Intergovernmental Disputes Research Articles

Regulation of intergovernmental disputes: The aviation industry case study

The main problem in this paper is a dispute between the government of West Nusa Tenggara Province (NTB) Indonesia, and the government of Central Lombok Regency about the fight to name the airport. This paper aims to explain that the struggle for the name of Lombok International Airport (BIL) to become Zainuddin Abdul Madjid International Airport (BIZAM) in Lombok has become a dispute between Levels 1 and 2 local governments. The form of conflict is that the NTB Level 1 local government wants an airport called BIZAM, while the Central Lombok Level 2 regional government wants BIL. This paper uses in-depth interviews, observation, and documentation methods. The results of this paper show that the conflict occurs because there are planned elements carried out by Levels 1 and 2 local governments that are indirectly affiliated with one particular religious or social group in the fight for airport naming. For this reason, this article implies that the conflict occurs solely because it wants to maintain the identity and for the sake of the self-esteem of each group or socio-religious organization.

Exploring the Complexities of Fiscal Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations in Nigeria

This study explores the complexities of fiscal federalism and intergovernmental relations in Nigeria and their implications for development, resource allocation, and governance. It examines various aspects including revenue generation, resource allocation, policy implementation, intergovernmental disputes, and theoretical perspectives. The research design involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, utilizing thematic analysis of secondary data and statistical analysis of survey data. The findings reveal disparities in revenue allocation among the geo-political zones, highlighting the need for equitable resource distribution and balanced development. Effective intergovernmental collaboration and cooperation are crucial for addressing challenges in policy implementation and improving service delivery. Strengthening institutional capacity and implementing conflict resolution mechanisms are recommended to foster harmonious intergovernmental relations. The study emphasizes the importance of revisiting revenue allocation formulas, promoting revenue diversification, and enhancing intergovernmental dialogue and collaboration. It also recommends capacity-building initiatives to overcome implementation challenges and the establishment of clear dispute-resolution frameworks. The research contributes to the existing body of knowledge on fiscal federalism and intergovernmental relations in Nigeria, providing insights for policymakers and stakeholders. These findings and recommendations aim to enhance fiscal federalism, improve service delivery, and achieve inclusive and sustainable development across Nigeria. By implementing these measures, Nigeria can strengthen its governance framework, foster intergovernmental cooperation, and ensure the well-being of its citizens.

Resolving Intergovernmental Disputes in Kenya through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms

Resolving Intergovernmental Disputes in Kenya through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms

Cross-border cooperation in the shadow of crisis – the Turów Coalmine case

Background: The study concerns the inter-governmental dispute between the Polish and the Czech governments on the planned Turów coalmine expansion and its impact on the cross-border cooperation between the Polish and the Czech entities, particularly in the sphere of cross-border partnerships conducting microprojects financially supported by the INTERREG Program. The conflict went before the European Court of Justice in 2021 and was the cause of hostility between the two nations. the conflict was concluded in February 2022, with the signing of the agreement on the future of the Turów coalmine and compensation for the Czechs. Although the dispute has ended formally, but some problems in relations between the Polish and the Czech partners on the borderland still exist. Research problem and questions: The research problem concerns recognizing how inter-governmental disputes at a national level can impact on cross-border cooperation at a local level, and in particular the Polish-Czech partnerships conducting cross-border microprojects. It comprises of research questions concerning the impact of this inter-governmental dispute on the ongoing and future Polish-Czech institutional partnerships in cross-border projects and the factors necessary to improve the resilience of cross-border cooperation at a local level to political factors and actors. Methods: The authors used both qualitative research methods (in-depth interviews, media analysis, desk research) and quantitative research methods (survey CATI, CAWI surveys). Conclusions: The study shows slight changes in the intensity, efficiency and approach to the cross-border cooperation; it reveals the future activities essential to improving the Polish-Czech relations in the Nysa Euroregion. It points out the important factors necessary to improve the resilience of cross-border cooperation to political factors.

Constitutional controversies in the subnational democratization of Mexico, 1994–2021

AbstractAfter the 1994 judicial reform, the Mexican Supreme Court has transformed into a more genuine enforcer of law and the final arbiter in an increasing number of disputes over power and resources between different levels and branches of government. Constitutional controversies have become an essential legal resource enabling subnational actors to defend the autonomy and jurisdiction guaranteed in the Constitution. The number of constitutional controversies filed by municipalities and subnational actors before the Court increased considerably in the 1995–2021 period, reaching nearly 2500 intergovernmental disputes of exclusive jurisdiction. In the context of growing political fragmentation, this judicialization process has motivated subnational actors to appeal regularly to the Supreme Court to act as a counterweight, resulting in an increasing influence in the national political arena and even in the implementation of public policies. With its rulings, a nonrepresentative body is regulating coexistence among elected political actors and institutionalizing new rules of behavior. The Supreme Court's rulings on fundamental cases that are still pending should reveal whether the 2021 judicial reform will enhance judicial independence.

