Blog

“I cannot believe this is really happening”. This statement of a young woman in tears in one of Kyv’s subway stations on Thursday reflects the reactions of thousands of people across Europe watching Russia’s attack on Ukraine unfolding.

For European leaders, the initial shock should quickly lead to consequences in their foreign and security policy. More is under threat than the peace order established after the Cold War. Given its contemporary context, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine challenges the rules-based international order established after World War II. 

Russia’s action is the preliminary climax of the attack on international law and the unwillingness of governments to uphold it observed for the past years. The challenges to international law became more frequent and more profound since 9/11 and they came from all regions of the world. Human rights and humanitarian law were the primary target in the context of counterterrorism, but disarmament, law of the sea and environmental law have been challenged as well. States targeted the application of norms on their behavior claiming overriding principles, the power of interpretation of norms by international institutions and the binding force of their own past behavior. This cannot be addressed by just repeating the doctrinal position of Western states on international law that they did not respect themselves on several occasions. 

Interestingly, President Putin referred to Art. 51 of the UN Charter when announcing his attack on Ukraine. Thus, he did not want to leave the foundation of international law. Instead, he claims for himself to have the right and the power to interpret the definition of armed attack and the right to pre-emptive self-defense in a particular way and apply it to his action as a norm. This is the real challenge of this situation as more and more players claim the same. Governments and people around the world watch carefully, whether the reaction of the EU and the USA meets the standards of international law. Or will they again be put into perspective vis-à-vis overriding interests? Will the principles they claim to uphold in the end prevent an effective response further discrediting international law as utopian?

So far, economic and security interests, protected by the formal requirements for the application of Art. 5 of the NATO treaty, are overriding human rights and protection needs of the people of Ukraine. This will put Western States into a defensive legal and moral position in the future yet again. In their argument, the EU and the USA are mainly referring to security agreements that Putin identified as the unbalanced regional order created after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its perceived deception over NATO enlargement. 

When promoting a rules-based foreign and security policy, the EU needs to realize the limits of international law to define what is right or wrong. International law is created in a decentralized way based on the consent of sovereign states. It can create limitations to state behavior based on the binding power of agreed rules. However, in the absence of enforcement mechanisms, international law cannot decide on the legal quality of a change of state behavior. The sources of international law – treaties, custom, general principles – are the result, not the origin of the norm-action balance. Therefore, in disputes about the application of certain international norms on a given situation, international courts normally refer to tacit consent expressed in past behavior and, thus, leave the real conflict untouched. 

States tend to submit to this interpretation if they consider the consequences of violating trust and confidence of others regarding their respect of rules superior to their political interests. The US and Europe were used to states submitting to their interpretation of human rights and other norms due to their economic and military power and the resulting ability to cause damage to governments violating these rules. Similarly, departure from norms and related past behavior became possible for China due to its economic power. The Russian invasion of Ukraine added a new and, at the same time, very old possibility: military force. Because the EU considered its influence on the respect of international rules by others sufficiently secured by its economic strength and the progressive abolition of nation states, based on a theory of liberal politics, it dismissed the military option over time up to a point, where military defense of their territory is highly questionable for several EU members. Those, who promote a rules-based foreign policy, cannot exclude military capacity as it has become again a national means of influence for norms to be respected.

In essence, the current Western position would maintain a world order determined at one point in history by the most powerful states and validated by tacit consent deriving from past behavior that could never be changed. This position has been challenged by emerging powers like China and India, and Africa as a continent. (In comparison, Russia is a declining power, regarding its population, its economic strength built on fossil energy and its education system.) 

Just managing the crisis with the existing procedures and institutions is not adequate. If international law should be able to regulate international relations beyond the immediate political and economic interests of governments in the future, there is a need to find a new basis for cooperation. Should the US withdraw again as leader of the free world, including its military power within NATO, a situation like the present attack on Ukraine will be unmanageable for Europe. In this regard, the Russian attack, hopefully, is merely a last wake up call for all politicians in the EU to put aside their differences over a peaceful and globalized world and move towards a robust, integrated foreign and security policy, including the provision of armament and the development of assets.

