Federalism is a widely accepted concept in modern times, many countries have adopted a federal form of government through their constitutions. It is evident to note that the federal form of government has several benefits in various aspects which can be seen through the development of many federal countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada, etc.
While federalism ensures intergovernmental actions on the same issue with the same people at two levels. Its role becomes essentially important in a diversified society, where there are huge chances of conflict based on religion, ethnicity, colour, race, etc. Therefore, to maintain a good relationship between State and Central Government, it is important to have a robust federal structure. The constitutional framework also becomes very important to tackle unprecedented conflicts arising from diversity.
Ethnic conflicts can be seen between minority and majority groups in Nigeria and Ethiopia. In this research paper, the author will delve into some of the most diversified countries to examine what is the role of federalism in such countries. The author will investigate African countries like Nigeria and Ethiopia as these are diversified countries that adopted a federal form of government through their constitution in 1999 and 1995 respectively and then compare it with some of the successfully adopted federal setups such as India and Canada. The aim is to discover how federalism has affected the modern-day challenges of diversity.
In Nigeria, the adoption of federalism was considered a solution to the ethnic and religious tensions that have plagued the country since its independence in 1960. The country is home to over 250 ethnic groups, and federalism was seen to accommodate their interests and give them a sense of representation and control over their affairs. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which established the federal structure, created 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, each with its own government and legislature.
The central government retained control over issues such as foreign affairs, defense, and monetary policy. However, despite the adoption of federalism, Nigeria still faces challenges in managing its diversity. Ethnic and religious tensions still exist, and there have been instances of violent conflicts between different groups. The federal system has also been criticized for being too centralized, with the central government holding too much power and resources. This has led to calls for restructuring the federal system to give more autonomy to the states and reduce the power of the central government.
Similarly, Ethiopia has also faced challenges in managing its diversity despite adopting a federal system in 1995. The country is home to over 80 ethnic groups, and federalism was seen as a way to accommodate their interests and give them greater autonomy. The federal structure created nine regions, each with its own government and legislature.
The central government retained control over issues such as defense, foreign affairs, and monetary policy. However, Ethiopia has also experienced ethnic conflicts and tensions, particularly between the Oromo and Amhara ethnic groups. Some have criticized the federal system for creating a sense of division and competition between the different regions, rather than promoting unity and national identity.
In contrast, India and Canada have both been successful in managing their diversity through federalism. India is home to over 2,000 ethnic groups and has a federal structure with 28 states and 8 union territories. The central government has powers over issues such as defense, foreign affairs, and monetary policy, while the states have autonomy over issues such as healthcare, education, and agriculture.
Canada, which has two official languages and a history of tension between its French and English-speaking communities, also adopted federalism as a way to manage its diversity. The country has a federal structure with 10 provinces and 3 territories. The central government has powers over issues such as defense, foreign affairs, and monetary policy, while the provinces have autonomy over issues such as healthcare, education, and natural resources.
In this research paper, the author will try to identify why there is so much difference between Nigeria and Ethiopia versus India and Canada. It is important to note that all these countries have federal structure despite the fact there is a different level of growth is seen in all these countries.
There are 25 countries in the world that follow federalism or accepted federalism through their constitution.[1] In the modern period, the Constitution of the USA was the first federalism that was adopted in the year 1787. After which various countries have adopted federal set-ups in their country. In 1945, K.C. Wheare, a leading exponent of federalism observed that due to war there was a decline in the growth of federalism as the concentration of central power, in certain cases, is sufficient to threaten the federal principle.[2] However, in 1953, Max Beloff noticed that federalism was enjoying “a widespread popularity such as it had never known before.”[3]
Federalism is a growing concept, and it has evolved since its inception. So, it is very important to understand the definition of Federalism in the Contemporary context. For that, we need to examine the theories of federalism to understand that. So, there are three important theories of federalism, following:
We can see the different aspects proposed by each theory to understand which definition better suits the current context. Firstly, classical theory tries to explain what federalism is. The main proponents of this theory were Dicey, Harrison Moore, Jethrow Brown, Bryce, Robert Garran and K.C. Wheare. Australian scholar, Robert Garran has beautifully defined federalism as “A form of Government in which sovereignty or political power is divided between the Central and local governments so that each of them within its own sphere is independent of the other.”[4] The classical theory tries to explain federalism in juristic terms.
