Introduction

It has been more than thirteen years since the International Criminal Court was established and started its operation on most serious crimes of international concern, namely Genocide, crime against humanity, crimes of war and aggression. The Court was established by virtue of the Rome statute as a permanent international criminal tribunal independent from other United Nations bodies. To date, all cases that have been investigated by ICC are from Africa, specifically on Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Libya, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire. African countries generally have cooperated in the early stages of the establishment of ICC.

Nowadays, however, it seems that the relationship between ICC and Africa is turning into a growing trend of contention. It has been a point of discussion in the academia and in the international politics as to whether the court is indeed exclusively targeting Africa regardless of their contribution and cooperation for its creation and advancement. Some commentators also argued that it is “a mechanism of neo- colonialist policy” or “post-colonial court”, especially after the issuance of arrest warrant against the current president of Sudan- Al Bashir. The former chairperson of the AU Commission, Jean Ping, expressed his displeasure on the relationship between the court and some countries in the continent as it is “unfair that all those situations referred to the ICC so far were African”, and “it seems that Africa has become a laboratory to test the new international law.” Similarly, the Benin president in 2009, the Rwandan president and the Ethiopian prime minister in 2013 have portrayed their dissatisfaction on the functioning of the court as a new form of imperialism that seeks to undermine powerless states in terms of politics and economic development. The AU has also expressed its dissatisfaction by rejecting a request to open an ICC liaison office at the head quarter of the AU, Addis Ababa.

As a result, in 2008 the AU in its 11^th ordinary summit at Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt adopted a protocol on the establishment of African Court of Justice and Human Right (ACJHR). At the time of publication five countries, namely Libya, Mali, Burkina Faso, Congo and Benin have signed the protocol. After six years, on October 2014 the AU has adopted a draft protocol on the statute of the ACJHR which specifically extends immunity to heads of governments, states and other officials before the court.  While the document is still important particularly in creating regional systems for pursuing international criminal justice, it still poses a great risk on the integrity of the African court and ensuring justice for victims of serious crimes under international law. The immunity exemption clause has been criticized as it contradicts with the AU’s human rights law regime and Article 4(h) of its constitutive act which calls for intervention in case of gross human right violation.

የዛሬው ጽሑፍ የሚያጠነጥነው በወንጀል ሕግ ዙሪያ ነው፡፡ የወንጀል ሕግና የኅብረተሰቡ የሞራል አስተሳሰብ የጠበቀ ቁርኝት አላቸው፡፡ በአብዛኛው በኅብረተሰቡ እንደ ኃጢያት ወይም ነውር የሚቆጠሩ ድርጊቶች በወንጀል ሕግም የሚያስጠይቁ ናቸው፡፡ አመንዝራነት፣ ስርቆት፣ ስድብ፣ ግብረሰዶም ወዘተ. ኃጢያት ወይም ነው ብቻ ሳይሆኑ ወንጀልም ተደርገው በወንጀል ሕጉ እንደሚያስቀጡ ተመልክቶ እናገኛለን፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ ኃጢያት ወይም ነውር የሆነ ድርጊት ሁሉ ግን ወንጀል ላይሆን ይችላል፡፡ ዝሙት አዳሪነት ለዓብነት ብንመለከት ድርጊቱ ኃጢያት ወይም ነውር መሆኑ ባያጠያይቅም፣ በወንጀል ሕጋችን በመርህ ደረጃ የወንጀል ኃላፊነት የማያስከትል ድርጊት ሆኖ እናገኘዋለን፡፡

