Particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the threat of terrorism, however, defined, has been invoked as a common 'justification' in the pursuit of remodelling policies, laws, and institutions, both at the international and in the domestic politico-legal showground. The broader central theme that this book explores is the normative vibe under which the present-day counterterrorism discourse is construed and sculpted in the legislative and institutional structures of an authoritarian state where the political power and government institutions are functioning under a single-party-monopolised system. Presenting the Ethiopian legislative and institutional frameworks as a case study, the book critically reflects on the extent that the international legal and/or institutional counterterrorism response is sensitised in a manner lessening the risk of conflating authoritarian regime's unbearable reactions to citizens' legitimate demands and resistances against its repression vis-àvis that of its response to the common threat of international terrorism. In particular, the book ponders whether or not the range of the substantive and procedural aspects of the Ethiopian antiterrorism legislative and institutional frameworks are wrought to fit into the main objectives and standards that emanate from the pertinent international laws relating to terrorism and the international human rights law as well as the domestic constitutional law maxims.

Auteur

Shimels S. Belete is a co-founder and serves as a volunteer human rights law expert for the international human rights NGO called Human Rights Matter (HRM); based in Berlin. He also teaches as assistant lecturer on a part-time at Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder). Until 2014, he was Dean of the School of Law, Head of the Legal Aid Centre, and Lecturer in Laws at Wollo University, Ethiopia