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. These public health emergencies have reinforced the recognition of potential and real barriers to effective mutual assistance and have highlighted legal “gaps” to be filled, both inside and outside the EMAC. Although EMAC facilitated the transfer of unprecedented mutual assistance to the affected areas affected by Katrina, response gaps have been improved. For this reason, many states have not been able or unsure of how they can use the services of volunteers (who were not protected from legal liability) 4. However, some states are trying to address this problem.5 In addition, the provisions of the EMAC are triggered only by a governor`s declaration, the sharing of small-scale resources, emergencies not declared by agreements separated by the EMAC, must take effect. The same applies to the exchange of epidemiological or laboratory data to detect endangered infectious diseases. In some circumstances, it may even be argued that routine public health functions would be more effective in concluding mutual assistance agreements for the exchange of relevant information, supplies or equipment. Relations between national and provincial governments in Canada are roughly similar to relations between U.S. states and do not themselves appear to be an obstacle to mutual assistance agreements.26 While there are certainly some areas of legal evidence that will raise areas of disagreement and the need for further discussion and negotiation, Canada`s national and provincial lawyers were prepared to engage in dialogue on the issues.

as soon as they happen.