Abstract
Abstract The right to self-determination is one of the human rights enshrined under the Ethiopian constitution. It is also one of the rights mentioned under ICCPR and ICESCR as well as the constitutions of different countries. Being unique to many other human rights instruments and constitutions in the world, the Ethiopian constitution includes the unconditional right to secession as a part of self-determination for every one of the ethnic groups (nations, nationalities, and people) in the country. As argued among many scholars, the inclusion of unconditional secession as a part of self-determination right in the Ethiopian constitution was based on the wrong narrative that nations, nationalities and people in the country were oppressed. Thus, it is a point of political debate between elites and became the major cause of widening the divergence among views of different political parties in the country. Of course, within the constitution, there are hurdles that can potentially deny exercising of this right. Therefore, this study qualitatively analyses the impracticability of secession and unacceptability of narratives to its inclusion in the constitution of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia.
Highlights
Ethiopia is one of the multi-ethnic polities in Africa
There is disagreement among politicians and scholars concerning the kind of oppression. Those who justify the inclusion of secession right argue that there were nation oppressions in which one ethnic group colonized and oppressed others; the constitutional recognition of self-determination that includes secession was perceived to be a solution
To claim independence, no one of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia had their own independent and internationally recognized state, and all of them do not fulfill those exceptional conditions in which sub-state groups can exercise the external self-determination right as discussed in part two of this paper
Summary
Ethiopia is one of the multi-ethnic polities in Africa. It has passed through different regimes in the last few centuries. The major justification that has been repeatedly raised by the framers of the constitution for the inclusion of a secession clause in the constitution was their view that there wasnation oppression‘ during former regimes (Merara 2003) They believe that one of the ethnic groups, (Amhara) has oppressed other ethnic groups so that including a secession clause in the constitution guarantees other ethnic groups that the state is not going back to ethnic oppression in the future (Abate, 2004). For both of the abovementioned liberation fronts left their old views aside and assimilated peaceful strugglers for democratization Another liberation front, the former member of a ruling coalition, TPLF (Tigrian Peoples Liberation Front) threatens the federal government to use this clause in the constitution to declare the independence of the people of Tigray if the federal government fail to reinstitute TPLF to its former hegemonic power position. The main objective of this paper is to critically examine the arguments for inclusion of the secession clause and constitutional constraints that can potentially obstruct exercising of the right to secession under the FDRE constitution
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