የወንጀልና የኃጢአት ግንኙነት ስፋት እንደ ኅብረተሰቡ የሞራል አስተሳሰብ የሚለያይ ስለሚሆን በሁሉም ዘንድ ተመሳሳይ መግባባት ላይኖር ይችላል፡፡ እ.ኤ.አ. በ1957 በእንግሊዝ ሕግ ግብረ ሰዶም ሊኖረው የሚገባውን ቦታ በተመለከተ በጊዜው የቀረበው ሪፖርት (The Wolfeden Report) ሕግ የኅብረተሰቡን የሞራል አስተሳሰብ የማስከበር ወሰኑን በተመለከተ አከራካሪ ጽንሰ ሐሳቦችን አንስቷል፡፡ በዘመናት የሕግና የሞራል ግንኙነት የሚታዩበት ሁኔታ እየሰፋ ቢመጣም፣ በጊዜው በሪፖርቱ ተነስተው ሙግት የተደረገባቸው ግራና ቀኝ አስተሳሰቦች አሁንም አከራካሪነታቸውን አልለቀቁም፡፡ በሪፖርቱ እንደተገለጸው የሕግ ዓላማ የሕዝብን ሥርዓትና መልካም ሥነ ምግባር በማስጠበቅ ዜጎቹን ከሚጎዳ ነገር፣ ከብልግና እንዲሁም ከጥቃት መከላከል መሆኑ ተሰምሮበታል፡፡ ሆኖም ‹‹ሕጉ ይህንን ዓላማውን በማስፈጸም ሰበብ በግለሰቦች ግላዊ ሕይወት ጣልቃ በመግባት ወንጀልና ኃጢአት አንድ እስኪሆኑ ድረስ በሞራል አስተሳሰብ ላይ አቋም መውሰድ የለበትም፤›› ይላል ሪፖርቱ፡፡ ይህን መሠረት በማድረግ ሪፖርት አቅራቢው በእንግሊዝ ሕግ ግብረ ሰዶም በአደባባይ ሲፈጸም እንጂ በፈቃድ በግል ሕይወት (In private) ሲፈጸም እንደዝሙት አዳሪነት ሁሉ ወንጀል ሊሆን አይገባም የሚል ሐሳብ አቅርበዋል፡፡

ሪፖርቱን በመቃወም ሕግ የኅብረተሰብን ሞራል ሊያስከብር የሚገባበትን ሁኔታ ሰር ፓትሪክ ዴቭሊን በዝርዝር አቅርበዋል፡፡ እንደእርሳቸው አመለካከት፣ ኅብረተሰብ ሕግን እንደ መሣሪያ በመጠቀም የዜጎቹን ድርጊት መልካም ወይም ጎጂ በማለት የመፈረጅ ሥልጣን አለው፡፡ መንገደኛ ሰው (Reasonable man) ሥነ ምግባርን በተመለከተ የሚሰጠው አስተያየት ኅብረተሰቡን የሚወክልና ሕጉ ጥበቃ ሊሰጠው የሚገባ ስለመሆኑ ምሁሩ ይገልጻሉ፡፡ በዴቭሊን አስተሳሰብ

ፍጹም ይፍራሸዋ ለሰጠኀኝ አስተያየት እና ለላክልኝ ጽሁፍ አመሰግናለሁ፡፡ በጽሁፋ ላይ ለማንሳት የወደድኩት የንግድ ምልክት በኢትዮጵያ ህጎች ደረጃ ቀለል ባለ ሁኔታ ግንዛቤ ለማስጨበጥ ያህል ነው፡፡ በሌላው ጸሃፊ የተጻፈውንና አንተም የላክልኝን በዚሁ ድረ-ገጽ ላይ ስለ ንግድ ምልክት የተጻፈውን ጽሁፍ ለማየት ሞክሬያለሁ፡፡ ጸሃፊው በንድግ ምልክቶች ላይ የጻፈው ጽሁፍ ጠቃሚና ስለንግድ ምልክቶች ለማወቅ የሚረዳ መሆኑን ለማስገንዘብም እወዳለሁ፡፡ ይህም በጽ/ቤቱ በስራ ባሳለፍኩባቸው ግዝያቶች አጠቃላይ ከሚታዩ ሁኔታዎች ይልቅ በአሰራርና ህጉን በተገቢው መንገድ በኢንተርናሽናል ደረጃና ከህጉ አላማ አንጻር መሬት ላይ ለማውረድ ችግር ወደፈጠሩት ሁኔታዎች ትኩረት ሰጥቸ እንድጽፍ አነሳስቶኛል፡፡ሆኖም ግን በጽሁፉ ላይ መስተካከል ይገባቸዋል የምላቸውን ነገሮች ከዚህ በታች እንደሚከተለው ለማቅረብ እወዳለሁ፡፡

የንግድ ምልክት ማለት የአንድ ምርት ወይም አገልግሎት መይም ምንጭ(Origin) በማስመዝገብ እንደ ብቸኛ መለያ(Exclusive sign) ተወስዶ ሰዎች አንድን ምርት መይም አገልግሎት ከሌላው ምርት ለመለየት የሚያገለግል ምልክት ሆኖ ማሳከር(Confusion) የማስወገድ አላማ ያለው ነው፡፡ ተብሎ በጸሃፊው በተቀመጠው ላይ ከዚህ በታች ያሉት ማስተካከያዎች መግባት እንዳለባቸው አምናለሁ፡፡