It is incompatible with a norms-based foreign policy to deny a democratically elected government a request for weapons for its regular army to defend its population against an armed aggression of another state, based on national policy guidelines. This results in a selective application of the international system of collective security established by the UN as a lesson from the aggression of Nazi Germany. This system includes intentional limitations for Security Council action against one of the five permanent members and instead encourages individual and collective self-defense as a means of maintaining international peace and security in such situations.     

Sanctions need to be revived as an instrument of conflict management rather than punishment. Threatening unspecified sanctions for the moment of Russian invasion provided Putin the time and space for preparation and, since they have been applied, no motivation to end hostilities, since there is no clear demand for measurable action against clear benchmarks. This application might even lead to a fatalistic nothing-more-to-loose attitude by Putin. 

In the past, the World came together after devastating events that were able to submit governments to the regulation of new international norms. After World War II, an agreement on human rights and humanitarian law as international concern was possible as there was agreement on their link to the causes of the conflict. As this connection remains valid, it is not the agreed root cause of the present conflict. This goes more into the direction of declining power and influence due to changes in economic and technical development and ultimately, climate change. Joint challenges need to be defined and addressed jointly instead of making them the subject of competition. What rules of cooperation can be formulated around these fears and within which structure? This will be the future global security architecture in which the EU will have to find its place.

The Bundestag elections are on 26 September. Many people have already voted, at least as many are still undecided. As far as election results can be predicted nowadays, we can expect a coalition of three political parties and thus a broad basis for ideas and solutions. Climate and economy and the question of social management of the necessary change dominate the election campaign discussions. Foreign and security policy, migration, the future of the EU, the goals of development aid and peacebuilding as well as the future of the UN are only discussed in buzzwords and without visible strategic approaches. Yet there is one issue that strategically links all these areas in analysing the situation and developing solutions: Human rights.

The search for this term in the party programmes is not very fruitful. The answers to questions from non-governmental organisations at the occasion of the upcoming elections remain vague. Certainly, this is not clear evidence of the role of human rights in the work of the parties – in some cases they seem to be at least unconsciously included. However, statements by the leading candidates do not exactly refute this impression either. In Germany, international human rights remain a niche topic for a limited number of experts and activists, suitable at most for political keynote speeches or moral argumentation. Despite the astonishing growth of the normative framework at the international and regional level and the increasingly active international movement for its observation and implementation, politics in Germany persists in the generally accepted position that the basic rights of the constitution already meet the highest international standards. That this is no longer the case has been shown by various UN recommendations following state reports or visits by special rapporteurs, and several companies with activities abroad have found out through court cases or media campaigns. The political discussion of important social issues also remains largely untouched by international developments and appears provincial and retrograde. The new federal government urgently needs to make improvements in various areas in the human rights field and open up to international discussion if we do not want to risk human rights, now an integral part of the international sustainability discussion, being neglected and becoming a competitive disadvantage for the country at large.

The new German government needs the integration of international human rights and their dynamically developing interpretation into all policy areas. In the medium term, this will also strengthen the position of German companies at home and abroad and eliminate competitive distortions caused by sustainability standards.

In foreign, security and development policy, Germany often overestimates its moral position and underestimates the impact of its economic influence. Because society predominantly sees itself as a victim of communism, Nazi socialism and other political regimes, we fail to recognise the view from the outside according to which historical constants run through our history, especially the killing of Hereros, Armenians, Jews and other minorities. We are a nation of perpetrators, credited with translating the lessons of history into strong institutions of stable democracy. But the stability of this development is measured by deeds, especially proportionally to Germany’s economic strength. Expectations are that the lessons of historical guilt are implemented in measurable political terms, both within and outside the country’s borders. If one considers the huge sums that are being made available, for example, in Jordan or now in Afghanistan, in order to ultimately prevent the migration of refugees to Europe, this illustrates an unwillingness to assume responsibility for the observance of international human rights and rule-of-law principles and an inward-looking foreign and security policy. A clear stand for human rights, also within the EU, would show Germany the way to international influence on the basis of its historical responsibility. An abstract human rights dialogue between governments or demands for sanctions against economically insignificant states for human rights violations is symbolic politics. In this context, the state cannot hide behind EU human rights policy, but must develop its own positions in a participatory manner, represent them visibly and implement higher standards on its own. This counteracts system fatigue and disenchantment with Europe and means leadership among equals.

