An obvious method of compliance is the creation of cooperation agreements that would not constitute “agreements or pacts” within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition. If they have powers under their own laws, states are free to enter into “non-binding” agreements beyond their borders. The guidelines for coordination between the United States and Mexico on epidemiological events of common interest are not binding and serve as an example for this type of approach.19 Non-binding agreements can be useful to states, especially when they are interested in the exchange of information. MUTUAL AID IS THE PARTAGE OF stocks, equipment, personnel, information or other resources across political borders. This will be achieved effectively through adherence to mutual assistance agreements. After Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Congress approved the Emergence Management Assistance Pact (EMAC), passed in all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Table 1▶). shared as part of Hurricane Katrina`s response and recovery efforts. Hurricane Katrina triggered a flow of personnel, equipment and assistance from other countries to the affected areas; Epidemiologists and other public health experts helped identify and control public health risks in the aftermath of the storm. Other states continued to provide shelter, food, clothing and education to those who had to flee the area. Texas assessed its legal capacity to enter into cooperation agreements with Mexican states for the exchange of epidemiological information and concluded that it had no legal jurisdiction over the cross-border exchange of confidential health information.
It also found that, while the state authority exists to enter into mutual aid agreements on the border, a provision of the U.S. Constitution (previously discussed) has put in place an obstacle to entry into binding agreements.15 Lawyers in some great lakes states of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin, in conjunction with the EWIDS project, have verified and analyzed the confidentiality and confidentiality laws of each of these states.16 certainly justify certain areas of disagreement and the need for further discussion and negotiation, the relationship between national and provincial governments in Canada is similar to the relationship between the federal states and the United States. opening up a number of areas of disagreement and the need to continue discussions and negotiations. , national and provincial lawyers in Canada were prepared to discuss the striking issues.