives over the question of Assab or end up with déjà vu state of play. Drawing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case between Bolivia v. Chile in 2015, we would like to offer some wayouts on how the obligation to negotiate in good faith over contested seas under international law workout in claiming Assab.
This blog post aims to shed some light on how the unspeakable IDPs problems persisted in recent years as a pressing social need in Ethiopia and ways to make the perpetrators accountable, in turn, end the culture of impunity. Using the recent Gedeo’s displacement as an instance, this blog post questions the government’s intervention to end impunity.