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)፡፡

 “In business as in life, you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.”

Dr.Chester L. Karrass

መግቢያ

ግጭት የሰው ልጅ ወደ ምድር ከመጣበት ጊዜ ጀምሮ  የነበረ፣ ያለ እንዲሁም በእልት ተዕለት የማህበራዊ መስተጋብር ውስጥ ሊከሰት የሚችል አለመግባባት ወይም ልዩነት ነው፡፡ ይህም አለመግባባት በጊዜና በሚገባ ካልተፈታ፣ በማህበረሰብ ውስጥ ከፍተኛ ስጋትና አለመረጋጋት ሊፈጥር ይችላል፡፡ ይህንንም ተግዳሮት ለማስቀረት በማሰብ አብዛኛውን ጊዜ የመንግስት ባህላዊ ተግባር (traditional functions of government) በመባል የሚታወቀው ማለትም ቋሚ የሕግና ፍትሕ ሥርዓት በመገንባት ለሚነሱ ቁርሾዎች መላ ሊያገኙበት የሚችልበትን ሥርዓት መዘርጋት ነው፡፡ ይህም ሊሆን የሚችልበት አንዱ መንገድ መደበኛ ፍርድ ቤቶችን ወይም አማራጭ የግጭት መፍቻ መንገዶችን በየደረጃው በማቋቋምና ለሚነሱ ግጭቶች በጊዜ መፍትሄ በመስጠት ሊሆን ይችላል፡፡

በዓለምአቀፍም ሆነ በአገር ወስጥ የሕግ ሥርዓት አስተማማኝና በቂ የግጭት አፈታት ሥርዓት መኖር በጣም አስፈላጊ ነው፡፡ ይህም መሆኑ በህብረተሰቡ ማህበራዊ እና ፖለቲካዊ ኑሮ ውስጥ ሰላምና መረጋጋት ከማምጣቱ ባሻገር ተጠባቂ የሕግ ሥርዓት (Predictable legal system) እንዲኖረን ያደርጋል፡፡

የግጭት አፈታት ሲባልም በግራ ቀኝ በኩል የሚመጣ ማነኛውም ግጭት ወይም አለመግባባት ለመፍታት የሚተገበር ሥነ-ስርዓት ሲሆን ይህም በመደበኛው የፍርድ ሂደት ወይም በአማራጭ የግጭት አፈታት (alternative dispute resolution) መንገድ ሊከናወን ይችላል፡፡

In an old English case [Richardson v. Melish, 2Bing. 228(251) Court of Common Pleas, England (1824)] Judge Burrough stated that public policy is “unruly horse and once you get astride to it, you do not know where it will carry you.”  This judge has sufficient reason for saying public policy is unruly horse: case law and scholars have tried to define public policy; but none succeeded in giving a concise, precise, and short definition. Its concept remains controversial.

In English case law from 1853 [Egerton v. Earl of Brown, 4HL 1], House of Lords (the former English supreme court) said that what is denominated is, public policy is the obligations to perform all the duties which men owe to society; and anything having tendency to operate in opposition to that is void.

One scholar articulated that “public policy constitutes general principles of a state that exists in all legal systems, even in the absence of specific rules or judicial precedents to that effect and a principle which may be opposed to the application of any law…” (Pierre Lalive “Transnational (truly international) public policy and International Arbitration” VIII International Congress on Arbitration, New York, May 1986, Congress Series no. 3, Kluwer Law International, 261)

Public policy is held to be superior as it reflects the fundamental interest of the society. When a case is presented before a judge, and if it presumed to violate public policy, then the otherwise applicable law, whether or not foreign, will be disregarded. For example, in case of contracts, contracts that go against morality and law cannot be executed. The standard of morality can be related to public policy that ties the society together.

However, the application of public policy becomes controversial in case of international arbitration. This means that an arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland may be forced to consider Ethiopia’s public policy. Nevertheless, the criterion for applying public policy of a certain state is ill-defined. The controversy that emanates from public policy gets its shape from the nature of international arbitration.

