Introduction
Defining, identifying, and managing inter-jurisdictional conflicts is crucial for achieving stability in the functioning of governmental and non-governmental structures. It is also of significance to prevent such conflicts before they arise by carefully designing the areas of authority, rights of public servants and their obligations. This assignment is relevant to the topic because it reinforces the understanding of the key terms and concepts. In this paper, the inter-jurisdictional conflict will be defined, exemplified by local issues, and supported with measures that could help settle such disputes.
Definition
To understand what inter-jurisdictional conflict means it is necessary to split the term into logical sense-bearing parts. Jurisdiction, according to Merriam Webster online dictionary, means “the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate” or “the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.” (“Definition of jurisdiction,” n.d.). As such, it becomes evident that jurisdiction can be a branch of government, administration or a representative of such authority. The term could also mean the extent of power or items that such power controls or protects. “Inter” means between or among, therefore, inter-jurisdictional conflict signifies a conflict among two or more powers over something that happened to be in the area, where the interests of two or several agencies overlap. An inter-jurisdictional conflict could also happen within an organization among different sub-structures. For instance, if authorities of two similar departments are not clearly defined and both of them given the same task, an inter-jurisdictional conflict could arise.
The nature of a conflict between jurisdictions or authorities lies both within legal and ethical frameworks. The mere possibility of conflict should be eliminated by defining the borderlines of authority of each agency in laws and statutes. Unfortunately, there could be instances in which such conflict is not legally evident and can surface if viewed through the prism of ethics and morale. The settlement of inter-jurisdictional conflicts is usually handed by the court or special dispute-settlement unit or committee.
A Real-life Example of Inter-Jurisdictional Conflict
In order to grasp the essence of inter-jurisdictional conflict as a concept, there is a need to conduct a case study. In her article published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 2017, Kelly Yamanouchi described a clear case of a dispute between jurisdictions. According to Yamanouchi (2017), Cortez Carter, a leader of ATL Business ventures at Hartsfield-Jackson International who was also responsible for concessions and concessions development was allegedly awarding contracts to his a firm related to his wife’s company. Although there is an argument over the direct involvement of Carter in the decision-making process over contracts and their extension, legal evidence suggests that he should have disclosed a possible conflict of interest (Yamanouchi, 2017).
In this case, inter-jurisdictional conflict happened between two companies (or their executives) who allegedly put the family relationship in front of the company’s best interest, as well as local and federal laws. This conflict could also be called an act of nepotism since the company who gave contract was in a familial relationship the party who received it. When husband’s jurisdiction extends over awarding concessions and wife’s authority allows her to take such concessions it is a clear indication of a conflict of interest. It is noteworthy that a conflict arises not between those involved in the act of alleged nepotism but on a level of the organization and controlling agencies. Since the airport is a publicly funded institution and a certain amount of money for the concession is taken from taxes, the conflict also concerns citizens of Atlanta. Therefore, inter-jurisdictional conflict may arise from actions of several people entrusted with executive powers, yet parties affected may constitute more than two.
Management of Inter-Jurisdictional Conflicts
Conflicts among jurisdictions may inflict sufficient tangible and intangible losses to concerned sides, which indicates a need for management of such issues. In the case mentioned above, this conflict was investigated by Atlanta Mayor, the city of Atlanta’s ethics office, and airport officials. There is a code of ethics that binds authorities not to withhold possible ties to family members and forbids family members to offer paid services to public institutions (“Atlanta, GA: Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Since there are already norms and regulations that are aimed at preventing inter-jurisdictional conflicts, the actions need to be concentrated on abidance. Each public servant should disclose the businesses that his relatives are engaged in. The information should be public and accessible. Moreover, several copies of written disclosure notes must be kept in agencies responsible for dispute settlement and conflict of interest resolution. This measure could have helped prevent the incident of such disclosure document being absent as in the case above.
Conclusion
All things considered, inter-jurisdictional conflicts are a serious issue which needs to be strictly managed and prevented. The definition suggests that it is a conflict between two or more branches of power which lead to a violation of public trust, financial, and other losses. As evidenced by the case of Atlanta airport, such conflicts can be kept hidden for years. As a public matter, conflict of interest between agencies needs to be closely observed by citizens who should hold the authorities and concerned parties accountable. With regulations and abidance in order, inter-jurisdictional conflicts in most cases should be more preventable.
References
Atlanta, GA: Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Web.
Definition of jurisdiction. (n.d.). Web.
Yamanouchi, K. (2017). Atlanta ethics office investigates airport conflict of interest issue. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Web.