በመጀመሪያ “የንግድ ምልክት ማለት የአንድ ምርት ወይም አገልግሎት መይም ምንጭ(Origin) በማስመዝገብ……” ተብሎ የተጠቀሰው በንግድ ምልክት ምዝገባና ጥበቃ አዋጅ 501/1998 አንቀጽ 6(ሸ) ላይ በተጠቀሰው መሰረት የአንድን ምርት ወይም አገልግሎት የመነጨበትን ቦታ በንግድ ምልክቱ የቀረበ እንደሆነ የንግድ ምልክቱ ለምዝገባ ብቁ እንደማይሆንና ይህም ሁኔታ በዚሁ አዋጅ በአንቀጽ 6(2) መሰረትም ስናየው በምንም አይነት መልኩ በአንቀጽ 6(ሸ) ላይ የተቀመጠው የህግ አግባብ exception እንደሌለውም በግልጽ ሲያሳይ ይታያል፡፡ የአንድን ምርት ወይም አገልግሎት የመነጨበትን ቦታ በምልክትነት ማስመዝገብ የሚቻለው በንግድ ምልክት ሳይሆን በወል የንግድ ምልክት እንደሆነና በሁለቱ መሃከልም ብዙ ልዩነት እንዳለ ማጤኑም ተገቢ ይሆናል ብየ አስባለሁ፡፡

በሁለተኛነት “እንደ ብቸኛ መለያ (Exclusive sign) ተወስዶ ሰዎች አንድን ምርት መይም አገልግሎት ከሌላው ምርት ለመለየት የሚያገለግል ምልክት ሆኖ…” የሚለው አገላለጽ ጠቦ መተርጎም ብቻ ሳይሆን መስተካከልም አለበት ብየ አምናለሁ፡፡ ይህንንም ለማለት የፈለኩት አንድ የንግድ ምልክት ከሌሎች ምርቶች ወይም አገልግሎቶች ሳይሆን ሌሎቹ ንግድ ምልክቶቹ ካልተመዘገቡ አንድ አይነት ወይም ተመሳሳይ ከሆኑ የንግድ ምልክቶች የተለየ እንዲሆን የሚጠበቅበት ሲሆን  በሌላ መንገድ ደግሞ ሌሎቹ የንግድ ምልቶች ከተመዘገቡ እንደሆነ ደግሞ  አንድ አይነት ወይም ተመሳሳይ ከሆኑ ምርቶቻቸው ወይም አገልግሎቶቻቸው በተጨማሪ በዕቃወቹ ወይም አገልግሎቶቹ መካከል ግንኙነት እንዳለ በማያሳይ መልኩ መቅረብ እነዳለበት እንጂ በአጠቃላይ ከሌላው ምርት ጋር መለየት አለበት ተብሎ መቀመጥ እንደሌለበት መታወቅ አለበት ፡፡

በሌላው የጸሃፊው የጽሁፍ አካል ውስጥ “የንግድ ምልክት ህጋዊነት የሚመሰረተው ወይም ጥበቃ የሚያገኘው በምዝገባ እንደሆነ በአዋጁ አንቀጽ 4፣5፣15 እና 16 መረዳት የሚቻል ሲሆን……” ተብሎ የተገለጸው ውስጥ ከዚህ በታች በተገለጸው መልክ መታረም አለበት እላለሁ፡፡

1          Introduction

The attorney-client professional relationship is protected by law in every legal system. The protection conferred to professional privilege serves different purposes. From the human rights protection point of view, confidentiality of information obtained in the course of legal advice or legal proceedings promotes the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy and the right not to incriminate oneself. It protects citizens from arbitrary encroachment of their rights by investigatory authorities.

Depending on the legal systems adopted by various countries, the scope and the nature of the protections afforded to the attorney-client professional privilege and confidentiality of communication vary.

On the other hand, with the increase of organised and transnational crimes, such as terrorism and money laundering, there is a tendency to restrict the protection granted to the classic lawyer-client legal professional privilege. 

Accordingly, the threats posed by money laundering and the financing of terrorism to peace, security, the well-being and economic development of the international community call upon the international community to revise the protection of the principle of legal professional privilege and confidentiality. Particularly, the danger posed by money laundering to the financial system integrity and the world economic development and its significant linkage with the financing of terrorism further justifies putting a limitation on the applicability of legal professional privilege and confidentiality. In this regard, the FATF Recommendations encourage countries in combating ML/TF, to take measures that require lawyers and other independent legal professionals to report suspicious transactions to the appropriate regulatory organs in certain fields of transactions.   Further, the countries’ secrecy law should not be an obstacle to the effective implementation of the FATF Recommendations.

