Adding new laws to a country’s statutes often modifies existing laws. Consequently, analyzing legislative proposals that impact rights and privileges under established laws is a crucial aspect of legislative drafting. Analysts should be familiar with the current legal framework or know where to locate it. Among these laws are human rights treaties ratified by the country, incorporated into domestic law either through "legislative" or "automatic" incorporation. These two approaches are traditionally known as "dualistic" and "monistic" methods. Regardless of a country’s system, ensuring compliance with human rights treaties requires careful analysis to confirm that draft laws align with the principles set out in these treaties.
This essay examines how Ethiopia implements international human rights treaties, focusing on how its approach impacts legislative analysis. Although human rights implementation covers many actions, this essay centers on incorporating international standards into domestic law. It argues that Ethiopia’s method is ineffective, limiting drafters’ ability to ensure that legislation aligns with human rights treaties. The essay proceeds as follows: Section I reviews Ethiopia’s approach to implementing human rights treaties, Section II examines challenges for Ethiopian drafters, and the final section concludes.
I. Methods of Implementing Human Rights Treaties in Ethiopia
There is no mandated international standard for implementing human rights treaties, so each state determines its approach. A country’s legal system must provide suitable legislative and administrative frameworks for treaty guarantees to become a reality for citizens. Additionally, human rights treaties embody values that should be respected when interpreting and developing legislation. Consequently, states must actively incorporate these treaties into domestic law as part of the implementation process.
Generally, countries implement treaties either by legislative incorporation (common in dualistic systems) or automatic incorporation (typical in monistic systems). In countries with legislative incorporation, such as the United Kingdom, specific domestic acts incorporate treaty provisions. In contrast, countries like France adopt the automatic approach, where treaties become domestic law upon ratification and publication, without additional legislation.
Ethiopia’s method does not adhere strictly to one approach. Article 9(4) of the Ethiopian Constitution declares that “All international agreements ratified by Ethiopia are integral parts of the law of the land.” This wording suggests a need to “transform” these agreements into domestic law, as in dualistic systems. However, the Ethiopian practice only involves a basic ratification proclamation, lacking comprehensive legislative transformation or amendment.
From a hierarchical perspective, however, Ethiopia’s Constitution implies a monistic approach. Although the Constitution is the supreme law, it must be interpreted in line with international treaties Ethiopia has ratified. This dualistic and monistic combination has led to confusion about the status of human rights treaties in Ethiopian law, as the ratified treaties are not translated or widely accessible, complicating their application.
II. Analyzing Legislative Proposals in Light of Human Rights Treaties
In legislative drafting, a drafter translates the government’s policy goals into clear legal language, ensuring alignment with existing laws, including international human rights treaties. In Ethiopia, the legislative drafting manual advises that proposals should be checked against current laws and international agreements ratified by Ethiopia. Yet, drafters often cannot verify compatibility with human rights treaties effectively. This limitation arises from several factors related to Ethiopia’s complex dualistic-monistic implementation, language barriers, and limited access to treaty texts.
A key issue is the lack of translations for international treaties and decisions of international bodies. Ethiopia’s federal structure complicates matters further, with Amharic as the federal government’s working language and each state having its own. Drafters must often translate proposals from Amharic to English, making it challenging to cross-reference treaties, especially when translations are absent. When legislative proposals are inconsistent with existing laws, discussions at the ministerial or parliamentary level may highlight discrepancies, but without access to ratified treaties, deeper alignment with international law remains difficult.
Decentralized drafting within ministries exacerbates this challenge. Each ministry drafts laws within its own area, often with limited knowledge of international human rights treaties. Moreover, ad hoc committees or working groups tasked with drafting laws prioritize the instructing ministry’s objectives, leaving little room for analysis of compatibility with international standards.
The absence of thorough legislative instructions further contributes to the poor analysis of compatibility with human rights treaties. Effective drafting instructions should guide drafters on the proposal's impacts on current laws, including international obligations. However, in Ethiopia, the few available instructions lack emphasis on the relationship between proposals and ratified treaties, reducing opportunities for meaningful analysis.
Due to these challenges, Ethiopia has enacted several laws that conflict with international obligations, such as the Charities and Societies Proclamation, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, and the Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Proclamation. These laws, drafted by civil service working groups, have drawn criticism from international organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, for infringing on freedoms guaranteed by international treaties ratified by Ethiopia.
Conclusion
In summary, although Ethiopia’s Constitution allows for both dualistic and monistic methods for implementing human rights treaties, the country has not fully adopted either approach. Ratified treaties are neither transformed through additional legislation nor translated for wider accessibility. This lack of clarity, combined with Ethiopia’s federal system, decentralized drafting, and language barriers, limits legislative drafters’ ability to ensure consistency with international human rights obligations.
To improve legislative alignment with human rights treaties, Ethiopia should increase access to translated treaty texts in local languages and offer training on the relationship between treaties and the drafting process. These steps will strengthen the application of human rights treaties within Ethiopia’s legislative framework.