File #2635: "2019_Book_EthiopianYearbookOfInternation.pdf"
Text
1|Contents|6
1|Part I: Introduction|8
2|In Pursuit of Peace and Prosperity through International Law|9
3|1 Background|10
3|2 Highlights of the Contributions|10
4|2.1 Articles|10
4|2.2 Book Reviews|13
3|3 Current Decisions and Legal Instruments|13
3|4 Conclusion|14
1|Part II: Articles|15
2|Ten Years on: A Look at the Legacy of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission|16
3|1 Introduction|16
4|1.1 Brief Background to the Conflict|17
3|2 Overview of the Structure, Functions, and Procedure of the Claims Commission|19
3|3 The Legal and Practical Contributions of the Claims Commission|21
4|3.1 Legal Contributions|21
5|3.1.1 Jus ad Bellum Award|21
5|3.1.2 Progress and Development of IHL and Customary International Law|22
6|Advancing the Interpretation of IHL|23
6|Strengthening the Customary Status of IHL Norms|23
6|Establishing the Customary Status of IHL Norms|24
6|Identifying Lacunae in the Existing Framework|25
5|3.1.3 Evidentiary Standards|25
5|3.1.4 Treatment of the Question of Dual Nationality|28
4|3.2 Practical Contributions|30
5|3.2.1 Development of Mass-Claims Processing|30
5|3.2.2 Prototype for Future Commissions|32
3|4 Claims Versus Fact-Finding Commissions|34
3|5 Conclusion|37
3|References|37
3|Books|37
3|Chapters in Books|38
3|Journal Articles|38
3|UN Documents/Reports|39
3|Official Statements|39
2|Disputed Territories and the Law on the Use of Force: Lessons from the Eritrea-Ethiopia Case|40
3|1 Introduction|41
4|1.1 Factual Background: Who Started the War and Why?|42
4|1.2 Boundary and Territorial Questions Not the Only Cause of the War|45
3|2 Disputed Territories and the Law on the Use of Force|46
3|3 The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission´s Award on jus ad bellum|48
4|3.1 Legal Positions of the Parties|48
4|3.2 Main Findings of the Claims Commission|49
4|3.3 Jus ad bellum Rules Are Applicable to Territorial Disputes|53
4|3.4 The Administrative status quo Is Legally Protected Under jus ad bellum|55
4|3.5 Force Cannot Be Used to Reclaim Territory|57
4|3.6 A New Era of Peace and Cooperation on the Horizon|62
3|4 Lessons and Some Conclusions|63
3|References|64
2|Patenting Developing Countries´ Traditional Knowledge As New Invention: An Examination of the Teff Processing Patent Claim by ...|67
3|1 Introduction|67
3|2 Patent Rights Under International Law: A Brief Overview|69
3|3 The Teff Patent Claim from EU and Comparative Law and Practice Perspectives|71
4|3.1 The Case of Bio-Piracy on Teff Varieties and Traditional Knowledge|74
4|3.2 Enola Beans|74
4|3.3 Pozol|75
4|3.4 The European Patent Convention and Its Application on Teff´s Processing Patent|76
5|3.4.1 EPC Substantive Provisions|76
6|Novelty|77
6|Inventive Step|78
6|Industrial Application|79
4|3.5 Does the Teff Patent Right Meet the Requirements of Article 52-57 of the EPC?|79
5|3.5.1 Applying the Requirements to Teff Patent Right|79
5|3.5.2 USPTO Rejected the Teff Patent Application|83
5|3.5.3 EPC´s Procedural Provisions|84
4|3.6 Germany|85
4|3.7 United Kingdom|85
3|4 The Future for Teff Patent Right|86
3|5 Conclusions|90
3|References|91
2|International Water Cooperation in Europe: Lessons for the Nile Basin Countries?|94
3|1 Introduction|94
3|2 International Water Conflicts in the Nile Basin: History and Present Challenges|96
3|3 International Water Conflicts in Europe: The Example of the Rhine|98
4|3.1 International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)|99