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.

This post counter argues the thesis forwarded by Mr. Berhanu Beyene, the author of the article cited above: there lies no reason to amend article 320/3/, immediate appeal against a court order which is against arbitration must be disallowed. To support my argument, I will forward the following points: practically, parties ought to wait untilfinal judgment is rendered; immediate appeal might create congestion on the appellate court,repeated interruption of trial and weakens the efficient operation of the case by the trial court.

VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

It is generally accepted rule that arbitration agreement cannot be assumed; the parties have to show a clear and unequivocal intention to refer their case to arbitration.This rule is consolidated by a recent Federal Supreme Court Cassation Decision File Number 97021. According to article 3325/1/ of the Civil Code, arbitral submission is a contract whereby the parties to a dispute entrust its solution to a third party, the arbitrator, who undertakes to settle the dispute in accordance with the principles of law.

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፡፡

በአንደኝነት ያላጠናቀቀበት ውድድርም ማግኘት አዳጋች ነበር፡፡ ‹‹ቱር ደ ፍራንስ›› በመባል የሚጠራውን የብስክሌት ውድድር ብዙ ጊዜ አሸንፏል፡፡ በብር ላይ ብር፣ በክብር ላይ ክብር ደርቧል፡፡ እሱ ካለው ዝና የተነሳ የካንሰር ታማሚዎችን የሚደግፈው ‹‹ሊቭ ስትሮንግ›› የተሰኘ ግብረ ሰናይ ድርጅቱም በርካታ ሚሊዮን ዶላሮች ይጎርፉለት ነበር፡፡ ከእርሱ ጋር መሥራት ‹‹ኩራታችን›› ነው ያሉ ድርጅቶችም ብዙ ነበሩ፡፡ የ44 ዓመቷ ክላውዲያ ፔከንስታይ የበረዶ ላይ መንሸራተት ስፖርተኛ ናት፡፡ ገድሏ እንደሚተርከው ባደረገቻቸው ዓለም ዓቀፍ ውድድሮች 60 ሜዳሊያዎችን አሸንፋለች፡፡

ፍጻሜው

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፡፡

ዝርዝር ሐሳቦችን ለማግኘት እንዲሁም ስለ ፍሬ ሐሳቡ በጥልቀት ለመረዳት መጽሐፉን ማንበብ ጠቃሚ ነው እላለሁ፡፡ ይህ ጽሑፍ የወጣው የሕግ ባለሙያዎች በየጊዜው ከሚገጥመን ወይም ሊገጥመን ከሚችለው የሕግ ክርክር በመነሳት ሲሆን ዋናው ዓላማውም ውይይትን መፍጠር ነው፡፡

በግልግሉ ሂደት መብታችን ወይም ጥቅማችን ተነካ ብለው የሚያስቡ አካላት ወደ ግልግሉ ጣልቃ ለመግባት ፍላጎት ማሳየታቸው አይቀሬ ነው፡፡ በዚህ ረገድ ግልግል በሁለት ወገኖች ብቻ የሚደረግ ሂደት በመሆኑ ጣልቃ ለመግባት የሚፈልግ ሰው አቤቱታው በገላጋዮቹ ተቀባይነት ሊያገኝ ይችላል? የሚለውን ጥያቄ መመለስ የግድ ይላል፡፡

1. Introduction

Arbitration has been a prevalent method of dispute settlement, in various countries of the world of today and yesterday. Arbitration is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as “a method of dispute resolution involving one or more neutral third party who is usually agreed to by the disputing parties and whose decision is binding.”

Today, with what seems to be the increasing complexity of international arbitration proceedings, and concomitant concern on the part of users as to the efficiency of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution, it may be appropriate for questions to be raised as to the role of party-appointed arbitrators in the efficient operation of arbitral tribunals.

