<p> Decentralization policy is advanced in many regions as a collaborative approach to regional stability, economic and political development, and poverty reduction. However, there is not a valid decentralization policy in the Mano River Region (MRR) countries of West Africa despite the presence of multinational institutions and United Nations Peacekeeping forces. The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological case study was to use the sequential theory of decentralization to investigate why peace and stability in the MRR are still fragile. The primary research question concerned how the policy of decentralization implementation in MRR can significantly contribute to regional stability, enhance economic development, reduce poverty, and minimize corruption in the MRR. Data were collected from 64 participants, through the use of semi-structured, in-depth interview techniques. A consent authorization of participants allowed the collection of the data. The analysis of data involved, identifying categories of responses and answers to classify them in phases based on responses answers to questions. According to study findings, decentralization policy was perceived to be a positive concept that promotes good governance, regional stability, economic development, poverty reduction, and minimization of corruption; however, there was little knowledge and implementation on decentralization in the MRR or among participants&rsquo; native countries. An educational program on the successes of decentralization policy implementation is recommended. Outcomes from this research may serve as a point for social change by providing a model understanding of peace and stability in the MRR and similar areas.</p><p>

<p> Across the United States, at least 1,600 local governments in 40 states have enacted stormwater fees since the mid-1960s. Many of these local governments enacted stormwater fees to finance costly infrastructure upgrades required by increasingly stringent federal and state regulation of stormwater systems and combined sewer overflows. The sustained spread of stormwater fees across the United States over the past five decades reflects a significant shift of fiscal responsibility for operating, maintaining, and improving key public infrastructure systems to the local level. This dissertation investigates the emergence, diffusion, and form of stormwater fees enacted by local governments in the United States over the past 50 years. Structured by several theoretical frameworks and utilizing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, this research identifies key vertical and horizontal intergovernmental dynamics influencing the enactment of stormwater fees by local governments across the country. While underscoring the strong influence that federal and state regulation of municipal stormwater systems has played in popularizing stormwater fees among local governments in the United States, my research also highlights the crucial role that state-level statutory law, case law, and administrative approaches have had on expanding or contracting the options local governments have for implementing stormwater fees individually within their own jurisdictions and collectively across metropolitan regions. My case studies of stormwater fee form suggest that the challenges to broadly scoped collective action characterizing stormwater management and finance in highly fragmented metropolitan regions may present transaction cost barriers too high to be surmounted without coercive intervention from a higher level of government, but that collective action of more limited scope can be achieved in relatively self-organized manner. This research also demonstrates the enduring and important role that consulting firms and professional industry associations have played in influencing stormwater fee enactment by local governments across the United States over the past half-century.</p><p>

U.S.-Puerto Rico relations have always been mystifying to countless U.S. citizens, due to inconsistent policies and judicial decisions from the United States. Puerto Ricans have no control over immigration yet immigrants can decide the future of the island nation. Puerto Rico is a nation under colonial rule. Paul R. Bras sustains the possibility of corporate recognition for the ethnic group as a separate nationality within an existing state evocative of the United States. The United States has treated Puerto Rico as a foreign country nevertheless at times as domestic. Under U.S. law and jurisprudence Puerto Rico is not part of the United States but rather the island is a possession. The electoral difference in plebiscites between the two major political parties is less than three percent. Nonnative voters in the island can have the clout to decide the ultimate political status of the island. A key concern to the problem is who are considered nonnative voters in Puerto Rico. Non-native voters are those who have not been born in Puerto Rico nor have one of their parents born in the island. The exclusion is legally and politically achievable. There are many countries (ex. East Timor) in the world, former colonies (ex. Namibia), and previous U.S. territories (ex. Hawaii) that serve as examples of exclusion. Voting rights in plebiscites are determined by law. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1514, states that all powers have to be in the hands of the people of Puerto Rico. International law and policies sustain that the future political status of colonies is to be determined by the nation. Puerto Rico lacks representation in the U.S. Government. When this happens the unrepresented become a separate nation. William Appelman Williams stated that “the principle of self determination when taken seriously … means a policy of standing aside for people to make their own choices, economic as well as political and cultural.” Under international law and policies of self-determination Puerto Rico can exclude non native voters. Judicial precedents make this point very comprehensible.

No description available.

Today, some twelve million immigrants are unlawfully present in the United States. What response to this situation does Christian theology suggest for these immigrants and those who receive them? To this question about the status of immigrants before the law, the theological literature lacks an understanding of how federal U.S. immigration law developed, and it lacks a robust theological account of the governance of immigration. To fill this gap, the thesis presents three stages in the formation of the laws that designate some immigrants as aliens unlawfully present or illegal aliens, drawing out the moral argumentation in each phase and responding with moral theology. In the first stage, non-citizens were called aliens in U.S. law. In response to the argument that aliens exist as a consequence of natural law, Christian teaching indicates that immigrants are not alien either in creation or for the church. In the second stage, the authority of the federal government to exclude and expel aliens was established, leaving those who do not comply to be designated illegal aliens. To the claim that the federal government has unlimited sovereignty over immigration, interpretations of the Christian Scriptures respond that divine sovereignty limits and directs civil authority over immigration. In the third stage, legal reforms that were intended to end discrimination between countries allowed millions from countries neighboring the U.S. to become illegal aliens. These reforms turn out to be unjust on philosophical grounds and unneighborly on theological grounds. While federal law classes many as aliens unlawfully present in the United States, Christian political theology indicates that immigrants are not alien, the government of immigration is limited by divine judgment, and nationals of neighboring countries deserve special regard.