4|3.2 The Chloride Arbitration|100
4|3.3 The Sandoz Chemical Spill|101
4|3.4 The 1987 Rhine Action Programme and the 1991 Master Plan ``Salmon 2000´´|102
3|4 Essential Features of International Water Law in Europe|104
4|4.1 The 1992 UNECE Water Convention|104
4|4.2 Substantive Features|106
4|4.3 Procedural Features|107
5|4.3.1 Information, Notification, Consultation and Negotiation|107
5|4.3.2 Institutionalised Cooperation: International River Commissions|108
3|5 The Normative Influence of EU Water Law|109
3|6 Conclusion: European Lessons for the Nile Basin Countries?|113
4|6.1 Shifting the Paradigm: From Coexistence to Cooperation|114
5|6.1.1 The Paradigm of Coexistence|114
5|6.1.2 The Paradigm of Cooperation|116
4|6.2 Changing the Focus: From Substantive to Procedural Regulations|117
4|6.3 Building Trust: International River Commissions and ``Epistemic Communities´´|118
3|References|119
2|Production Sharing Agreements in Africa: Sovereignty and Relationality|122
3|1 Introduction|122
3|2 State Options for Legal Arrangements in the Petroleum Sector|124
3|3 Oil and Gas Projects: The Dynamic Risk Matrix|127
3|4 Designing Petroleum Fiscal Arrangements|129
3|5 Complexifying Stabilisation: Building in Self-Adjustment|131
3|6 Complexifying Stabilisation: From Freezing to Economic Equilibrium|136
3|7 Relationality in PSAs|144
3|8 Conclusion: Towards Principles to Guide Renegotiations and the Arbitral Adaptation of Relational Contracts|146
3|References|148
2|Contract-Farming in Cocoa Value Chains in Africa: Possibilities and Challenges|151
3|1 Introduction|151
3|2 Overview of the Cocoa Industry|152
3|3 Overview of Contract-Farming|160
3|4 Contract-Farming of Cocoa in Africa: Studies and Businesses|164
4|4.1 Studies of Cocoa Contract-Farming|164
4|4.2 Chocolate Companies That Use Contract-Farming|167
3|5 Challenges and Prospects|170
4|5.1 Industry Sustainability Programmes Versus Higher Prices|170
4|5.2 Price|172
4|5.3 Gaps in Research and Knowledge|174
3|6 Conclusions|177
3|References|179
2|Africa Post-Brexit in EU Development Cooperation Policy and UK Trade Policy: Investing in New Relationships?|183
3|1 Introduction|183
3|2 From Rome Through Yaoundé and Lomé to Cotonou|186
3|3 Future EU Development Cooperation Policy|189
3|4 Future UK Trade Policy|195
3|5 Conclusions|201
3|References|204
2|The Obligation of Due Diligence and Cyber-Attacks: Bridging the Gap Between Universal and Differential Approaches for States|206
3|1 Introduction|206
3|2 The Obligation of Due Diligence in International Law|209
3|3 Applying the Due Diligence Obligation in Cyberspace|214
3|4 Decisive Elements in Cyber Diligence|216
4|4.1 Knowledge and Foreseeability|216
4|4.2 Assessing the Origin and Perpetrator of the Cyber-Attack: Duty to Investigate and Act Accordingly|217
4|4.3 Risk of Significant Transboundary Harm|219
4|4.4 Contradiction with the Rights of Another State|220
3|5 Cyber Diligence: Obligation of Result or Conduct|221
4|5.1 Obligation of Result|222
4|5.2 Obligation of Conduct|223
4|5.3 State Capacity|224
3|6 Cyber Diligence and Transit States|227
3|7 The Need to Strengthen Relevant Existing Endeavours and Rules Surrounding the Due Diligence Obligation in Cyberspace|229
4|7.1 Ensuring the Adoption and Implementation of Concrete Legislative and Administrative Measures on Cyber-Attacks by States|230
4|7.2 Seeking International Cooperation and Assistance Based on the Principle of Good Neighbourliness|233
4|7.3 Obligation to Monitor|234
3|8 Conclusion|236
3|References|237
1|Part III: Book Review|244