Urban Autonomy in South African Intergovernmental Relations Jurisprudence

Abstract The notion of urban autonomy is increasingly significant in a global era where city governments are playing an ever-growing role in development, as well as in domestic and international politics. While extending significantly beyond legal configurations of local government powers and functions, urban autonomy is importantly shaped, enabled and protected by constitutional and legal provisions. This is so especially where urban governance happens in a resource-strapped and often politically volatile environment. This article considers the extent to which formal constitutional structures, and their justiciability, enable and channel urban autonomy in the developing world, with a focus on the constitutionally ensconced powers and functional authority of cities in South Africa. Through an overview of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and of court decisions upholding urban autonomy in intergovernmental disputes, the article illustrates that South African cities have been served well by a constitutional framework emphasising cooperative governance and developmental local government, as well as by the justiciable entrenchment of local government’s executive, legislative and administrative authority.

Inter-Federal-Regional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms in Ethiopian Federacy: A Comparative Appraisal on the Legal and Institutional Frameworks

The FDRE Constitution, formally, establishes federal form of state structure on the basis of ethno-territorial-linguistic criteria according to which nine regional states have been formed. Federalism, in turn, institutionalizes the division of power between federal and regional states that may render inter-governmental disputes in their interactions inevitably. The possibility of inter-governmental disputes, thus, necessitates the institutionalized inter-governmental dispute resolution mechanisms between these two tiers of governments. Being informed of federal characteristics, the Constitution extends the legislative, executive and judicial powers both for federal and regional governments. In equal footing, the Constitution further provides that both federal and regional states shall respect the power of one another. And the federal government may, whenever necessary, delegate to the states the power and functions granted to it by article 51 of the Constitution; leaving residual power (power given neither exclusively to either of them or concurrently to both of them) under the exclusive competence of the regional states. Though both federal and regional governments are constitutionally vested with different power and supposed to act distinctively and independently, overlapping of power between the two levels of governments is self-evident eventually. Be what it may, the FDRE Constitution has no specific provision dealing with intergovernmental relations in general and federal-regional dispute resolution mechanisms in particular though it is of crucial importance to subsist prime values of federalism and overcome the possibilities of intergovernmental disputes pragmatically. The objective of this article is, thus, to examine legal and institutional frameworks for federal-regional intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanisms in Ethiopian federacy and draw the conclusion that the necessity of having the institutionalized federal-regional intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanisms. In doing so, the article has employed comparative means and analysis of the related legal documents. To this end, the experiences of Kenyan, Nigerian and South African have been consulted so as they are found with the best lessons and practices in comparison. Finally, the article found out that there has been a need to have Federal-Regional Dispute Settlement Mechanism beyond board in Ethiopia.

Judge Skubiszewski at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

The article presents the contribution of Professor Skubiszewski to the work of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal during the period of his presidency (1994–2010). The article discusses the cases of Iran-United States Claims Tribunal decided during that period (dual-nationality cases, intergovernmental disputes and military contract cases) and the challenges which Professor Skubiszewski had to confront. Also considered are the more general problems encountered, such as unexpected extended existence of the Tribunal and its slow pace of work. In conclusion some general comments are drawn on the contribution of Professor Skubiszewski to the trajectory of the Tribunal, and on the future of the Tribunal itself.

The judicialization of territorial politics in Brazil, Colombia and Spain

This article explains how judicial review influences intergovernmental political dynamics in Brazil, Colombia and Spain. The argument is developed in light of two questions: how supreme courts have established themselves as pivotal institutions for settling vertical intergovernmental disputes, and how national and subnational politicians use judicial review in order to enhance their own interests. A comparison between the judicial review processes in federal Brazil, quasi-federal Spain, and unitary Colombia provides an answer to these questions. Accounting for the differences in the territorial organization and systems of government among these countries, the article assesses the patterns of judicial review originating from the subnational level. Findings suggest that courts affect the interaction between national and subnational politicians in the three country-cases, but through different patterns of judicialization of territorial politics.

