FEDERALISM AND THE ADJUDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES: THE ETHIOPIAN EXPERIENCE

Since 1995, Ethiopia has embarked upon a new federal system. Very little has been written about the process in general and about the manner in which the issues concerning the division of powers between the federal government and the states in Ethiopia are adjudicated The federal Constitution has sev...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Netherlands international law review Jg. 52; H. 1; S. 1 - 30
1. Verfasser: Fiseha, A.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: The Hague, NL T.M.C. Asser Press 01.05.2005
Springer Nature B.V
Schlagworte:
19th century
Adjudication
Constitutional law
Constitutions
Economic concentration
Ethnicity
Federal government
Federalism
Federations
International law
Judiciary
Jurisdiction
Linguistics
Minority & ethnic groups
Morality
Nation building
Nation states
Politics
Population
Power
Religion
State government
Tribunals & commissions
adjudication
federalism
judiciary (all in the Ethiopian context)
constitutional interpretation
House of Federation
ISSN:0165-070X, 1741-6191
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Since 1995, Ethiopia has embarked upon a new federal system. Very little has been written about the process in general and about the manner in which the issues concerning the division of powers between the federal government and the states in Ethiopia are adjudicated The federal Constitution has several peculiar features. One of these relates to the institution empowered to interpret and adjudicate constitutional issues. Unless there is a tribunal that enforces the supremacy clause of the Constitution and that demarcates the proper sphere of the powers of the federal and state governments, chaos would result from jurisdictional conflicts. This power, by virtue of the federal Constitution belongs to the second chamber, otherwise known as the House of Federation. This article begins with a brief introduction of the federal system and proceeds to discuss the role, jurisdiction and procedure of the House of Federation (HOF) in the adjudication and interpretation of constitutional issues from a comparative perspective. It explains why vesting this power on the HOF, and not on the judiciary, was a policy choice.
Bibliographie:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ISSN:0165-070X
1741-6191
DOI:10.1017/S0165070X0500001X