2|L. Chenwi and T. Soboka Bulta (eds.): Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations from an African Perspective|245
3|References|251
2|James Nyawo: Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law: The International Criminal Court and Africa|252
1|Part IV: UN and Other Bilateral Documents|258
2|Peace Agreements Between Ethiopia and Eritrea: Ending Two Decades of Hostilities-An Introductory Note|259
3|1 Introduction|259
3|2 Background|260
3|3 Highlights of the Two Agreements|261
3|4 Regional Significance|262
3|5 Conclusion|262
3|Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Process: Recent Agreements and Joint Statements|263
3|Agreement on Peace, Friendship and Comprehensive Cooperation Between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State...|264
3|Jeddah Joint Statement, 16 September 2018 (Source: http://addisstandard.com/full-text-of-the-ethio-eritrea-agreement-signed-in...|265
3|References|266
2|Commentary: UN Security Council Resolution 2444 (2018) and the Lifting of Sanctions Against Eritrea: A Commentary on Domestic ...|267
3|1 The Background and Nature of the Sanctions|267
3|2 National and Regional Implications|269
3|3 Effects of the Targeted Sanctions|270
3|4 Key Elements of Resolution 2444 (2018)|270
3|Resolution 2444 (2018)|272
4|Adopted by the Security Council at Its 8398th Meeting, on 14 November 2018|272
4|Lifting of Arms Embargoes, Travel Bans, Asset Freezes and Targeted Sanctions on Eritrea|275
4|Committee|275
4|Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group|276
4|Panel of Experts on Somalia|276
4|Somalia Arms Embargo|276
4|Threats to Peace and Security in Somalia|279
4|Somalia Charcoal Ban|280
4|Humanitarian Access in Somalia|281
4|Targeted Sanctions in Somalia|281
4|Reporting|282
3|References|282
1|Part I: Introduction|8
2|In Pursuit of Peace and Prosperity through International Law|9
3|1 Background|10
3|2 Highlights of the Contributions|10
4|2.1 Articles|10
4|2.2 Book Reviews|13
3|3 Current Decisions and Legal Instruments|13
3|4 Conclusion|14
1|Part II: Articles|15
2|Ten Years on: A Look at the Legacy of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission|16
3|1 Introduction|16
4|1.1 Brief Background to the Conflict|17
3|2 Overview of the Structure, Functions, and Procedure of the Claims Commission|19
3|3 The Legal and Practical Contributions of the Claims Commission|21
4|3.1 Legal Contributions|21
5|3.1.1 Jus ad Bellum Award|21
5|3.1.2 Progress and Development of IHL and Customary International Law|22
6|Advancing the Interpretation of IHL|23
6|Strengthening the Customary Status of IHL Norms|23
6|Establishing the Customary Status of IHL Norms|24
6|Identifying Lacunae in the Existing Framework|25
5|3.1.3 Evidentiary Standards|25
5|3.1.4 Treatment of the Question of Dual Nationality|28
4|3.2 Practical Contributions|30
5|3.2.1 Development of Mass-Claims Processing|30
5|3.2.2 Prototype for Future Commissions|32
3|4 Claims Versus Fact-Finding Commissions|34
3|5 Conclusion|37
3|References|37
3|Books|37
3|Chapters in Books|38
3|Journal Articles|38
3|UN Documents/Reports|39
3|Official Statements|39
2|Disputed Territories and the Law on the Use of Force: Lessons from the Eritrea-Ethiopia Case|40
3|1 Introduction|41
4|1.1 Factual Background: Who Started the War and Why?|42
4|1.2 Boundary and Territorial Questions Not the Only Cause of the War|45
3|2 Disputed Territories and the Law on the Use of Force|46
3|3 The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission´s Award on jus ad bellum|48
