The Cassation Division of the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court has the power to review any court decision containing a basic error of law. The interpretations of the Division reviewing such decisions are binding on all other courts. So far, the Division has rendered a handful of binding precedents pertaining to private international law. Nevertheless, the appropriateness of the Division’s decisions in some private international law cases is questionable, let alone correcting errors committed by other courts. In two employment cases, the Division utterly invalidated choice of law agreements concluded by the parties. In another case, it characterized a dispute involving a foreigner as a purely domestic case. Through a critical analysis of the case laws, this Article strives to answer the question of whether the Division’s decisions are consonant to the foundational principles of private international law such as party autonomy. It also examines the validity of the precedents in light of the doctrine of separation of powers. The absence of a dedicated private international law statute and the bindingness of the Division’s decisions make the second question worthwhile. The Article will argue that the Division’s decisions undermine some generally accepted principles such as party autonomy: the decisions involve a judicial invention of eccentric norms. Hence, they also encroach on the lawmaking power of the Legislature.

中文翻译：

---

埃塞俄比亚国际私法制度下的立法无为和司法立法：对联邦最高法院上诉法院某些决定的分析

埃塞俄比亚联邦最高法院最高法院分庭有权审查任何包含基本法律错误的法院裁决。该司审查此类决定的解释对所有其他法院具有约束力。迄今为止，该司提出了一些与国际私法有关的具有约束力的先例。然而，该司的判决在某些国际私法案件中的适当性值得怀疑，更不用说纠正其他法院犯下的错误。在两个雇用案件中，该司完全使当事各方缔结的法律选择协议无效。在另一起案件中，它把涉及外国人的纠纷定为纯粹的国内案件。通过对判例法的批判性分析，本文力求回答该司的决定是否符合国际私法的基本原则（如政党自治）的问题。它还根据三权分立理论审查了先例的有效性。由于没有专门的国际私法法规，而且该司的决定具有约束力，因此第二个问题值得考虑。该条将辩称，司法部的决定破坏了一些普遍接受的原则，例如政党自治：这些决定涉及偏心规范的司法发明。因此，他们也侵犯了立法机关的立法权。由于没有专门的国际私法法规，而且该司的决定具有约束力，因此第二个问题值得考虑。该条款将争辩说，司法部的决定破坏了一些普遍接受的原则，例如政党自治：这些决定涉及偏心规范的司法发明。因此，他们也侵犯了立法机关的立法权。由于没有专门的国际私法法规，而且该司的决定具有约束力，因此第二个问题值得考虑。该条款将争辩说，司法部的决定破坏了一些普遍接受的原则，例如政党自治：这些决定涉及偏心规范的司法发明。因此，他们也侵犯了立法机关的立法权。