Neglecting human rights standards in national policy only relieves companies and state institutions in the short term and fails to recognise the influence of global movements and the reputational damage that occurs for politics and companies when states develop national laws and companies apply standards that do not meet international norms. This is no longer a question of the legally binding nature of one international instrument or another. This is a question of the new federal government’s general human rights strategy, which either protects business and society by leading developments in a preventive manner or accepts incalculable disadvantages by painstakingly following international lessons-learnt. Only the necessary political weighting of international human rights obligations allows the appropriate consideration in political strategies of questions of climate protection, migration, distributive justice and participation in democratic decision-making processes. The integration of human rights means a struggle for the best possible solution for the different interests with the systematic inclusion of all stakeholders. This brings stability and predictability to a process of managing uncertain change. Concrete elements would include a mandatory human rights impact assessment for laws and reform programmes based on the guidelines of the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and Foreign Debt. The currently discussed reform of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and a possible convention should be integrated into  all economic development programmes, including state support and procurement. A ban on the import and sale of products manufactured or distributed in violation of human rights. Support for companies to shift production and distribution to products and services that respect international human rights obligations. Limit foreign engagement thematically to prevention and stabilisation through strategic concepts and finance it sustainably. 

Voters should ask themselves who they think is most likely to make this necessary change after the elections and demand from political parties that this change plays a role in the coalition negotiations. Businesses, trade associations, trade unions, chambers of commerce and other interest groups should demand comprehensive human rights strategies with concrete measures from the parties and evaluate their implementation by the new federal government against integrated success criteria. human rights. better solutions.

(Interview as part of the theme year on responsibility at the Berlin School of Economics and Law)

What moved you to switch to teaching and pass on your experience to students?

During my international career, I have always sought academic exchange in order to combine theory and practice. In Germany in particular, decision-makers in business and politics have become accustomed to the idea that national regulations and procedures automatically corresponds to international human rights standards and often even surpasses them. However, the number and density of international regulations and decisions is leading to an increasing gap in regulation and implementation in Germany as well.

In addition, standards that are still being developed are often used by the public and by the internationally connected civil society to point out deficits and violations. In Germany, we can benefit from the experience of other countries in this regard. Especially in the area of the police and security management, I can support the internationalisation of university training. 

Through the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), people around the world show solidarity with fellow human beings at risk and call on their governments to take action. To what extent has working on this issue influenced you?

The UN was founded after the Second World War to prevent mass human rights violations caused by war and humanitarian disasters. The founders of the organisation were very aware of the connection between oppression and violence against their own people and the maintenance of world peace, through the example of Nazi Germany. We are less aware of this connection today.

While the notion of interdependence is slowly gaining ground, for example, in climate protection, pandemic control, counter-terrorism or the handling of refugee crises, a government’s treatment of the people in its country are still largely seen as an internal matter and interference is discussed from an ethical or moral point of view.

This is partly due to the difficulty of scientifically proving the connection between preventive measures and subsequent events in this area. The R2P opens up possibilities for action in the extreme cases where we need to make progress if we do not want to weaken the international legal order as a whole. 

How can the commitment of a university and its members (students/teachers) contribute to the cause of R2P?

There is a lot of commitment and solidarity with refugees in Germany and in their countries of origin in the form of donations and development aid. People also follow the developments in Belarus, for example, but often feel helpless.

The members of the university could help to explain the direct and indirect effects of conflicts on Germany and offer communication spaces with people from the affected countries.

Partnerships with higher education institutions in countries that are particularly exposed to a risk of severe human rights violations can open channels of conversation and promote shared learning. Long-term partnerships offer the best prospects for resilience in times of crisis. In addition, better knowledge of R2P actors and approaches can support the development of solutions across academic disciplines.

Which part of the world are you currently looking at with the greatest concern – and why?

Depending on which aspect you focus on, different concerns arise. We should always be concerned when conflicts reveal the limits of joint international engagement.