In the common international arbitration scenario of a tripartite panel, with each party appointing one arbitrator and the party-appointed arbitrators then selecting the presiding arbitrator, each side's selection of his arbitrator is perhaps the single most determinative step in the arbitration. The ability to appoint one of the decision makers is a defining aspect of the arbitral system and provides a powerful instrument when used wisely by a party.

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.

The main point of this post is not to explain the nature of the convention, but to ask if Ethiopia’s initiation to accede to the convention is the right thing. Recently, the Ethiopian government is weighing pros and cons of approving the instrument. It is inviting legal professionals and major stakeholders to speak their concerns or forward their comments on the advantages or disadvantages of signing the New York Convention.

Introduction

When we come to commercial dispute which arise out of not respecting contractual obligations by one or more parties, settlement of dispute through court come in the for front. However, the existing Ethiopian court system is extremely sluggish, rigid and expensive. On the contrary arbitration is praised for its speedy proceeding, flexible process, confidentiality of the proceeding, finality of dispute which ultimately saves time and money. Although there are some critics against the heart of the system, arbitration stands out as one of the most popular means of dispute settlement mechanism.

One of the many definitions of arbitration is “non-state institution that resolves the disputes entrusted by the parties that found themselves in a dispute.”  The existing Ethiopian arbitration law is found in the Civil Code of Ethiopia, Article 3325 to Article 3346 of the Civil Code and partly in Civil Procedure Code, Article 315 to 319 and Article 350 to 357. However, recognizing the fact that arbitration is becoming part and parcel of the mainstreaming dispute resolving mechanism, the law maker come up with the draft arbitration rule. Structurally, the draft has 11 sections and 86 Articles. The main reason to came up with this draft is for the establishment of international arbitration center in Ethiopia which is financed by the government. In this brief, I will discuss, if I can, the main typical feature and some areas of concerns that popped-up during the discussion with various stakeholders.

1. Continuity of uncertainty over arbitrability of administrative contract – it’s generally accepted principle that arbitrability or non- arbitrability of any matter is the concern of public policy. In emphasizing this point the competent authors in the field state that: “the concept of non-arbitrability is in effect public policy limitation upon the scope of arbitration as a method of settling disputes. Each state may decide, in accordance with its own public policy considerations as to which matters are incapable of being settled by arbitration under the law of the place of agreement or of arbitration.” (emphasis supplied) In the same token recognition and enforcement of an award since it may be refused if the subject-matter is not arbitrable under the law of the country where enforcement is sought.

In the first part I had discussed some issues under the draft proclamation. This includes arbitrability of administrative contract, competency-competency, separability doctrine, pauper proceeding, appeal and the standard to challenge the arbitrators. In this part, I will briefly discuss the role of the court in arbitration proceeding, the New York Convention and the nature and impartiality of the Center as envisaged under the draft proclamation.

1. The role of the court in arbitration proceeding:- In every jurisdiction there is a competing and conflicting interest of maintaining the balance between excessive judicial intervention and necessary intervention of the court in the arbitration proceeding. However, the contemporary trend is that the court as much as possible should minimize their intervention in Arbitration proceeding.

In principle arbitration proceeding takes place without court intervention unless the law specified otherwise. Although arbitration is an independent proceeding, the Tribunal might need the assistance of the court during the process. The first and foremost role of the court is to oversee the enforceability of arbitration award. Enforcement of an arbitration award is only possible through the involvement of court as the Tribunal has no such power. Second, unlike court proceeding whereby the judges are appointed by the parliament, the arbitrators are chosen by the parties in arbitration proceeding. However, if one of the parties failed to choose, the court may choose the arbitrators.

Third, arbitration clause or submission is a contractual transaction and binding only on the contracting parties. This implies that the Tribunal doesn’t have a cohesive power over third party. Therefore, the Tribunal might need the assistance of the court to bring third party into the proceeding. Fourth, interim measures of the Tribunal will not be directly enforced and hence court intervention or assistance is required. And finally, the aggrieved party might appeal to the court for seating aside of the judgment.