The implementation of the International Humanitarian Law (hereinafter referred to as IHL) mainly rests upon the effort of the state parties. International humanitarian law is currently accepted by every country in the world. Still, the absence of a comprehensive and meticulous mechanism to enforce the rules embodied in IHL is an Achilles’ heel fuelled by the very nature of IHL, which is meant to regulate the issues that arise out of armed conflict.

Failure to implement IHL is a central problem in contemporary armed conflict laws in general and Ethiopia in particular. However, it must be noted that difficulties regarding securing compliance are not unique to the law of armed conflict but also an issue in international law. This problem by large is related to the lack of a central enforceable organ that looks after the implementation of those laws.

Although the lack of a central enforceable organ is one of the central problems with the implementation of international law in general and IHL in particular, there are other inimitable reasons that are typically credited for the failure of IHL being observed. These are the very nature of armed conflict, the inapplicability, and inefficiency of the international mechanism of implementation. These typical features will be explained in the following pages.  

“Whoever ill-treats a citizen indirectly injures the State, which must protect that citizen.” Vattel, on ‘The Law of Nations’

The corpus of international law is the most controversial area of law opened for legal battles, when different actors interpret it to favor their interest while taking actions. This regime of law has faced criticism for not having enforcement mechanisms which can be consider as an area of law like a lion without having a teeth. Leaving this behind, this piece assess the US drone strike of Iranian commander which took place in 3 January 2020 in light of international law through doctrinal analysis of different sources.  

This ‘Briefing Notes’ have been prepared to serve as an introductory orientation and awareness raising material targeting members of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission as well as sections of the general public. It is intended to introduce the conception and recognition of human rights education in the international and national human rights systems and the activities of the Commission in this important area forming part of its core mandate. Alas, it was never used (the fault being totally and wholly mine). Hopefully, someone could make some use of it.

This post, which was originally part three of a larger report, seeks to assess the national response to child labour in Ethiopia in light of the international standards identified in the previous part of the report. The assessment principally focuses on the ratification of international instruments relevant to child labor and harmonization of legislation with their stipulations. Since Ethiopia does not yet have a comprehensive policy on child labour, the assessment does not directly cover issues that must be addressed through the policy framework.

As I write this term paper, stream of demonstrations across Ethiopia has continued owing to human rights violations. Human rights and social movements have constitutive relationship. An Ethiopian scholar of human rights focuses on policy outcomes and legal decisions. Scholarship that examines this link in Ethiopia is relatively slow to develop.

This material was initially prepared in 2010 as part of a background document for developing a national human rights report for Ethiopia. Its publication here is intended to serve as an input for individuals and groups interested in preparing a human rights monitoring report as well as informing discussion on the assessment of existing or future human rights monitoring reports. God willing, I hope to follow it up with a brief assessment on implementing access to justice in Ethiopia as per this framework.