Methods of Constitutional Interpretation in Constitutional Dispute Settlement in Ethiopia
| dc.contributor.advisor | Assefa, Getachew (Associate Professor) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nasser, Mustefa | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-10-13T09:25:01Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-08T11:42:09Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-10-13T09:25:01Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-08T11:42:09Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The gist of constitutional interpretation is maintaining supremacy of the constitution. Yet, constitutional interpretation invariably involves complex questions having equally competing but conflicting socio-politico-legal dimensions and choices. Finding a viable and constitutionally appealing way out from the web of these three-dimensional issues obviously requires a sound background of constitutionalism and knowledge of appropriate principles of constitutional interpretation. In this regard the FDRE Constitution offers little guidance on how the constitution should be interpreted where the need arises, except for fundamental rights and freedoms specified in chapter three of the constitution. The general reference to international instrument in the interpretation of fundamental rights and freedom does not help much if it is not specified. Apart from the constitution Proclamation No. 251/2001 authorizes HoF to identify, develop and implement principles of constitutional interpretation as it deems appropriate. However, constitutional interpretive principles have not developed yet by HoF. Hence, lack of constitutional interpretive principles/methodology result in lack of consistency and predictability of how the constitution is interpreted as well as the outcome of the decisions itself. The research contends that the Ato Ashenafi Amare et al vs. the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority (ERCA) case and Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) vs. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi Asres cases would have been decided in a more consistent and rational manner, had they been analyzed by employing proportionality and balancing analysis method of interpretation. Hence, this research argues that apart from the existing interpretive methodologies that the CCI\HoF is applying, proportionality and balancing method of analysis could transform the interpretive mandate of CCI\HoF in the event of possible limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms occurs. It analyzes in a case by case basis the legality and legitimacy of the action where legality refers to the requirement that the limitation to be ‘prescribed by law’ where as legitimacy refers to the requirements of proportionality which has three criteria (suitability, necessity and proportionality). Therefore, HoF should adopt proportionality and balancing method of analysis as one of its constitutional interpretive methods. Key Words: principles of constitutional interpretation, balancing, proportionality, suitability, necessity, supremacy of constitution | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/12652 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababa University | en_US |
| dc.subject | principles of constitutional interpretation | en_US |
| dc.subject | balancing, proportionality | en_US |
| dc.subject | suitability | en_US |
| dc.subject | necessity | en_US |
| dc.subject | supremacy of constitution | en_US |
| dc.title | Methods of Constitutional Interpretation in Constitutional Dispute Settlement in Ethiopia | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |