Home > Uncategorized > Guideline On Concluding Cooperation And Mutual Assistance Agreements

Guideline On Concluding Cooperation And Mutual Assistance Agreements


It may be advisable to identify and verify other existing national and local cross-border agreements, some of which contain formal written documents. Fire protection agreements can be particularly instructive. For example, the Great Lakes Forest Fire Protection Agreement, signed in 1989 by natural resource officers from Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin, and the Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement, approved by Congress on November 12, 1998 (Table 2▶). The agreement contains provisions that appear to bind States to liability, compensation and reimbursement. Many other cooperative relationships across borders are based on informal handshake agreements. Particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border, some of these agreements address public health issues. However, it is not certain that a legal analysis was carried out prior to the conclusion of these agreements. Given that the MAA`s objectives include the sharing of stocks, equipment and personnel in undeclared emergency scenarios, the MAA must address the “binding” constitutional issue in its planned intergovernmental agreements. The question of whether Congressional approval could be obtained through an amendment to EMAC or another mechanism remains open. In any case, MAA public health officials have begun discussions with the boards of governors and emergency management officials in MAA member states on the advice to pursue an “undeclared emergency” authority. Future directions will certainly be influenced by the outcome of these discussions. Relations between national and provincial governments in Canada are similar, in some way, to relations between federated states and federated states in the United States and do not appear to be an obstacle to the creation of mutual assistance agreements26 Although different legal norms certainly cause some areas of disagreement and the need for further discussion and negotiation, of national and provincial lawyers in Canada expressed support for dialogue.

r questions available as soon as they occur. In addition to the types of mutual assistance related to Hurricane Katrina (personnel, equipment and stockpiles), the exchange of epidemiological or laboratory information and specialized personnel across intergovernmental and international borders may be essential to detect and control future outbreaks of infectious diseases, whether they occur naturally (for example.B. the onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003 or the threat of influenza (H5N1) or as a result of a bioterroristic attack. States must therefore conclude agreements to ensure mutual assistance in all its forms, to facilitate effective responses to disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to detect and control potential outbreaks of infectious diseases before they become disasters. We describe the basic legal framework for States to provide intergovernmental and international mutual assistance, identify gaps in this framework and propose measures that could be taken to fill those gaps. We focus on: (1) types of mutual aid; (2) current federal approaches to encourage increased use of mutual assistance agreements by states; (3) mutual assistance projects carried out by States, including efforts to assess legal authority; and (4) federal and other constitutional issues relating to mutual assistance (Tables 1▶-3▶▶ include laws and other authorities relating to international and intergovernmental mutual assistance). Our findings highlight that while the existing legal authority has certain types of mutual aid (e.g.B. The exchange of information) may provide for several additional measures, including state legislative changes, congressional approval, final legal interpretations, and governors` emergency declarations, before other forms of mutual assistance can be implemented. .

. .