4|3.1 Legal Positions of the Parties|48
4|3.2 Main Findings of the Claims Commission|49
4|3.3 Jus ad bellum Rules Are Applicable to Territorial Disputes|53
4|3.4 The Administrative status quo Is Legally Protected Under jus ad bellum|55
4|3.5 Force Cannot Be Used to Reclaim Territory|57
4|3.6 A New Era of Peace and Cooperation on the Horizon|62
3|4 Lessons and Some Conclusions|63
3|References|64
2|Patenting Developing Countries´ Traditional Knowledge As New Invention: An Examination of the Teff Processing Patent Claim by ...|67
3|1 Introduction|67
3|2 Patent Rights Under International Law: A Brief Overview|69
3|3 The Teff Patent Claim from EU and Comparative Law and Practice Perspectives|71
4|3.1 The Case of Bio-Piracy on Teff Varieties and Traditional Knowledge|74
4|3.2 Enola Beans|74
4|3.3 Pozol|75
4|3.4 The European Patent Convention and Its Application on Teff´s Processing Patent|76
5|3.4.1 EPC Substantive Provisions|76
6|Novelty|77
6|Inventive Step|78
6|Industrial Application|79
4|3.5 Does the Teff Patent Right Meet the Requirements of Article 52-57 of the EPC?|79
5|3.5.1 Applying the Requirements to Teff Patent Right|79
5|3.5.2 USPTO Rejected the Teff Patent Application|83
5|3.5.3 EPC´s Procedural Provisions|84
4|3.6 Germany|85
4|3.7 United Kingdom|85
3|4 The Future for Teff Patent Right|86
3|5 Conclusions|90
3|References|91
2|International Water Cooperation in Europe: Lessons for the Nile Basin Countries?|94
3|1 Introduction|94
3|2 International Water Conflicts in the Nile Basin: History and Present Challenges|96
3|3 International Water Conflicts in Europe: The Example of the Rhine|98
4|3.1 International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)|99
4|3.2 The Chloride Arbitration|100
4|3.3 The Sandoz Chemical Spill|101
4|3.4 The 1987 Rhine Action Programme and the 1991 Master Plan ``Salmon 2000´´|102
3|4 Essential Features of International Water Law in Europe|104
4|4.1 The 1992 UNECE Water Convention|104
4|4.2 Substantive Features|106
4|4.3 Procedural Features|107
5|4.3.1 Information, Notification, Consultation and Negotiation|107
5|4.3.2 Institutionalised Cooperation: International River Commissions|108
3|5 The Normative Influence of EU Water Law|109
3|6 Conclusion: European Lessons for the Nile Basin Countries?|113
4|6.1 Shifting the Paradigm: From Coexistence to Cooperation|114
5|6.1.1 The Paradigm of Coexistence|114
5|6.1.2 The Paradigm of Cooperation|116
4|6.2 Changing the Focus: From Substantive to Procedural Regulations|117
4|6.3 Building Trust: International River Commissions and ``Epistemic Communities´´|118
3|References|119
2|Production Sharing Agreements in Africa: Sovereignty and Relationality|122
3|1 Introduction|122
3|2 State Options for Legal Arrangements in the Petroleum Sector|124
3|3 Oil and Gas Projects: The Dynamic Risk Matrix|127
3|4 Designing Petroleum Fiscal Arrangements|129
3|5 Complexifying Stabilisation: Building in Self-Adjustment|131
3|6 Complexifying Stabilisation: From Freezing to Economic Equilibrium|136
3|7 Relationality in PSAs|144
3|8 Conclusion: Towards Principles to Guide Renegotiations and the Arbitral Adaptation of Relational Contracts|146
3|References|148
2|Contract-Farming in Cocoa Value Chains in Africa: Possibilities and Challenges|151
3|1 Introduction|151
3|2 Overview of the Cocoa Industry|152
3|3 Overview of Contract-Farming|160
3|4 Contract-Farming of Cocoa in Africa: Studies and Businesses|164
4|4.1 Studies of Cocoa Contract-Farming|164
4|4.2 Chocolate Companies That Use Contract-Farming|167
