2.

1 definition and purpose of IGR

2.1.1 definition of IGR

The concept of Intergovernmental Relations is originated in 1930s in United States of

America. Intergovernmental relations are of growing concern among governments and
political scientists1 as they are common and pervasive in all federal systems. This
emanates from the inevitable facts of interdependence among levels of governments. It
may be argued that intergovernmental relations are not about only defining and defending
areas of competency but rather about co-operation between organs of the state in different
spheres of government.

Intergovernmental relations are interaction between governmental units of all types and
levels within a political system. The wording “all types” shows the existence of formal
and informal IGR. informal IGR results from the exchange of information either by letter,
telephone or other similar means. On the other hand, formal IGR is established by the
Constitution or subsequent laws. The formal institutions and processes are in the form of
meetings or conferences involving legislators, ministers, judges, and departments of
different ministries of federal functionaries. The words “all levels” imply “top down or
bottom up relationship”, or they may refer to collateral relationship among the constituent
units. This involves two sets of relationships –vertical and horizontal. The vertical
relation can be the relation between the federal government and constituent units. The
horizontal relation, involves inter-state relations. It is important to note that such
relationship becomes inevitable in areas which involve concurrent power between the
federal government and the regions.2 Coordination on shared interests is thus one of the
factors which necessitate intergovernmental cooperation within a given federal system.

2.1.2 The purpose of Intergovernmental Relations

The establishment of permanent forums of intergovernmental bond plays a crucial role in

negotiation, non-hierarchical exchange of information as well as facilitation of
cooperation between the institutions of the two levels of government. This will bring
1
Pattison Mark (1980). ‘Intergovernmental Relations and the Limitations of Central Control:
Reconstructing the Politics of Comprehensive Education’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 63-89, p. 64
2
Assefa Fiseha (2006). Federalism and the accommodation of diversity in Ethiopia: A Comparative
Study. (Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publisher) p. 333.
mutual respect and confidence between the levels of government. There could be various
factors that render cooperation as well as coordination between or among the tiers of
government indispensable.

First, the difficulty of giving clear-cut jurisdiction for each level of government renders
IGR necessary because it is impossible to have a watertight distribution of administrative
or legislative jurisdiction among governments or to avoid overlaps of function. Shared
programs are inevitable, and intergovernmental cooperation is one of the mechanisms of
mitigating conflict in the course of such programs. conflict between tiers of states may
be inevitable because they would often compete for the same powers and resources.
Where such conflict occurs, they should be settled in the spirit of cooperation. In this
sense, IGR mechanisms are viewed as instruments that facilitate negotiation on matters
that involve disagreement. Such interaction creates mutual understanding between the
federal and regional governments.

Second, intergovernmental relation can serve as a means to adapt changing circumstances

without having to resort to formal constitutional amendments. There is principle of co-
operation implied from the concept of federalism that could overcome gaps in power
distributions. The aim of intergovernmental relation is to make adjustment in the existing
constitutional distribution of power rather than going through a rigorous constitutional
amendment process, especially where the formal constitutional amendment procedures
are rigid and unworkable.

Third, having effective and efficient intergovernmental relation will help to achieve, inter
alia, policy coordination, consultation, sharing of experience between the tiers of
governments and among states/units/regions.3 In a nutshell, most federal systems have
developed some kind of informal and formal structural processes to coordinate and
facilitate inter-governmental relations. Although these are the potential explanations that
demand intergovernmental relation to be rooted within the federal system, their type is
influenced by the models of IGR.

2.2 the organization of the judiciary in the federal world

In federal countries the federal constitution is likely to include a framework for the
judiciary. Two sets of connected issues arise in considering arrangements for the general

3
Carolyn M. Johns, Patricia L. O‘Reilly, Gregory J. lnwood (2007). ‘Formal and informal dimensions of
intergovernmental administrative relations in Canada’, Canadian Public Administration Journal, Vol.
50, No. 1, pp. 21-41, p. 33.
judiciary in a federation. Whether judicial (as well as legislative and executive) power is
divided between the levels of government and Whether each level of government has its
own court system or whether the courts are shared in some way. These issues give rise to
three approaches to organizing a court system; Dual, Shared and single court system.

2.2.1 Dual court systems

Each level of government has its own hierarchy. Each level of government is likely to
prefer that its own courts deal with issues arising under its own legislation and in its
jurisdiction. Disputes that involve parties from different regions are likely to be assigned
to federal courts.

The United States is the classic example of this approach. Both the federal and each of
the states has its own court hierarchy, culminating in a Supreme Court. federal courts deal
with issues identified by the constitution as matters for federal jurisdiction (article 3,
section 2.1). State courts deal primarily with questions of state jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court cannot hear appeals from state courts.

