English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Despite Ethiopia did not yet ratify ICSID convention, many of the bilateral treaties which Ethiopia is a party point to International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the problem is how Ethiopia could be coup up with the ICSID community and the ICSID system without the knowledge of the system itself. And what would be the problem if it becomes a member? What does the country lose if it is not a party while it gives consent to the jurisdiction of the center is not clearly articulated? Thus, as investment whether from domestic or foreign sources, is crucial for prosperity, development and robust economies, this writing will scrutinize the bilateral investment treaties signed by Ethiopia and assess the ISDS and arbitral institutions which Ethiopia has consented to resolving investment dispute that may arise between it as a host state and investors of another state, and thereby recommend an arbitral institution which is less evil from the evils.

Evaluating Investor-State Dispute System under Ethiopia’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Looking a Workable Roadmap