Economic Crimes under Ethiopian Bilateral Investment Treaties and Arbitration Law

Abstract

 Besides multilateral instruments, states have started to conclude bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with provision expressly aimed at preventing economic crimes. On related subject, recently arbitration tribunals began to assume jurisdiction over all kinds of economic crime claims that arises in investors-state dispute settlement, except where the BITs provide otherwise. In the absence of explicit provision under BITs, the jurisdiction of tribunals’ delimited by the arbitrability of the economic crime claims under domestic laws. Therefore, the purpose of this article is, one, to examine whether Ethiopian BITs are incorporated provision aimed at preventing economic crimes. Two: to examine whether Ethiopian BITs are incorporated provision that limit tribunals’ jurisdiction over certain kinds of economic crime claims. Three: to examine the arbitrability of economic crime claims under Ethiopian arbitration law. To achieve the purpose, the article examined different Ethiopian BITs, Ethiopian arbitration law and other secondary materials. The article also examined other countries BITs that can serve to drive a lesson for Ethiopia. Accordingly, it comes to conclude that most Ethiopian BITs are not familiar with economic crime provision though the problem is too serious in the country. It also concludes that all kinds of economic crime claims are inarbitrable under Ethiopian arbitration law. Finally, it recommends, one, incorporating provision that aimed at preventing economic crimes, two, limiting the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals over certain kinds of economic crime claims for the public policy matter, three, making some economic crime claims arbitrable  since total inarbitrability is against new generation of arbitrability.