Secondly, we will look at the origin theory which tries to explain the origin of federalism, it categorizes three kinds of definitions of federalism. 1) The Sociological Theory, which is propounded by William S. Livingston[5], this theory states that the federal nature of society gives birth to the federal political system. 2) Multiple-factor theory, this theory is propounded by K.C. Wheare and Karl Deutsch in particular, this theory considers multiple factors for the origin of federalism.
So, the factors proposed by Wheare are the desire for union and the desire for establishing independent regional government, the capacity to give reality to this desire, a desire for sovereignty, economic advantage, geographical neighborhood, the similarity of political institutions, etc. 3) Political theory, this theory is propounded by W.H. Riker, he argues that the federalism is a solution to what is essentially and primarily a political problem.[6]
The problem with the origin theory is that it tells the reasons for the creation of federalism but fails to explain its sustenance in the challenges posed by the 21st century. Finally, the functional theory of federalism tries to explain how federalism survived in the tough situation of the present century which both the theory lacks to explain.
The functional theory recognizes that the strict demarcation of powers between federal and state governments is not sufficient in the long run of federalism. The proponents of this theory M.J.C Vile[7] and D.J. Elazar[8] argue that administrative cooperation and political interdependence between the federal and state governments are the main reason and characteristics of the growth of American federalism rather than having a strict separation of powers.
In the present era, cooperative federalism has become an important aspect of the federal system. The political theories of R.L. Watts state that due to the interdependence between both levels of government, cooperation became an important factor and Cooperative federalism became an inevitable trend in their systems.[9]
Now, as we have seen all the theories of federalism, we can conclude that what can be the definition of Federalism in the contemporary world? As we have seen, one theory cannot work in isolation, there is a need for all the theories. So, we need to frame a definition according to all the theories that can be stated as follows:
“Federalism is a political system in which two levels of government work in collaboration with each other their reason for cooperation may be the changing needs and requirements of the society, their level of interdependence on each other at every stage of decision-making is prudent. In cases of conflicts, finding solutions creatively through adaptation in their functional relationship and strategic overview of regional and national interest.”
This definition is propounded by the author based on all the theories of federalism.
Moreover, we will look at the application of federalism in diversified societies like Nigeria and Ethiopia where the society is divided on the basis of ethnicity. We will look at how federalism has helped Nigeria and Ethiopia to accommodate diversity. The application of this definition can only be seen if we apply this in a difficult situation. We will not identify whether both these countries are true federalism, we will just look at how well the concept of federalism has helped them to manage diversity and grow their economy.
Before delving into federalism’s role in the management of diversity. We need to identify the definition of diversity.
“Diversity refers to all the ways in which people differ, including primary characteristics, such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, mental and physical abilities, and sexual orientation; and secondary characteristics, such as nationality, education, income, religion, work experience, language skills, geographic location, family status, communication style, military experience, learning style, economic background, and work style.”[10]
This definition is good for diversity as it contains almost every aspect. However, every state or political institution should develop their own definition of diversity. There cannot be one definition of diversity. As the history of two states cannot be the same, so is the presence of an element of diversity. Some countries may be ethnically diverse, some may be diverse linguistically. Therefore, it is important to identify which element of diversity is essential for that country.
Now, we are looking at the kind of diversity in Nigeria and Ethiopia, they are said to have ethnically diversified societies. Firstly, we will look at the diversity and federalism in Nigeria. Then, we will look at the Ethiopian concept. As both countries are on African continents and both were colonies of European superpowers, we can compare how federalism has effectively helped in the development of their economies.
