April 9th, 2021
Given that states conclude that their existing laws allow for the entry into mutual aid agreements or when they adopt new laws to obtain such power, concerted efforts should be made to share and make the most of the lessons learned among themselves. Similarly, strategies to meet the constitutional requirements of the federal state should be pursued jointly. Non-binding agreements can be a convenient way to exchange health information. However, liability, compensation and reimbursement issues related to the distribution of supplies, equipment or personnel (in the event of an undeclared emergency outside the EMAC) can only be dealt with effectively in mutual assistance agreements that create binding obligations for the parties. States may be comfortable concluding binding agreements drawn up taking into account existing judicial interpretations of the compact clause or useful proposals from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Or, like EMAC and PNEMA, states may decide to seek congressional approval for binding agreements. The Congress agreement on PNEMA (particularly if IEMAC subsequently obtains approval), coupled with the Confederation`s strong promotion of state mutual assistance, suggests that congressional approval of an international EMAC agreement covering all states along the borders between the United States, Canada and Mexico could be possible. In addition to the types of assistance that were put in place by Hurricane Katrina (staff, the exchange of epidemiological or laboratory information and specialized personnel across interstate and international borders may be essential in detecting and controlling future outbreaks of infectious diseases, whether natural (for example. B, the onset of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 or the risk of H5N1 flu, or as a result of a bioterrorist attack. States must therefore have agreements to provide mutual assistance in all its forms, in order to facilitate an effective response to disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to detect and control potential outbreaks of infectious diseases before they become disasters.
Over the past two years, emergency disciplines of all kinds agree that the country has changed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. That said, the day-to-day concerns of emergency responders do not stop, as evidenced by recent forest fires, earthquakes, mudslides, hurricanes and floods. As a general rule, even if authorized and enforced by law, mutual assistance agreements will not be fully effective unless the necessary follow-up measures are taken to ensure that the agreements serve their purpose. States must cooperate and coordinate with other relevant legal systems through table exercises and other planning and enforcement measures to ensure that mutual assistance agreements deliver on their promises as effective instruments of preparedness and response to public health. Other agreements are common in small towns that have no resources or have limited resources. In these cases, local crews are able to deal with small incidents themselves, but in the event of a major incident, surrounding communities and local resources are called upon for the first deployment. For example, local fire and EMS services will generally handle fire alarms and car accidents, while fire reports result in automatic dispatches (automatic assistance) to surrounding cities. Other agreements: any formal or informal agreement used to request or provide assistance and/or resources between legal systems at all levels of government (including foreign, NGO or private sector). Participating political subdivisions are provided, where possible, for the promotion of disasters in states and at the federal level.