Wherever the international community, especially in the UN Security Council, cannot find a common position to intervene in conflicts in response to violations of basic human rights or the R2P, a margin of accepted behaviour is also created for other governments. The collective security system is failing. Violations internally are always accompanied in the long run by aggression externally, not least to prevent interference. This is why the situations in e.g. Myanmar, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and Hungary are particularly worrying.

In what way do you think each of us could take some responsibility in our daily lives to better protect human rights?

The inclusion of human rights in decisions always leads to better results. Decision-making processes may become more cumbersome, but the solutions become more sustainable. Everyone can start by listening to the people who are affected by our decisions. Instead of talking about them, we should involve them, especially children, older people and people with disabilities.

Then, for every decision, we should ask ourselves whether its outcome intentionally or unintentionally discriminates against people. The feeling of having been treated unfairly compared to others is a common cause of conflict in communities. Finally, it helps to be aware of who is actually responsible for improving a particular situation. Here, human rights help to analyse rights and responsibilities. This helps in turn to distinguish between legal accountability and solidarity and commitment.

Instead of jointly proposing a conflict management strategy, by its reluctant action, the international community has allowed Ethiopia to slip into the dangerous zone of mass atrocities. Time is running out as impunity feeds exasperation, which bolsters a loss of government control of the situation.

Since the military intervention of the Ethiopian National Defence Forces (ENDF) in the Tigray region in November 2020, witness accounts of systematic human rights violations appear in the media. Interviews with refugees in Sudan, satellite images and reports from within the country point towards extrajudicial killings based on ethnicity, the drawing up of lists by ethnicity for unclear purposes in Addis Abeba, rape and sexual violence, and attempts at forced transfer of property of people in Tigray. Large-scale killings and displacement was also reported from other regions, including Benishangul-Gumuz region. The images of heavily armed ENDF in camouflage entering villages on pick-up trucks feed into the narrative of international civil society organisations, whose set of indicators and analysis reportedly point towards genocide and mass atrocities.

Concern at violence based on ethnicity is not new regarding Ethiopia. In 2005, in the course of my work with the Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, we were contacted by young political activists drawing our attention to the risk of large-scale violence in the context of the upcoming general elections. Photos of police brutality and its consequences graphically underlined their claim. In the aftermath of the elections, 193 protesters were killed by the police, according to a leaked internal report. Reports of atrocities also reached us from Oromia in a constant stream. 

However, for many observers these concerns seemed to have belonged to the past. Prime Minster Abiy, the first Oromo elected to the position, moved the country towards a transition described as “multi-ethnic and democratic”.  When awarded the Nobel peace Price in 2019, he seemed to have reached the mayor goal of peace with Eritrea, based on an agreed border. In the meantime, reportedly, Eritrean troops returned to Ethiopia and were sighted in Tigray supporting the ENDF. They and regional forces mixed with militia elements from neighbouring Amhara region allegedly committed serious human rights violations beyond the control of the government of Ethiopia, which undermines the limited trust established through the peace agreement.

Abiy had released political prisoners, appointed women to many cabinet positions and integrated a known dissident as head of the National Electoral Board. He reorganised the ethnic and region-based parties of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) into the new Prosperity Party. It did not come as a surprise to experts on Ethiopian politics and society that instead of overcoming ethnic and regional division, the implementation of these measures  caused long-lasting ethnic conflicts breaking out anew.

The Constitution of 1995 established a system of ethnic federalism (“national” in Amharic), which is based on a confederation of “nations, nationalities and peoples” within “states”, which are highly diverse in population and size. The nations have the right, inter alia, to enact their own constitutions, choose their official language, create tax revenue, form regional security forces and even the right to secession. However, the wording of the respective provisions in the Constitution intentionally offered room for interpretation. The settlement of disputes between the central administration  and the states is not clearly regulated and vested with the House of Federation and the Council of Constitutional Inquiry based on political compromise rather than binding decision by an impartial conflict management mechanism following the interpretation of the Constitution. 

At its core, the conflict with Tigray is another dispute between state versus central power as occurred in Ethiopia in the past. In this case higher stakes were involved given the dominating role of the Tigray Peoples’ Liberation Front (TPLF) in the central government in the past. Compared to the power of the central administration in other federal systems, the military intervention did not have to mean as such a break in the path of the transition, but a reestablishment of constitutional order. 