Nigeria is one of the three federal countries of Africa apart from Ethiopia and South Africa. It is one of the most populated countries in Africa with a population of 210 million.[11] Nigeria has a history of both ethnic conflicts and religious conflicts. The religious conflict is between Christians and Muslims and the Ethnic conflict is between the majority and minority. Nigeria got its independence from the British colony in 1960. After that, it has 4 constitutions, the most recent constitution is made in the year 1999.[12]
The Nigerian constitution contains 320 Articles, 7 Schedules and 8 Chapters. The title of the Nigerian Constitution declares it as a federal republic country. Article 1 of the Constitution states the principle of rule of law i.e., the supremacy of the Constitution.[13] Article 2 states the federal principles and clarifies that Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state and it shall be a federation consisting of States and a Federal capital territory.[14] There are 36 states in Nigeria that are also mentioned in the constitution apart from that there are 768 local government areas in Nigeria.[15]
Nigeria does not have any state constitutions, the state heavily relies on the Federal government for the allocation of funds. Secession is not permissible in Nigeria; no state can leave the Federation at any point in time due to conflicts. There are almost 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria. Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo are the largest ethnic groups in Nigeria.[16] There are various historical events of ethnic conflicts in Nigeria such as the Biafran War[17], the Jos Crisis[18], the Niger Delta Crisis[19], and the Herder-Farmer Conflicts.[20]
The cause of such conflict is said to be an overarching competition for resources, political power, marginalization, poverty, unemployment, and politicization of religion and ethnicity.[21] Some of the authors argue that the only true form of federalism can help Nigeria to tackle ethnic conflicts.[22] The true form of federalism means a strict division of powers between federal and regional governments where both are independent. It is seen in Nigeria that the growth of the power of one ethnic group in Nigeria threatens the other ethnic groups’ quench for power which result in conflict.
Nigeria is a country with a complex federal system that has been a source of debate and contention since the country’s return to democracy in 1999. There are various groups that feel marginalized and underrepresented in the central government and calls for restructuring the federal system have become a way of expressing dissatisfaction with poor economic performance and misgovernance in Nigeria.
Among these groups are the oil-producing communities of the Niger Delta, who feel neglected in development and dissatisfied with environmental degradation, and some state governors who feel shortchanged by the federal structure. There are also ethnic and regional groups that insist on federal restructuring, with some calling for secession and the establishment of separate republics.
Despite widespread recognition that the federal system is hindering Nigeria’s progress, there is no consensus on how to change it, and no structural changes have been made since the return to democracy in 1999. Misgovernance and poor economic development have led to deplorable infrastructure, high youth unemployment, widespread poverty, and various conflicts, including banditry, insurgency, and religious extremism.[23]
As we have seen the Nigeria federalism where it seems to us that Nigeria failing to accommodate the diversity properly through federalism. Now, we will look Ethiopian federalism where the state and federal government are given equal rights and power of secession also.
Ethiopia is a landlocked country, and it has never been colonized by any European superpowers. The constitution of Ethiopia was developed in 1995 drafted by Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic front (EPRDF), it was a coalition of four parties.[24] One of the major contributions of EPRDF was adoption of federal structure which of government that gave significant autonomy to the country’s various ethnic groups.
The Constitution of Ethiopia is called the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.[25] The constitution of Ethiopia follows rule of law through Article 9 which enunciates the supremacy of the Constitution.[26] The constitution of Ethiopia consists of 106 Articles. The Constitution of Ethiopia is governed under a special type of federalism called the Ethnic federalism which is also sometimes referred to as “Zenawism.”[27]
The constitution of Ethiopia consists of expressed provisions regarding Ethnic federalism. Article 39 of the Constitution states that the Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and People, gives the unconditional rights to all these the right of self-determination, including the right to secession.[28] Unlike Nigeria, Ethiopia allows the state to exercise its sovereignty and gives the state delimitation powers based on the settlement patterns, language, identity, and consent of the people concerned.[29]
Article 47 of the Constitution provides that Member States shall have equal rights and powers.[30] All these provisions in the constitution of Ethiopia are against their ideology of nationalism and “Greater Ethiopia.”[31] Because of such great divisions, great violence is seen in the country. It prohibits the members of one ethnic group from moving to another state. Such regional autonomy to one ethnic group in the long run is not good as the groups will ultimately seek more power which will lead to series of conflicts. This is again devastating for any democratic country to divide on the basis of class, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Further, Ethiopia consists of more than 90 distinct ethnic groups. More than 80 languages are spoken.[32] Such level of diversity poses significant threat when it is mixed with the regional dominance of ethnic groups in states. It is quite evident from the conflicts in Ethiopia that occurred time and again such as Oromo-Amhara, Somali-Oromo, Tigray-Amara conflict, Gumuz-Benishangul, Afar-Isaaqu, Wolayta-Sidama conflict and many more. In all these conflicts thousand innocent life is lost, and country remains on the unstable condition due to imposition of emergency.[33] So, we can see that though there is federalism, Ethiopia is failing to accommodate the diversity.
