Talking
rule of law
|
Is it too much to ask for? |
Case in point: Ethiopia’s
defiance
|
|
Editorial: EritreaDaily.net |
|
24-Oct-03 |
|
|
|
We are talking about the rule of law at least as it is practiced in the court of law, local, regional, national, and international. That what we see, abide and live by in our daily societal life. That what maintains societal normalcy and makes our daily societal life possible. We are not talking about the rule of law as it stands in the books, but the rule of law as expressed by the verdict of a court of law rendered as an all last resolution of judicially disputed matters. And that by a court of law where the disputing parties themselves picked and chose the laws to adjudicate the matter; they picked and chose their own judges; established, agreed upon, and accepted a court procedure of their own choice; defined and agreed upon their own choice of the nature and fate of the verdict; understood and accepted that no legal verdict is going to satisfy both parties; agreed, committed themselves and signed, in the physical presence of int’l witnesses, to only accept and implement the verdict. Not only that, because of fear of noncompliance by either party, they also requested and were granted guarantee by the int’l community, notably USA, EU, UN, that the verdict, wherever the chips may fall, will be implemented even by use of force if necessary.
Case in point is Ethiopia’s outright defiance of a verdict rendered by such a court of law, which was established by Eritrea and Ethiopia as the sole and only legal authority to adjudicate their border dispute under the terms described above and in accordance with the Algiers Agreement (2000), which ended the two-year border war (1998-2000) that claimed some 100 000 thousand lives.
The Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) rendered its all last verdict in April of 2002. Eritrea accepted the verdict unequivocally. On the other hand, Ethiopia initially pretended to accept the verdict but then baulked for 18 moths until 19 Sep 2003 when in a letter to the UNSC it formally declared its outright defiance of the EEBC verdict and called for reversal in its favor under the threat of war if its demands were not met. The Security Council rejected Ethiopia’s letter of defiance and told Ethiopia to abide by the decision of the EEBC. But Ethiopia stood by its defiance, declared the EEBC and its decision null and void and is demanding a new border negotiation (Oct.16 2003) despite and in spite of the serious and severe consequences of its action as stipulated under the Algiers Agreement. By its latest reckless action, Ethiopia is not only defying the rule of law but also daring the int’l community that guaranteed the sanctity of the EEBC ruling to react in whatever way, so to speak.
There is nothing to mull over
here and we have no doubt that the int’l community will rise up to its
commitment and obligation under the Algiers Agreement. It cannot be about
what to do, that is non-issue because the remedy has already been provided by
the Agreement. It is rather about how to best accomplish that what is to be
done to maintain the guaranteed sanctity of the EEBC ruling. What is at stake
is not whether or not one party should prevail over the other but sanctity of
binding international agreements and rule of law, integrity of international
arbitrations as well as international law.
Let there be no mistake, no one is asking the int’l community to start launching Tomahawk missiles or to invade Ethiopia. The int’l community is called upon to stand by its commitment to guarantee the sanctity of the EEBC ruling and to bring Ethiopia into compliance however and by whatever is provided under chapter vii of UN charter. The int’l community has all the right to be creative in accomplishing that. Yes, creativity to make the border ruling of the EEBC politically palatable while maintaining its effect is a plausible way of preserving the rule of law. The rule of law is, at least as it is practiced in the court of law, what is maintaining societal equilibrium as we know it today; for absent rule of law, society would degenerate into the “rule of the jungle’, “might is right”, and anarchy. The lesson of the pertinent recent history is that, society refused to abandon the sanctity of the rule of law even in the face of highly controversial verdicts as in the case Bush vs. Gore, or Simpson vs. Brown. Both cases have clearly demonstrated that the rule of law cannot be renegotiated despite and in spite of apparently legitimate resistance by either party; it is either abandoned or its sanctity is maintained. And society opted for the latter. The rule of law does not constitute an impasse by any standard. To the contrary, the rule of law is a final and binding judiciary settlement of legally disputed matters. The legal obligation of law enforcement agency is just that: To enforce not to renegotiate the law. And the rule of law at least as it is practiced in the court of law is all what Eritrea is up to. Is that too much to ask for?
|