On 28 November, Abiy declared in Parliament that the military operation concluded. Since then, at the latest, the situation in Tigray should be ruled by police and criminal law with full judicial oversight.

The system of ethnic federalism has been legitimised by a simulated agreement between the peoples and nations within each state with the central power, while, in reality, it was enforced by the EPRDF from the centre. Continuity of this arrangement is determined by congruity between the majority will of the people and the representatives of the states at the central level. Ethnic and regional parties could mainstream state interests into the political compromise at the central level for a long time. However, Ethiopian society developed in the past 25 years. While urbanisation is slow and only includes 21% of the population, it is expected to double by 2030. Agriculture is still the basis of the economy, but jobs in the service sector increased fast. Education influences the development of the non-farm economy and the young population, with an average at 17,5 years, demand productive jobs in the small cities. The internal migration of young educated Ethiopians, even within the same region, over time, will make ethnicity secondary to professional, economic and other interests shared with people across tribal identities and regions. Currently, Addis Abeba has already a share of the population coming from rural areas of 59% and Dire Dawa of 38%. The transition Abiy started is timely and inevitable. For it to succeed, the present arrangement needs to be replaced over time by a new social contract between the regions and the center based on a common narrative of Ethiopia in 2030. 

A solution could only be found within the country and based on an inclusive political dialogue, but the situation does not seem to be ripe for serious talks. The killing of senior TPLF officials, including former foreign minister Seyoum Mesfin, and the previous arrest of opposition leaders charged with terrorism, sent a signal that dialogue was not Abiy’s favourite path to address the challenges. After the inconclusive discussion of the situation at the 38th Extraordinary Summit of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Abiy also rejected AU mediation. 

This deadlock could be broken if the current discussion on Tigray was broadened to the possibilities of preventing future ethnic violence without the central government or regional parties insisting on political control of the outcome.  There are possibilities for Ethiopia’s international partners to support the creation of the necessary conditions for such discussions through a joint comprehensive strategy. This strategy needs to break up the different short- to medium-term issues related to the present situation in Ethiopia along a continuum of steps leading towards a national dialogue on crucial institutional improvements before the elections scheduled in June 2021. 

1. Humanitarian access has appeared as the common priority of those intervening in the conflict so far. The UN Security-Council discussed the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia without an agreement on how to respond. This underlines the policy dilemma for Western governments, which view Ethiopia as an ally in a volatile region, especially against al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants al Shabaab in neighbouring Somalia. In December 2020, the EU postponed payment of nearly 90 million euros in budget support payments to due to the bloc’s concerns over the crisis in the northern Tigray region and conditioned the payment to full humanitarian access to the state. However, according to its principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, humanitarian assistance does not include the tools to prevent the large-scale human rights violations reported from the country. An international response to mass atrocities based on humanitarian assistance has failed in the past and must not be repeated again. Instead, support should be offered to Ethiopia to respond to the humanitarian needs through its own institutions and procedures. The evaluation of the impact of this assistance against standards of international concern should be monitored based on agreed indicators related to preventing mass atrocities. The UN should resume its previous humanitarian support of Eritrean refugees.

2. Ethiopia’s partners should define clearly and limit their international concern. Given the content of the reports on the situation and the global acceptance of the R2P, Ethiopia’s sovereignty is weakened until it took verifiable steps to investigate alleged human rights violations and hold perpetrators accountable. The role of Ethiopia as host country to the AU and Art. 4 lit. h of the AU Constitutive Act  underline this interest. Furthermore, Ethiopia hosts UN ECA and is an important logistical hub and troop contributor to UN peace operations in Africa. The legitimate concern of preventing mass atrocities should frame the joint strategy and determine the form of cooperation and the interdependence of the different elements.

