Eritrea-Ethiopia Arbitration: A ‘Cure’ Based on Neither Diagnosis nor Prognosis
The Eritrea-Ethiopia peace process remains stalled a decade after the arbitral award by the Boundary Commission and several years after awards by the Claims Commission. This article assesses why arbitration by the two
commissions did not produce the desired outcome. To this end, the author analyzes primary and secondary sources and argues that arbitration was not the right method of conflict resolution. Mayer’s multi-dimensional approach to conflict and conflict resolution informs the discussion that the conflict between the two countries has cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions. It is argued that arbitration as a settlement of dispute by purely legal means is ineffective to adequately address the multiple dimensions of the conflict. The author underscores that such conflicts can only be resolved by using a combination of different interventions. Specifically, while arbitration may be appropriate to deal with some essentially resource related matters, the resolution of emotional and cognitive dimensions of this conflict call for a multi-track approach in which different segments of the people from the two countries can play critical roles.
Key words: Conflict resolution, arbitration, border conflict, boundary commission, claims commission, multi-track, peace, Eritrea, Ethiopia.
a) Copyright of the content of the articles shall be retained by the author subject to the condition that it cannot be republished in another journal. The reproduction of the article as book chapter requires the acknowledgement of its prior publication in Mizan Law Review.
b) An author is entitled to deposit her/his published article in any Open Access repository subject to the condition that the format and layout shall not be changed. Depositing a post-publication version in any repository requires acknowledgement of the earlier version by indicating the Volume, Issue and page numbers of the version published in Mizan Law Review.
c) Articles published in Mizan Law Review are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)
a) Where the Editorial Team deems it necessary, the editors may remove precise reference to names of individuals in case comments.
b) The names and email addresses submitted to and published in Mizan Law Review shall not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Opinions expressed in articles, comments, case comments and sharing thoughts do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Team, or the publisher of the journal, i.e., Center for Law in Sustainable Development, St. Mary’s University.