Sisay Mengiste (PhD)Getachew Jima2025-03-052025-03-052020-06https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/4512The need for exercising emergency powers arises when a nation is faced with grave danger, which threatens the nation state and its citizens. So we can define State of Emergency as a sudden and extraordinary situation that threatens the life of a nation and which requires taking extraordinary measure to averting such dangers. Most general international human rights treaties allow state parties to derogate from many of their human rights obligations in times of emergency, while at the same time setting stringent safeguards against abuse. In Ethiopia, both the federal and state constitutions provide for the derogation of human rights and embrace certain norms as non-derogable rights, which are not suspended during emergency. However, the main problem in exercise of emergency powers is abuse of such powers. The challenge of exercise of emergency powers, therefore, is striking an appropriate balance between managing the threat to the nation state and protecting the people from abuse of such powers. One of the mechanisms of controlling abuse of emergency powers is existence of independent judiciary. Under the FDRE Constitution, courts have the duty to respect, protect and fulfill human rights as one organs of the government. However, the role of judicial organ during a state of emergency is not clearly provided in the FDRE constitution. The constitution entrusts the duty to administer a state of emergency to the Emergency Inquiry Board constituted by the HOPR. Hence,the main objective of this paper is to investigate and analyze the role of Ethiopian courts in protecting human rights during state of emergency. To this end, qualitative research approach was employed. Accordingly, judges, public prosecutors, police officers, lawyers and victims of the human rights violation during state of emergency were interviewed. Thus, the existing theoretical and practical challenges related to the role of courts in protecting human rights during state of emergency are identified. The major setback emanates from the FDRE Constitution itself which grants apparent power of interpretation of constitution to House of Federation. The other problems include: challenges on the independence and impartiality of courts, non-publication of international human rights instruments and ambiguity on the status of international instruments in the FDRE Constitution. The author of this paper argues that these challenges cannot hinder courts from exercising their inherent role of ensuring rule of law by reviewing executive actions including during state of emergency. Accordingly, the paper concludes that Ethiopian Courts have legitimate role in protecting human rights during state of emergency.en-USThesis