Zekarias Kennaa (PhD)Yohannes Afework2025-08-192025-08-192023-06-01https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/7067Evolution of arbitration as a method of dispute mechanism can be tracked back to the early days of business, when traders looked to a third party to solve disputes that arise amongst them. Historically, the power to grant interim measures in international arbitration was solely reserved to national courts. As to today, many countries have permitted the permission of interim measure to be given by arbitration tribunal as a concurrent jurisdiction of the national court. Contemporary arbitration in most legal system if not all is accompanied by procedural safeguards and opportunities to protect the interest of the litigant parties. One of the inevitable consequences of such procedural safeguard is enabling one of the parties to delay the proceeding in the resolution of the disputes which in turn negatively affect the right of one of the parties and sometime seriously affect the right of the other party. Classic examples for such type of serious damage includes loss of market value of property and destruction of an ongoing business. The availability of interim measures will largely depends on international conventions, national legislations and institutional rules in case of institutional arbitration. The new Arbitration Proclamation in this regards permits issuance of interim order by arbitration tribunal to ensure the preservation of the property and by doing so enables the effectiveness of the arbitral process. Ethiopia recently ratified the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the effect of which can be interpreted as a tool precluding a contracting parties from adopting measure that preventing the measure of the tribunal to order interim measure. This paper will examine the need the existing legal framework on interim measure and its intricacyenWhen traders looked to a third party to solve disputes that arise amongst themThesis