3. Ethiopia’s partners should offer technical support for constitutional federalism to political, development and academic partners. The escalation of the conflict with Tigray was caused by the central government’s concern of setting a precedent for other states regarding the exercise of central power when giving in to the regional elections. This concern would be diminished if there was an independent conflict management mechanism in the Constitution as part of the system of federalism. Experience with different models of federalism is available and could be presented to the parties in Ethiopia. The underlying problems related to the organisation of federalism along ethnic lines within the institutions established by the Constitution has been analysed in the past. In particular, the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court could ensure the interpretation of the Constitution with regard to disputes between states and the central administration and the protect of human rights throughout the country based on legal traditions, limited as they may be, developed by the Federal High Court and the Federal Supreme Court regarding trans regional issues for the past 25 years. The Ethiopian Commission on Human Rights and the ombudsman could deal with individual complaints based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Different constitutional and institutional solutions have been developed by other federal states that could be revisited in the light of recent developments. The establishment of effective conflict resolution mechanisms in the Constitution should be subject of a political-academic dialogue prior to the elections later this year.

4. The need for accountability for human rights violations in different states offers the opportunity of establishing a stronger, independent federal judiciary. With the military operation in Tigray officially completed, alleged human rights violations may constitute crimes under the Criminal Code and, as far as carried out in a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population, crimes against humanity under international criminal law (art. 270 et seq. of the Ethiopian Criminal Code). Investigating these allegations is the sovereign responsibility of the respective institutions of Ethiopia, in particular the courts. Ethiopia supported recommendations of the third cycle UPR to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. The latter undertook remarkable investigations into the situation in different states that helped to put the Tigray situation into the broader context of political developments. The mid-term report, due in 2022, offers a timeline for measuring progress in addressing impunity. International partners should provide assistance through their judicial institutions to such efforts upon request.

A group of interested states led by Germany, Canada, Australia and Switzerland should engage jointly with the government of Ethiopia on a list of benchmarks and timelines related to the international concern of preventing mass atrocities that allows both the government and its international partners measurable progress against the ‘manifestly failing’ edge in the protection of its civilian population. These should be targeted at and limited to the risks of mass atrocities and not venture towards the political and economic system as such. The listed countries engaged with Ethiopia on issues related to governance and human rights in the past in a discreet and constructive way. They have a genuine interest in upholding the R2P and can provide credible assistance through their institutions and specialised civil society without suspicion of hidden agendas.

Assistance to addressing underlying conflict causes should focus on the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court and the reenforcement of the federal court system by realigning and adjusting existing projects. These should mainly respond to demands of the different actors in Ethiopia and provide technical assistance directly to them. The UN, the AU and the EU tend to overload projects with their own institutional agenda and could be more useful in the implementation of the agreements resulting from the facilitation process rather than the process itself.

Ethiopia’s traditional regional partners may be less useful to engage. Reportedly, the Sudanese Army occupied previously contested border areas and relations with Egypt are strained by negations about the “Renaissance Dam”.

The crisis in Ethiopia is a security risk for its people and the region, but it is also an opportunity to help the country to move necessary reforms forward and make the elections a referendum over the progress achieved and future steps of the transition.

---

References

• Asiedu, Michael, Diplomacy, The Eritrea-Ethiopia Peace Deal and its implications, Global Political Trends Center (GPoT), 2019.
• Asiedu, Michael, The Construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and Geopolitical Tension between Egypt and Ethiopia with Sudan in the Mix, Global Political Trends Center (GPoT), 2018.
• Cohen, John M., ’Ethnic Federalism’ in Ethiopia, Northeast African Studies, 1995, pp. 157–188. 
• Engedayehu, Walle, The Search for a Functioning Democracy in Ethiopia: Surveying the Utilities of Presidentialism, Semi-Presidentialism, Parliamentarianism, and Consociationalism, International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 2017, pp. 139–168.
• Faleg, Giovanni, Resetting Ethiopia: Will the State Heal or Fail? European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), 2019.
• Hessebon, Gedion T./ Abduletif, K. Idris, The Supreme Court of Ethiopia: Federalism’s Bystander, in: Nicholas Aroney/ John Kincaid (eds.),  Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists or Unitarists?, 2017, pp. 165–192. 
• Mariam, Alemayehu G., Human Rights Matters in the New Millennium: The Critical Need for an Independent Judiciary in Ethiopia, International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 2008, pp. 123–142.
• OECD Development Centre, Rural Development Strategy Review of Ethiopia. Reaping the Benefits of Urbanisation, 2020.