Australia also uses this approach, but with several important variations. Both the federal
and each of the states has its own court hierarchy, and exercises federal and state
jurisdiction, respectively (sections 75, 76). The High Court of Australia is at the apex of
the system; it has appellate jurisdiction from both federal and state courts, which has a
unifying effect on Australian law (section 73). In addition, the Australian Constitution
allows federal jurisdiction to be conferred on state courts.

Nigeria’s dual court system again has significant variations, which give it some of the
characteristics of a shared court system of the kind discussed below. Both the federal and
the states have their own court hierarchies in Nigeria, exercising federal and state judicial
power, respectively. The highest federal courts can hear appeals from the highest state
courts, however, as in Australia.

2.2.2 Shared or integrated court systems

courts are shared in a way that leaves control of lower courts to the regions and control of
superior courts to the federal, it will be necessary to divide judicial power by deciding
which level of court decides which type of legal issue.
Germany is the classic example of this approach. Each state and region has its own
hierarchy of courts, which comprise the lower courts in integrated hierarchies of courts;
the higher levels are federal courts. All courts deal with all relevant cases, without
distinguishing between federal or state jurisdiction.

Canada also has a shared or integrated court system. Each state and province has its own
lower court. The constitution also provides for ‘superior courts’ above the lower-level
provincial courts, which deal with more serious matters and handle appeals. These courts
are established by the states and regions, but their judges are appointed and paid by the
federal. There are some federal courts as well—the Federal Court of Canada (which deals
with selected areas of federal law, including federal administrative law) and the Tax
Court. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court. There is no clear distinction
between federal and provincial jurisdiction; most courts, apart from the Federal Court
and the Tax Court, are able to hear cases that combine the two (Hueglin 2006: 115–16).

In India’s integrated court system, each state and region establishes its own lower court;
these are at the bottom of the hierarchy. The Supreme Court of India is at the top. In
between are the high courts of each state. The president of India appoints high court
judges in accordance with a process that, according to the constitution, requires
consultation with the governor of the state, among others, but which in practice is
controlled by the Supreme Court. The high courts, in turn, have considerable authority to
establish and operate other courts within their respective states.

2.2.3 Single court hierarchy

there is a single hierarchy of courts, it is under federal control. In this case, judicial power
is not divided but is treated as a single power to resolve legal disputes whatever the
source of law and the issues at stake, and whoever the parties may be.

In South Africa, the federal level of government controls the entire hierarchy of courts,
from the magistrates courts at the lowest level to the Supreme Court of Appeal at the
apex. The entire court system falls within federal competence, however, subject to the
provisions of the Constitution. The only sign of the country’s federal character is the
requirement that the relevant provincial premier is included on the Judicial Services
Commission when decisions about the high court of that province are being taken
(Murray 2006: 273–74).

2.3 The organization judiciary in federal Ethiopia

The FDRE Constitution of 1995 established two sets of courts with different
jurisdictions.4 The Constitution provides for a federal court system, with the Federal
Supreme Court vested with the highest and final judicial power over federal matters. 5
Unlike the Federal Supreme Court, which is established by the Constitution, the Federal
High Courts and the federal First Instance Courts may be established, country wide or
partially, by a two-thirds decision of the Council of People‘s Representatives, if and when
deemed necessary.6 In their absence, federal High and First Instance judicial powers are
delegated to and exercised by State courts.7

The Constitution at the same time establishes a three-tiered court system: State Supreme,
High and First Instance Courts.8 Unlike the federal High and First Instance Courts, all
three tiers of State courts are recognized to be established independently. 9 The State High
Courts additionally assume federal first instance judicial powers in the absence of those
courts. state Supreme Court additionally assume federal high court powers in the absence
of federal high court in the states.10 this is done using one of the mechanisms IGR
provides which is delegation of power.

we can see that the Constitution of Ethiopia seems to establish two sets of courts which
are coordinate, yet are independent and do not interfere in the spheres of each other. 11The
Federal Supreme Court is vested with the highest and final judicial power over federal
matters, while the State supreme courts are vested with the highest and final judicial
power over state matters. The only power reserved to the Federal Supreme Court is the

4
FDRE Constitution Art

5
FDRE Constitution Art 78,80

6
FDRE Constitution Art 78,80

7
FDRE Constitution Art 78

8
FDRE Constitution Art 78

9
FDRE Constitution Art 78

10
FDRE Constitution Art 80

11
FDRE Constitution Art 50/8 Art 80
power of cassation over any final court decision containing basic error of law, 12 whereas
the State Supreme Court has power of cassation over any final court decision on state
matters that contain a basic error of law.13

12
FDRE Constitution Art 80/3

13
FDRE Constitution Art 80/3