Current Trends in the use of International Instruments in Ethiopian Court Decisions: Potential Lessons for Comparative Constitutional Law

Comparative law in general and comparative constitutional law in particular is a thriving field of legal scholarship in many states. The basic idea of investigating and studying the norms and institutions of other societies has been used to draw good practices and lessons that can assist in resolving contemporary political, social and legal problems in a particular society. While it is true that the use of comparative law in domestic jurisdictions should be socially and culturally grounded, it has been instrumental for developing optimal normative standards in many states. This includes an increasing academic interest to understand the normative and institutional challenges of different polities in order to entrench constitutional democracy and enhance the protection of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, there is also a significant misconception and overstated criticism on the use of comparative law by many scholars. This is all the more evident when it comes to the legal practice in Ethiopia. In this article, I analyze the different arguments presented for and against the use of the comparative method, and argue that there is a continued relevance of comparative constitutional law in Ethiopian legal practice. The fledgling jurisprudence and growing reliance of Ethiopian courts on international human rights law in some of their cases is testament to the continued relevance of international and comparative law in Ethiopia.