the Implication of Bilateral Investement Treaties of Ethiopia on Labour Regulation
| dc.contributor.advisor | Solomon Abay (ASsociate Professor) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tesfahun Worku | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-03-05T12:57:48Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-03-05T12:57:48Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023-06 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Bilateral Investment Treaties are legal agreements between two sovereign nations to entice Foreign Direct Investment into the capital-importing country. Meanwhile, the capital-exporting nation endeavors to shelter investors from political uncertainties and instability, and more widely, to safeguard their investments on foreign soil. Ethiopia has sign nearly 35 BITs with other nations. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the country's existing BITs, it surfaced that most of them were ignorant of the labour clause, which is the primary obligation of the investor in the host country. The majorities of Ethiopia’s ratified BITs are disadvantageous in terms of labour rights and exhibit the symbol of outdated investment treaties. While Ethiopian BITs have ample safeguards for foreign investors, they do not impose any legal duties on investors to protect labour rights. This absence of labour-friendly clauses in BITs undermines the right to steer FDI towards labour protection. However, Ethiopia's BITs have endeavored to integrate labour provisions in two ways. The BIT between Ethiopia and Finland features a labour clause in the preamble as a non-binding element of the investment agreement. In contrast, the other BITs incorporate a labour clause in the substantive section of the agreement. Examples of such BITs are the BIT between Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates, the BIT between Ethiopia and Qatar, the BIT between Ethiopia and the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union, and the BIT between Ethiopia and Brazil. The study employed the doctrinal method of legal research. To safeguard labour rights, Ethiopia has integrated most international labour instruments into its bilateral investment treaties. The concept of labour regulation has also been entrenched in the country's constitution and domestic legislation. However, it is absent in most BITs. As such, any action taken by Ethiopia to comply with labour regulation may be deemed indirect expropriation. Consequently, Ethiopian BITs must be amplified with domestic and international labour responsibilities defined by its constitution and domestic legislation. Therefore, the study recommends a remedial measure, such as renegotiating existing BITs and amending them to expressly incorporate labour protection provisions. The Ethiopian government must scrutinize BITs with utmost care, striking a balance between investor rights and obligations. It is crucial that any fresh BITs include a provision mandating governments to safeguard and enforce labour. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/4602 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababa University | |
| dc.title | the Implication of Bilateral Investement Treaties of Ethiopia on Labour Regulation | |
| dc.type | Thesis |