Also, according to Global report on internal displacement,[34] Ethiopia had the highest number of new internal displacements associated with conflict worldwide in 2018. One of the main reasons for adopting federalism in Ethiopia is to prevent the structure of unitary state which caused the formation of armed ethno-national movements and civil wars in the country.[35] Regionally concentrated ethnic groups push the federal states for more devolution along ethnic lines.[36] The cause of series of conflict in Ethiopia is same as Nigeria which is due to the territorial boundary, limited natural resources and search of new economic resources, etc.
Now, we will look at and investigate from the experience of India how it succeeded in managing diversity with a magnificent growth of the economy to become the 5th largest economy of the world and with a projection that by 2027 it will surpass Japan and Germany to become the 3rd largest economy.[37] We will look at the role of federalism in India in achieving this milestone which will help understand us where Nigeria and Ethiopia lacked.
The recent growth of India has been thoroughly analyzed and comprehended. Although there was some temporary controversy regarding the effects of economic reforms implemented in the 1980s and 1990s – which were initially hesitant and fragmented but became deeper and more systematic in the subsequent period – the current consensus is similar to the previous one, indicating that a shift in economic policies towards relying more on market forces for resource allocation, including greater openness to global trade, has been a crucial factor in boosting India’s average growth rate from its previous low levels.
Acknowledging the role of market competition does not diminish the significance of the Indian government’s efforts in building physical infrastructure, human capital, and providing stability and safety nets. Nonetheless, the reform of India’s governance is one of the major areas of ongoing policy debates, along with the need for further liberalization of the economy in areas such as small-scale industry reservations, privatization, and openness to foreign capital.[38]
The Indian form of federalism is said to be a quasi-federal system where more power is given to the union government. However, merely the provisions of constitution provide more power to union does not means that federalism is not there.[39] It is to be seen in practice, in federal systems like India, the overall concerns regarding the quality of governance are closely linked to the functioning and characteristics of the multi-tiered system of government.
The viewpoint of the MPF (Market-Preserving Federalism) is that while good governance is fundamental, it is essential to curtail ineffective government intervention in the market. To accomplish this goal, the appropriate federal institutions play a significant role.[40] The state and union government should collaborate with each other, and their cooperation in policy making makes federalism successful with economic growth.
Further, Indian federalism has played a significant role in managing diversity, along with the role of the Supreme Court in passing important judgments on Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution of India helped strengthen diversity in the country. Federalism in India is said to reconcile nationalism with localism.[41] India is the most diverse country in the world, it has more than 700 ethnic groups.
Although Indian Constitution gives more power to the Central government in its large legislative, financial and emergency powers. But the exercise of power by central government must be with caution. In a landmark case of Keshavnanda Bharti v. UOI,[42] the hon’ble supreme court held that federalism is the basic feature of our constitution. Also, In India, amending the federal features requires ratification of one-half of the state legislatures before any bill of amendment is presented before the president.[43]
Nevertheless, India has also seen conflicts due to the diversity, but this conflict has never came in the way of development. The one of the main reasons of this, as argued by various authors, is India’s unity policy, various government decisions promoting peace and harmony among communities. The religion has never been part of India’s federal policy, nation sentiments are pushed by the national party.
The sense of collectiveness is there, where people of different communities can work together with cooperation. The most microscopic level of cooperation starts with unity of people, which is lacked in Ethiopia and Nigeria, due to this they have failed to accommodate diversity even after having federal structure.
We will now look the modern-day challenges to the federalism, we will point out challenges in some of the developed federal structures such as India and Canada to find out the lesson for Nigeria and Ethiopia.
India and Canada both are developed and mature federalism. However, there are challenges to their federal structure. In this section, we will point out the challenges with Indian and Canadian federal structure. Firstly, we will look challenges to Indian federalism then we will look at the Canadian federalism.
The first and the foremost challenge is the challenge of regional identities in India.[44] Due to multiple ethnicity in India, the growth for demands of autonomy on grounds regionalism increases. It can be perceived into both positive and negative sense, the negative sense of regionalism poses threats where an Individual seeks the regional interest above the nation.
While positive regionalism is a welcoming aspect as it encourages the people to develop a sense of brotherhood and commonness on the basis of common historical background, culture or language.
Another challenge to Indian federalism is the office of Governor in the State. The position of Governor in India is a legacy of colonial rule and has been marred with controversy over arbitrary interventions by the central government, which disturbs the balance of power in a parliamentary democracy.