3|5 Challenges and Prospects|170
4|5.1 Industry Sustainability Programmes Versus Higher Prices|170
4|5.2 Price|172
4|5.3 Gaps in Research and Knowledge|174
3|6 Conclusions|177
3|References|179
2|Africa Post-Brexit in EU Development Cooperation Policy and UK Trade Policy: Investing in New Relationships?|183
3|1 Introduction|183
3|2 From Rome Through Yaoundé and Lomé to Cotonou|186
3|3 Future EU Development Cooperation Policy|189
3|4 Future UK Trade Policy|195
3|5 Conclusions|201
3|References|204
2|The Obligation of Due Diligence and Cyber-Attacks: Bridging the Gap Between Universal and Differential Approaches for States|206
3|1 Introduction|206
3|2 The Obligation of Due Diligence in International Law|209
3|3 Applying the Due Diligence Obligation in Cyberspace|214
3|4 Decisive Elements in Cyber Diligence|216
4|4.1 Knowledge and Foreseeability|216
4|4.2 Assessing the Origin and Perpetrator of the Cyber-Attack: Duty to Investigate and Act Accordingly|217
4|4.3 Risk of Significant Transboundary Harm|219
4|4.4 Contradiction with the Rights of Another State|220
3|5 Cyber Diligence: Obligation of Result or Conduct|221
4|5.1 Obligation of Result|222
4|5.2 Obligation of Conduct|223
4|5.3 State Capacity|224
3|6 Cyber Diligence and Transit States|227
3|7 The Need to Strengthen Relevant Existing Endeavours and Rules Surrounding the Due Diligence Obligation in Cyberspace|229
4|7.1 Ensuring the Adoption and Implementation of Concrete Legislative and Administrative Measures on Cyber-Attacks by States|230
4|7.2 Seeking International Cooperation and Assistance Based on the Principle of Good Neighbourliness|233
4|7.3 Obligation to Monitor|234
3|8 Conclusion|236
3|References|237
1|Part III: Book Review|244
2|L. Chenwi and T. Soboka Bulta (eds.): Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations from an African Perspective|245
3|References|251
2|James Nyawo: Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law: The International Criminal Court and Africa|252
1|Part IV: UN and Other Bilateral Documents|258
2|Peace Agreements Between Ethiopia and Eritrea: Ending Two Decades of Hostilities-An Introductory Note|259
3|1 Introduction|259
3|2 Background|260
3|3 Highlights of the Two Agreements|261
3|4 Regional Significance|262
3|5 Conclusion|262
3|Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Process: Recent Agreements and Joint Statements|263
3|Agreement on Peace, Friendship and Comprehensive Cooperation Between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State...|264
3|Jeddah Joint Statement, 16 September 2018 (Source: http://addisstandard.com/full-text-of-the-ethio-eritrea-agreement-signed-in...|265
3|References|266
2|Commentary: UN Security Council Resolution 2444 (2018) and the Lifting of Sanctions Against Eritrea: A Commentary on Domestic ...|267
3|1 The Background and Nature of the Sanctions|267
3|2 National and Regional Implications|269
3|3 Effects of the Targeted Sanctions|270
3|4 Key Elements of Resolution 2444 (2018)|270
3|Resolution 2444 (2018)|272
4|Adopted by the Security Council at Its 8398th Meeting, on 14 November 2018|272
4|Lifting of Arms Embargoes, Travel Bans, Asset Freezes and Targeted Sanctions on Eritrea|275
4|Committee|275
4|Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group|276
4|Panel of Experts on Somalia|276
4|Somalia Arms Embargo|276
4|Threats to Peace and Security in Somalia|279
4|Somalia Charcoal Ban|280
4|Humanitarian Access in Somalia|281
4|Targeted Sanctions in Somalia|281
4|Reporting|282
3|References|282