Abstract:
Harmonized arbitration law is often justified on the grounds that it creates stability and
certainty in arbitration process and enabling parties to predict in advance the proper laws that
are likely to apply to their disputes. The United Nations General Assembly recommended
member states to give due consideration to the Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration and to harmonize their national arbitration legislation. Moreover, the 1958 New
York Convention provides uniform principles and standards which are used to safeguard the
enforcement of arbitration agreement and foreign arbitral awards. Accordingly pro-arbitration
countries‘ modernized their arbitration laws either adopting these soft and hard laws or
considering their own experiences. In order to cope with the emerging modern laws and
practices in international commercial arbitration recently Ethiopia repealed its arbitration laws
and enacted the new Ethiopian Arbitration law. Moreover, Ethiopian Parliament enacted
proclamation to ratify New York Convention. Despite these legal reforms, these laws still have
the gaps, inconsistency and differences under their salient areas. In this regard, the study
comparing these laws with international arbitration laws and experience tries to point out some
of the problems related with: formal requirement of arbitration agreement, the mode and
procedure of appointment of arbitrator(s), the issue of the immunity of arbitrator(s), the
procedures to conduct oral argument and apply for counter-claim action, recourses against
arbitral award, and also the exception to refuse the recognition and enforcement of arbitral
awards. Therefore, this thesis so as to rectify these problems using doctrinal research
methodology will taste compatibility of Ethiopian arbitration laws in comparison with
international arbitration laws and experiences and also will recommend the areas of the laws
that should be harmonized towards international arbitration laws and experiences.
