አዋጅ ቁጥር 1237/2013 የግልግል ዳኝነትና የእርቅ አሠራር አዋጅ የሚል ርዕስ ተሰጥቶታል፡፡ የአዋጁን ሰፊ ድርሻ የሚወስደው በግልግል ዳኝነት ሂደት ላይ ስላሉ ነገሮች ድንጋጌዎችን በማውጣት ነው፡፡ ቀሪው ደግሞ ስለ ዕርቅ /conciliation/ ይናገራል፡፡ የዚህ ጽሑፍ ዓላማ በግልግል ዳኝነት ሂደት ስለሚሰጡ የዕግድ ትእዛዞች በተለይ አፈጻጸማቸውን ከአዋጁ አንጻር መመልከት ነው፡፡
ከረጅም ጊዜ በኋላ ይህንን የጻፍኩት በቅርቡ ባነበብኩትና ሰበር የግልግል ስምምነትና የፍርድ ቤቶች ሥልጣንን አስመልክቶ በሰጠው ውሳኔ ላይ የተወሰነ ሐሳብ መስጠት ስለፈለኩ ነው፡፡ ለዚህ ጽሑፍ ብቻ የሚጠቅመኝን የውሳኔ ክፍል በማውጣት እጠቀማለሁ እንጂ ሁሉንም ፍሬ ሐሳብ አልዳስስም ነገር ግን ማንበብ ለሚፈልግ ሰው ውሳኔው ያለበት ቅጽና መዝገብ ቁጥር አስቀምጣለሁ (ቅጽ 25 መ.ቁ 180793)፡፡
A post on American Bar Association’s (ABA) website and a comment by a colleague prompted me to write this. Let me begin by posing a question: can a pandemic be considered as a force majeure? The importance of this post may be revealed later as the economy opens up and creditors require debtors to perform their obligation, repudiate an agreement or hold debtors liable for failure.
It would be appropriate to begin by saying few words about the New York Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards which came into being in 1948. By the way, our Civil Procedure Code was enacted in 1948 E.C; while the convention was passed in 1948 G.C. Now, simply put, it is a very popular convention in the international arbitration community and is used to enforce an arbitral award (both commercial and non-commercial) in another country.
ግልግል በፍትሐብሔር ሕጋችን እውቅና ከተሰጣቸው የሙግት መፍቻ ዘዴዎች አንዱ እንደሆነ ይታወቃል፡፡ ተከራካሪዎችም ጉዳያቸውን ወደ ግልግል የሚወስዱት በመካከላቸው በሕግ ፊት የሚጸና የግልግል ስምምነት እስካለ ድረስ ብቻ ነው፡፡ በዚህ ጽሑፍ በግልግል ሂደት መብታቸው የሚነካ ሦስተኛ ወገኖች ምን ዓይነት መፍትሔ ሊያገኙ ይችላሉ የሚለውን ለመመልከት ይሞክራሉ፡፡ በዚህ ጽሑፍ ላይ የቀረበው በየካቲት ወር 2009 ዓ.ም ለገበያ ከበቃው ‹‹የግልግል ዳኝነት በኢትዮጵያ›› ከተሰኘው መጽሐፍ ላይ የተቀነጨበ ነው፡፡
ማሪዮን ጆንስ፣ ማሪያ ሻራፖቫ፣ ክላውዲያ ፔከንስታይ እና ላንስ አርምስትሮንግን የሚያመሳስላቸው አንዱ በስፖርቱ ዓለም ገናና ስም የነበራቸው መሆኑ ነው፡፡ ማሪዮን ጆንስ የኦሎምፒክ የወርቅ ሜዳልያ ተሸላሚ ናት፡፡ አርምስትሮንግ ደግሞ በብስክሌት ግልቢያ የሚያህለው አልነበረም፡፡ ማሪዮን ጆንስ አጭሩን ርቀት በሚያስገርም ፍጥነት ታጠናቅቅ ነበር፡፡ የአሸናፊነት ምልክትም ሆና ለብዙ ዘመን ቆይታለች፡፡ አርምስትሮንግም እንዲሁ፡፡ ከችሎታውና ብቃቱ የተነሳ ስፖንሰሩ ለመሆን ያልተሯሯጠ ኩባንያ አልነበረም፡፡
An interesting article, published on Jimma University Journal of Law, entitled “the immediate appealability of a court order against arbitration: it should be allowed and even made compulsory”, argues that an immediate appeal against a court order which is against arbitration must be allowed; article 320/3/ of the Civil Procedure Code should be amended to take the special nature of arbitration into account.
In 1996 the case between Arab Republic of Egypt v Chromalloy Aero services brought a new debate to the international arbitration world. Chromalloy Aero services (“Chromalloy”), an American corporation, entered into a military procurement contract with the Air Force of the Arab Republic of Egypt (“Egypt”) to provide parts, maintenance, and repair for helicopters.
Arbitration is crafted in a way that can satisfy parties’ interests from the beginning until the final award is rendered. In each step, decisions rendered by arbitrators may potentially affect the interest of adversarial parties. Anyone closely following the evolution of international commercial arbitration will not be surprised to see interim protection measures become a center of debate. From the publication of scholarly articles until the amendment of the UNICTRAL model law, the international arbitration community has made various efforts to adopt uniform application and enforcement of interim protection measures in international commercial arbitration.
What would you answer if you were confronted with a question: is appeal a fundamental right? Would you say yes, no, or neither? I think the argument leans towards yes, does not it? Art 20(6) of the constitution affirms the right of any person to “appeal to the competent court against an order”; yet, I do not aim to discuss appeal in courts, but its general perception in arbitration.