The Courts and Devolution in the UK

The courts have hitherto played a remarkably limited role in the working of devolution in the United Kingdom. In this respect, the UK has been an exception to practice in most federal or decentralised systems, where the courts have tended to assume a prominent role in adjudicating intergovernmental disputes. This article examines whether political congruence contributed to this minimal role for the courts in IGR. It argues that additional factors are also at play: the limited role accorded to lawyers and legal issues in the UK's system of government, the flexibility of the devolution settlements, and the political nature of the UK's constitution, which make it both possible and desirable to resolve intergovernmental disputes by different means. While the courts are likely to become more prominent as a result of third-party litigation, particularly as devolved legislatures become more active, the limited role of the courts in most intergovernmental matters appears unlikely to change.

Ever Looser Union

The State of the Nations 2008: Into the third term of devolution in the United Kingdom is the sixth publication of a major research programme into devolution in the United Kingdom, published on behalf of the Constitution Unit at University College London. The focus of this volume is on the devolved elections of May 2007, analyzing the outcome in terms of both the immediate aftermath and longer-term implications. In particular, it will consider influences on policy-making, finance, the UK Parliament and the resolution of intergovernmental disputes. This book replaces the previously-announced volume The State of the Nations 2007

L'etat, C'est Moi: Why provincial Intra-governmental disputes in Shout Africa remain ungoverned by the final constitution and the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act - and how we can best resolve them

For years, lawyers, jurists and academics bemoaned a great gaping hole in our law : the Final had promised to establish a legal regime to mediate and to resolve intergovernmental conflicts. (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996)(Final Constitution or FC). During the first decade of post-apartheid South African life (1996 - 2005), Parliament failed to make good FC s 41(2)'s guarantee that intergovernmental disputes would be resolved by legislation that prevented different spheres of government and opposing organs of state from going to war (or court) over vital policy matters.

The Madisonian Constitution

Today, we think of constitutional questions as being settled by the Supreme Court.But that is not always the case, nor is it what the framers intended in constructing the three-branch federal government. This volume examines four crucial moments in the United States' political history-the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency and the New Deal, and the Reagan revolution-to illustrate the Madisonian view that the present rise of judicial supremacy actually runs counter to the Constitution as established at the nation's founding. George Thomas opens by discussing how the Constitution encourages an antagonistic approach to settling disputes, thereby preserving itself as the nation's fundamental law rather then ceding that role to the president, Congress, or Supreme Court. In considering the four historical case studies, he focuses on judicial interpretations and the political branches' responses to them to demonstrate that competing conceptions of constitutional authority and meaning, as well as intergovernmental disputes themselves-rather than any specific outcome-strengthen the nature of the nation's founding document as a political instrument. Engagingly written and soundly argued, this study clarifies and highlights the political origins of the nation's foundational document and argues that American constitutionalism is primarily about countervailing power not legal limits enforced by courts.

The Supreme Court and federalism in Nigeria

ABSTRACTSince Nigeria's transition from military to civilian rule in 1999, the country's Supreme Court has risen from a position of relative political obscurity and institutional vulnerability into a prominent and independent adjudicator of inter-governmental disputes in this chronically conflicted federation. Examined here is the Court's arbitration, during President Olusegun Obasanjo's two civilian constitutional terms (1999–2007), of fifteen different federal-state litigations over offshore oil resources, revenue allocation, local governance and public order. The Court's federalism decisions were remarkably independent and reasonably balanced, upholding the constitutional supremacy of the Federal Government in several findings, tilting towards the states in some declarations, and simultaneously underwriting federal authority and state autonomy in other rulings. Despite the Court's important and independent role, however, the Nigerian federation was vexed by violent conflicts, underscoring the structural, political and constitutional constraints on judicial federalism in this notoriously complex and divided country.

The Judiciary and Constitutionalism in Transitions: A Critique

The article critically analyses the role of the Nigerian courts in mediating resultant tensions in the post-authoritarian transition period. In doing this, I examine jurisprudence emanating from the courts on some serious inter-governmental disputes, as well as decisions bordering on individual and group rights, particularly those connected to the transition process. The dynamics of democratic transition in Nigeria after decades of military rule dictates the inevitability of these disputes. The military left a legacy of systemic distortion and institutional dysfunctions which constitute formidable challenges to the transitioning society. The article argues a case for a purposive jurisprudential approach to resolving the ensuing tensions which typically threaten the viability of the transition.

