Suchergebnisse

This article deals selectively with four broad approaches to conflict management in federal systems of government: formal dispute resolution, informal dispute resolution, dispute avoidance, & popular dispute resolution. Courts undertake the task of formal dispute resolution through judicial review: issues of current significance include judicial concepts of federalism, the reference jurisdiction, Scottish devolution, & supranational federalism & the European Court of Justice. Examples of informal dispute resolution are few. The South African Constitution includes a provision, requiring parties to an intergovernmental dispute to exhaust all other remedies before resorting to litigation. The dispute resolution process contained in chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement may stimulate experimentation with similar models in federal systems. Dispute avoidance techniques are many & varied; they include the drafting of constitutional instruments & the use of intergovernmental forums within & outside the constitutional framework. The electoral process may be employed in federal systems to determine the fate of governments, specific legislative measures & proposed constitutional amendments. Each federal society has its own culture of conflict management, which exerts a subtle but significant influence on the operation of, & the relationship among, dispute resolution systems. Adapted from the source document.

This article deals selectively with four broad approaches to conflict management in federal systems of government: formal dispute resolution,informal dispute resolution, dispute avoidance, and popular dispute resolution. Courts undertake the task of formal dispute resolution through judicial review: issues of current significance include judicial concepts of federalism, the reference jurisdiction, Scottish devolution, and supranational federalism and the European Court of Justice. Examples of informal dispute resolution are few. The South African Constitution includes a provision, requiring parties to an intergovernmental dispute to exhaust all other remedies before resorting to litigation. The dispute resolution process contained in chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement may stimulate experimentation with similar models in federal systems. Dispute avoidance techniques are many and varied; they include the drafting of constitutional instruments and the use of intergovernmental forums within and outside the constitutional framework. The electoral process may be employed in federal systems to determine the fate of governments, specific legislative measures and proposed constitutional amendments. Each federal society has its own culture of conflict management, which exerts a subtle but significant influence on the operation of, and the relationship among, dispute resolution systems.

Deals with 4 broad approaches to conflict management in federal systems of government: formal dispute resolution, informal dispute resolution, dispute avoidance, and popular dispute resolution. Courts undertake the task of formal dispute resolution through judicial review: issues of current significance include judicial concepts of federalism, the reference jurisdiction, Scottish devolution, and supranational federalism and the European Court of Justice. Examples of informal dispute resolution are few. The South African Constitution includes a provision, requiring parties to an intergovernmental dispute to exhaust all other remedies before resorting to litigation. (Original abstract - amended)

<p>How do multilevel health care systems evolve? Do they develop in a similar manner, or are their respective paths of evolution more sui generis? The aim of this article is to compare the way in which Canada and the European Union have attempted to coordinate health policy between their component multilevel jurisdictions over time. This article argues that the EU—despite its limited authority over health care—has been better able than Canada to develop a greater capacity for addressing health policy at a supranational level, notwithstanding Canada's greater federal involvement in financing health care. While the experience of the EU supports the theoretical premises of neofunctionalism (that a certain level of integration will induce even greater integration in other areas, especially in response to crisis), the experience of Canadian health care federalism does not fit that theoretical paradigm. This suggests a limited applicability for neofunctionalist theory across multilevel systems more widely.</p>