In a quasi-federal country like India, where no single party has had a majority, the opposition has traditionally played an essential role. However, the appointment and removal of Governors are not well-defined in the Constitution or any special statute, and their powers are limited and subject to scrutiny.
The removal of Mizoram’s Governor, Ms. Kamla Beniwal, in 2016 highlights the political controversy surrounding the Governor’s position. Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows for the imposition of a President’s Rule, has also been misused in the past for political gain.
The Governors’ status has been reduced to that of a pawn or marionette, used by political parties to gain an advantage. The Governor’s role and responsibilities towards the state are complex and difficult to navigate. On one hand, they are responsible for upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the state government functions smoothly. On the other hand, they are appointed by the central government and may be influenced by political considerations.
Furthermore, the Governor’s powers are limited to certain areas such as giving assent to bills, appointing judges, and maintaining law and order. They also have the power to dissolve the state assembly, but this can only be done under specific circumstances.
In conclusion, the Governor’s position in India is controversial, and their powers and responsibilities towards the state are challenging to define. The lack of clear guidelines for appointment and removal and the potential for political interference creates an environment of uncertainty, which can harm the democratic process.[45]
These are the two major threats to Indian federalism; however, this research paper does not deal with an exhaustive list of challenges. Now, we will look at the challenges before Canadian federalism.
Canada also faces similar problem like India of Regionalism, it is also pointed out by prominent authors like David Cameron, where he mentions the issues of western regionalism. It acts as a challenge as it is detrimental to the nationalism.[46]
The second challenge before the Canadian federalism is of identification of indigenous rights, language policy and intergovernmental relations, it is pointed out by Alina G. Gagnon.[47] Similarly, there are various challenges to Canadian federalism.
The way of tackling these types of challenges make them a mature federalism. As said by famous Author ‘Max Lucado’, “Conflict is inevitable, Combat is optional”. So, we cannot avoid conflict in a plural society but the way in which conflict is handle and manage defines the character of a society.
As we have analyzed the federalism in Nigeria, Ethiopia, India and Canada. The author came to conclusion that federalism alone cannot solve the whole sole problem of diversity. Federalism is the tool that can exacerbate the situation more drastically and can cause more problems in society. It cannot handle the diversity alone it requires other factors also such as Democracy, good governance, nationalism. Ethnic disputes can be controlled through federalism but not solely through federalism, it is both means and the end.
Federalism can be adopted in a diversified society, the great example is India, which has lot of diversity but its diversity acts as its strength rather than an obstacle. The reason of such growth in India is strong independent judiciary and Constitutional provisions relating to fundamental rights which provides equality to all the classes unlike Nigeria and Ethiopia where states are created on the basis of languages or ethnicity. Minority rights are also not catered to in their constitutions which ultimately becomes threat to the federal government.
Lastly, we can say that federalism is the best structure for diverse society if it is implemented carefully. Merely adopting federal system cannot manage or accommodate diversity there are other factors that need to be addressed.
Finally, from Nigeria and Ethiopia case, first, we can learn that there should not be a dominant class in the society that can have a very negative effect on federalism. Second, there should not be states on the basis of ethnicity specifically that can lead to growth of strong feeling of regionalism that too in negative aspects.
[1] Forum of federation, http://forumfed.org/federal-countries/ (last visited Apr. 11, 2023).
[2] S.A. Palekar, Federalism: A Conceptual Analysis, 67 IJPS 303, 304 (2006).
[3] M. Beloff, The Federal Solution in its Application to Europe, Asia and Africa, 21 IJPS 114 (1953).
[4] Sir Robert Garran, Report of the Royal Commission on the Australian Constitution, 1929, Pg. 230.
[5] Centre for Study of Federalism, https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php?title=Livingston,_William_S. (last visited Apr. 11, 2023).
[6] Craig Volden, Origin, Operation, and Significance: The Federalism of William H. Riker, 4 TJoF 89, 93-102 (2004).
[7] M.J.C Vile, The Structure of American Federalism (1967).
[8] D.J. Elazar, The American Partnership (1967).
[9] R.L. Watts, New Federations: Experiments in the Commonwealth (1966).
[10] Williams, D. A., Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus (2013).
[11]Data Common, https://datacommons.org/place/country/NGA?mprop=count&popt=Person&hl=en (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[12] Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
[13] Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, art. 1.
