INTERIM MEASURESUNDERETHIOPIAN ARBITRATIONLAW:ACOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

This thesis critically examines the legal and practical challenges surrounding court-granted interim measures under Ethiopian Arbitration, Conciliation, and Working Procedure Proclamation No.1237/2021. Although the Proclamation grants courts the authority to issue interim measures, it fails to specify which court has material jurisdiction to entertain such applications. This gap in the law has resulted in conflicting decisions both within and between the Federal First Instance Court and the Federal High Court. Furthermore, the absence of clearly defined legal standards and procedural conditions for granting and lifting interim measures has contributed to inconsistent and unpredictable judicial practices. These challenges undermine legal certainty, judicial predictability, and erode the effectiveness and credibility of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in Ethiopia. The study adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, supported by comparative legal analysis with the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the national arbitration laws of India, France, and Kenya. These jurisdictions were selected for their robust procedural clarity and adherence to international standards. The research relies on legal instruments and case analysis, supplemented by interviews with Ethiopian federal judges. Findings reveal that Ethiopia’s framework aligns in principle with international norms but suffers from vagueness and judicial inconsistency, particularly regarding jurisdictional authority and procedural safeguards for interim relief. In contrast, comparative jurisdictions provide defined conditions, timelines, and judicial roles, enhancing predictability and procedural fairness. The study underscores the need for legislative reform in Ethiopia to explicitly define court jurisdictions and set standardized criteria for granting and lifting interim measures. Aligning Ethiopian arbitration law with international best practices will foster consistency, enhance arbitral autonomy, and strengthen Ethiopia’s attractiveness as a venue for both domestic and international arbitration. The research contributes to scholarly discourse and offers practical guidance for policymakers, judges, and arbitration practitioners.