1.  Introduction

Distinct from conventional crimes, “organized crime” involves the commission of series crimes by criminal groups. The offences range from the traditional piracy and slave trade to the present day cybercrime and nuclear smuggling. The Italian Mafia, the Chinese Triads, the Colombian drug cartels, the Japan Yakuza and the Nigerian Criminal Groupsare examples of organized criminal groups.

Organized criminal groups are booming dramatically throughout the world. Just looking at the known Mafias, there was an increase from 785 in 1990 to 8 000 in 1996. Besides, the escalation in figure, the problem gets worse, as organized crime causes massive damage compared to ordinary crimes. For instance the damage cause by organized crime in a year is estimated 13 to 19 billion $ USD for Australia, while, it reached 42.2 billion$ USD for Canada. 

Noticing the problem, international as well as national initiatives are projected to combat organized crime. On top of other things, the fight against organized crime necessitates clear definition. This is crucial, as practitioners as well as academicians need to have a clear understanding of the concept in order to analyse and tackle the problem effectively.

This paper will discuss the concept of “organized crime” as defined under international and national laws. Moreover it will look at the structure, operation, aims and victims of organized crime. It also critically analyses the present definition of “organized crime”. Last but not least, based on the discussion and critics, it will suggest solutions on how to define “organized crime”.

Codification was predominantly regarded as a radical reform in form and substance and ‘reform’ is one of the core features of continental European codification that Weiss has identified. The element of ‘reform’ is concerned with whether or not codification changes the form and substance of existing laws. By examining the five historical codifications, Weiss demonstrates that codification is always a combination of change in form and change in substance.

Courts; as one and perhaps as the most tasks of their purposes and responsibilities, engage in rendering a fair and equitable decision among parties in law suit. Decisions of a court can either be criminal or civil nature. If the case brought before the court involves criminal nature, the court will give decision by adhering to the rules and procedure provided under criminal law and criminal procedure respectively. Police or prison administration is an organ entrusted with enforcing court’s decision.

Codification has often been the means of realizing unification within a particular country and Weiss identified national legal unification as a core feature of continental European codification. Codification often served to attain legal and political unity with previously heterogeneous legal sources. This was particularly true in the nineteenth century, when codification became linked to the emergence of modem nation-states.

A principal-agent relationship is like a tripartite contract where the agent enters into any legal transaction on behalf of the principal. Art 2199 of the Civil Code defines agency as “a contract whereby a person, the agent, agrees with another person, the principal, to represent him and perform on his behalf one or several legally binding acts.” Such an authority can be conferred by court or by agreement of the parties.

If it is given by agreement of the parties, it can be either implied or express. The agent is expected to act in strictest good faith and diligently. He must avoid collusion with the third party to avoid conflict of interest. Art 2187(1) orders the cancellation of the agency contract if there is conflict of interest. The agent is accountable to the principal and must confine his/her acts with the scope of authority conferred. Art 2202(1) says that if the scope of the agency is not expressly known, it has to be fixed according to the nature of the transaction.

The scope of agency can be general (Art 2203 in conjunction with 2204) or special agency (Art 2205). An agent cannot sign bill of exchange, effect a settlement, invest capitals, alienate or mortgage real estate, make donations, bring/defend actions or sign arbitration agreement without special authority given to him/her.

For the services offered, the agent is entitled to contractual remuneration. Nevertheless, if remuneration is not stipulated in the contract, “the agent shall not be entitled to remuneration unless he carried out the agency within the scope of his professional duties or where such remuneration is customary” (Art 2220(1)).   

Needless to emphasize, the relation between the agent and the third party is based on the original contract between the principal and the agent. The main theme of this essay is not to talk about the agent-third party relation, but the principal-agent contractual agreement. It is unlikely that the principal-agent agreement will be signed without remuneration. Consequently, if the principal and the agent disagree on any matter, they can resolve their dispute by court litigation or arbitration.

SIMPLICITY

Simplicity is the last core feature of continental European codification that Weiss has identified. While the element of a gap-less code was addressed to the judiciary, and the systematic element spoke to legal scholars, the element of simplicity is referred to the citizen. Simplicity does not refer only to the technicality of drafting laws.