[14] Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, art. 2.
[15] Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, art. 3.
[16] CIFORB Country Profile Nigeria reviewed – University of Birmingham, (2006), https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/ptr/ciforb/resources/Nigeria.pdf (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[17] Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani, Remembering Nigeria’s Biafra war that many prefer to forget, BBC, January 15, 2020.
[18] Thomas R Pickering, CURBING VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA (I): THE JOS CRISIS 1–37 (2012).
[19] David Smock, Crisis in the Niger Delta United States Institute of Peace (2022), https://www.usip.org/publications/2009/09/crisis-niger-delta (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[20] Hyginus Banko Okibe, Herder-Farmer Conflicts in South East Nigeria: Assessing the dangers Wilson Center (2022), https://afghanistan.wilsoncenter.org/publication/svnp-research-paper-okibe (last visited Apr 14, 2023).
[21] Ali Usman & Yahaya Garba, Ethnic conflict in Nigeria: Causes and consequences – ISROSET ISROSET (2019), https://www.isroset.org/pub_paper/IJSRMS/9-IJSRMS-01607.pdf (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[22] Hilal Ahmad Wani & Andi Suwirta, Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria: A Need for True Federalism (2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312146604_Ethnic_Conflict_in_Nigeria_A_Need_for_True_Federalism_peaceful_and_prosperous_in_Nigeria (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[23] The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/nigerias-federal-system-still-isnt-working-what-should-change-149284 (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[24] Ethiopian Review, Ethiopia’s Constitution – Federalism in Action, https://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/33777 (last visited Apr. 13, 2023).
[25] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 21 August 1995, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5a84.html (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[26] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995, art. 9.
[27] Theodore M. Vestal, Federalism: Application for Ethiopia, 13 IJES 97, 102-105 (2019).
[28] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995, art. 39.
[29] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995, art. 46.
[30] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995, art. 46.
[31] Supra note 27, at 103.
[32] Minority Rights group international, https://minorityrights.org/country/ethiopia/#:~:text=The%20Ethiopian%20census%20lists%20more,two%2Dthirds%20of%20the%20population. (last visited Apr 13, 2023).
[33] Aljazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/19/why-is-ethnic-violence-surging-in-ethiopia (last visited Apr 14, 2023).
[34]IDMC, https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2022/ (last visited Apr 14, 2023).
[35] Mulunesh Dessie Admassu, Causes of Ethnic conflict in Ethiopia and its effect on development: The case of ‘Ahmara’ and ‘Gumuz’ Communities, 21 JSDA 64, 69 (2019).
[36] Id.
[37] Morgan Stanley, https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/investment-opportunities-in-india (last visited Apr 14, 2023).
[38] Nirvikar Singh and T.N. Srinivasan, Federalism and economic development in India: An assessment, University of California (2006) https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1273/ (last visited Apr 15, 2023).
[39]H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th ed. 2018).
[40] Shleifer (1995).
[41] Dicey, Law of Constitution (1952).
[42] Keshavnanda Bharti v. UOI, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[43] Ind. Const., 1950, art. 368 cl. 2 proviso.
[44] Radha Varada, REGIONAL IDENTITIES-A CHALLENGE TO INDIAN FEDERALISM-SPECIAL REFERENCE TO NORTH EAST INDIA, 76 IJPS 442 (2015).
[45]Ishika Kedwal, Indian federalism and governors – challenges therein, SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072677&download=yes (last visited Apr 21, 2023)
[46] David Cameron and Richard Simeon, Intergovernmental Relations in Canada: The emergence of Collaborative Federalism, 32 TGRF 49, 51 (2002).
[47] Alain-G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions (University of Toronto Press, 2009).
IntroductionSection 479 of BNSS:Release of a person under Section 479 BNSS is subject to Judicial…
Section 478 of BNSS:No discretion of the court in bailable casesNo cancellation of bail under…
IntroductionJurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the caseJurisdictional groundi. Subject matter jurisdiction or Rationae…
Written by Jeet Sinha. Dr Shashi Tharoor on the Political Reality of ReservationsAnalysis of Dr.…
By Akshay Deshmane1 Picture depicting one of the many pits left open by Hindalco. Why the…
IntroductionArguments of the United StatesEnforcement of an indictmentNot a legitimate Head of the StateInvolvement with…