Divided Publius: Democracy, Federalism, and the Cultivation of Public Sentiment

AbstractAlexander Hamilton and James Madison agreed in the Federalist that the Constitution authorizes both political and judicial processes to define and safeguard the boundaries of federalism, but disagreed on public opinion's role in a republic and how to cultivate public sentiment for the Constitution. Hamilton preferred resolving intergovernmental disputes via political and public processes because public endorsement would legitimize broad national powers. Madison favored building public sentiment for the Constitution through strict limits on the national government enforced in part by the judiciary. He thought resolving intergovernmental disputes via public processes would confirm widespread suspicions of imperium in imperio and might provoke a popular backlash that would upset the constitutional equilibrium and undermine even legitimate national powers. This difference foreshadows Hamilton and Madison's later constitutional disagreements, reveals fundamental ambiguities in America's federal system, and confirms the need to consider how institutions and policies affect public sentiment for the constitutional order.

The European Court of Justice and the EC External Trade Relations: A Legal Analysis of the Court's Problems with Regard to International Agreements

AbstractThis article explains why the WTOand the various agreements that form an integral part of the Agreement establishing the WTO raise problems and challenges for the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ). It focuses on the role of the ECJ in relation to exclusive and shared competence. The European Community's (EC) specific problems and challenges for the ECJ are partly related to the EC's position in the WTO. In this sense, the opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice is helpful for understanding the unitary character of the EC's external trade relations. This article includes a discussion of Hermès v. FHT Marketing concerning the interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on TRIPS, annexed to the 1994 Agreement establishing the WTO. The new mechanisms introduced by the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are perhaps not comparable to the full judicial system within the EU, but they have changed both the rules and the legal culture concerning the adjudication and enforcement obligations. Although the WTO is still an intergovernmental organization, powerful private actors have already learned to manipulate the system to reach legal adjudication under the guise of intergovernmental disputes. This paper concludes that the EC wants to deny 'direct effect' to the WTO. This article offers the conclusion that we must aim at the creation of new standards to judge the applicability of international agreements. Otherwise, by allowing policy makers to decide rather than ECJ, the EC legal order may be at risk.

Health care reform: lessons from Canada.

Although Canadian health care seems to be perennially in crisis, access, quality, and satisfaction in Canada are relatively high, and spending is relatively well controlled. The Canadian model is built on a recognition of the limits of markets in distributing medically necessary care. Current issues in financing and delivering health care in Canada deserve attention. Key dilemmas include intergovernmental disputes between the federal and provincial levels of government and determining how to organize care, what to pay for (comprehensiveness), and what incentive structures to put in place for payment. Lessons for the United States include the importance of universal coverage, the advantages of a single payer, and the fact that systems can be organized on a subnational basis.

New directions: a South Asian perspective

The central challenge facing countries of the developing world such as Sri Lanka is how to reconcile ethnic and cultural diversity with the concept of mature and cohesive nationhood. This is especially so where a federation is created not by the traditional pattern of independent entities coming together, but by devolution from a unitary state to one involving power sharing. In such situations there arealways fears that federalism is a precursor of dismemberment or disintegration. What is needed is to reconcile competing objectives for a strong and effective centre and for recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity. This may require hybrid or quasi‐federal structures that do not fit neatly into unitary or federal categories. In attempting to achieve this reconciliation practicalities may require asymmetrical devolution, but this in turn may provoke emotional resistance to special or disparate treatment of particular minorities. Nor is devolution by itself sufficient. To be viable there must be suitable mechanisms to resolve intergovernmental disputes. Particularly important if confrontation and polarisation are to be minimised isemphasis upon compromise and proportionality and a public respect for pluralism, secularism, and representative democracy.

Economic relations between Taiwan and the United States

Analyses of trade relations between any two countries usually focus on the barriers which stand in the way of trade between them. This examination of trade relations between Taiwan and the United States is no exception. It should be noted, however, that the barriers to trade between Taiwan and the United States, and the inter-governmental disputes which they have given rise to, are matters of minor importance when considered in relation to the benefits which each side derives from their trade. Why, then, focus on the barriers rather than the benefits? The answer presumably is that the benefits of trade depend on its overall level and composition and not on the level and composition of trade with any one partner. If our focus were the benefits of trade, we would not want to restrict our analysis to a bilateral trade relationship. We should recognize, nonetheless, that the benefits a country derives from trade overall are the product of all of its bilateral trade relationships. It is useful, therefore, to begin with an examination of the magnitude of the trade between Taiwan and the United States. Following this, we examine the barriers which each side imposes on imports from the other. Subsequently, we consider two especially thorny trade-related disputes between the two countries, intellectual property rights and exchange rate protectionism. No one will be surprised to learn that the initiator of these disputes is the side that possesses disproportionate power and leverage over the other.