In Texas v. New Jersey, 25Footnote379 U.S. 674 (1965). See also Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (1972). The Court ruled on a multinational dispute concerning the state that can decide the intangible property consisting of a small debt of a company that has not been recovered. The Court noted that states cannot create constitutional regulation and that no federal law has a right to the case, assessing the possible rules and choosing the simplest rules to apply and the least likely to lead to persistent litigation. The extension of federal judicial authority to controversies between states and the establishment of the original jurisdiction before the Supreme Court of appeals, for which a state is a party, has its origin in experience.

Prior to independence, disputes between colonies claiming charter rights in the territory were settled by the Council of Privileges. According to the statutes of the Confederation, Congress was the last resort to the call for the resolution of all disputes and disagreements . . . . . between two or more states concerning borders, jurisdiction or any other case, and to effectively establish ad hoc arbitration tribunals that resolve such disputes and render a final judgment on them. When the Philadelphia Convention met in 1787, serious disputes over borders, land and river rights concerned ten states.1FootnoteWarren, The Supreme Court and Disputes Between States, 34 Bull. by William and Mary, No.

For a broader treatment of the background and the general subject, see C. Warren, The Supreme Court and the Sovereign States (1924). It is hardly surprising, then, that in the first 60 years, the only state disputes that came before the Supreme Court were border disputes2Footnoteid. 13 years old. However, during this period, 1789-1849, only three such complaints were filed. Over the next 90 years, 1849-1939, at least 29 such complaints were filed. Id. at 13, 14. or that such disputes constitute the largest number of interstate remedies. However, since 1900, increasing population mobility and prosperity and the effects of technology and industrialization have been increasingly common. However, with the proliferation of administrative functions at the state level, intergovernmental pacts are extended to the rules and procedures for managing activities between them. [45] The Council of State Governments[46] recommends the use of an intergovernmental authority to «ensure accountability, training, compliance, enforcement, regulation, information collection and exchange, as well as all staff, in order to make the [compact] a success.» [47] Since pacts are written in the form of contracts, states that negotiate pacts involving the creation of an intergovernmental agency are free to determine the rules applicable to the management of that agency.

[35] Buenger et al., supra note 2, at 237. The purposes can be developed according to two target groups: legislators from states that wish to enter the Covenant before their approval, and then those who will act under the Covenant, as well as all judicial procedures that may be called upon to interpret or enforce it. Agreements between states require the approval of the U.S. Congress. There are three main avenues for obtaining approval of a pact: [3] In addition to treaties, there are other, less formal international agreements. These include efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the G7 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Although the PSI has a «declaration of prohibition principles» and the G7 Global Partnership includes several statements by G7 heads of state and government, it also does not have a legally binding document that sets specific obligations and is signed or ratified by member states. Intergovernmental pacts are interstate-negotiated treaties.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the term «compact» should be understood as a «treaty.» [1] Interstate states are the only method authorized by the U.S. Constitution for states to significantly alter their mutual relations. [2]