Collaborative federalism - an alternative model for solving oil and gas disputes in Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since adopting federalism as a new model of governance in the current Constitution of 2005, the distribution of power and wealth has become one of the most contentious issues between the major groups in Iraq; the Sunni Arabs, the Shiite Arabs and the Kurds. Federalism has caused major conflicts between the FG (Federal Government) and the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) over the management of oil and gas. Who owns oil and gas in Iraq? Which levels of government are entitled to enter into negotiations with IOCs (international oil companies) and conclude contracts with them in all matters related to oil and gas? Are the SGs (sub-national governments) entitled to export oil and gas in their region or governorates? All these questions have provoked significant disputes between the FG and KRG. This thesis aims to clarify the nature of the federal dimension to disputes over oil and gas management in Iraq and their possible solution by adopting Elazar‘s theory of collaborative federalism. After presenting the main elements of Elazar‘s theory and conceptualization of collaborative federalism as a core pillar of this research, the study delves into an analysis of the constitutional and legal basis of the federal system in Iraq, as well as its social and political dimensions, with a particular focus on how it treats the management of oil and gas resources. The originality of this thesis lies in the fact that it is the first study to link comprehensively the Iraqi federal model to collaborative theory and to suggest that collaborative theory could be a mechanism for resolving internal disputes around the management of oil and gas and for achieving common constitutional and policy aims relating to natural resources within the Iraqi federation. The thesis comprises an in-depth analysis of the Iraqi case using a comparative analysis. The structure of the Iraqi federation according to the Constitution of 2005 and the constitutional provisions regulating the relationship between the federal authorities and all sub-national government authorities suggest the need to adopt an approach based on negotiation, cooperation and compromise among all the governments (national and sub- national) within the federation. Therefore, in order to identify lessons for the Iraqi case (in terms of both successful and failed models of federalism) both the Canadian and Nigerian federations are examined and compared/contrasted with the Iraqi system. It is concluded that, while Canada and Nigeria offer valuable lessons in how to (and sometimes how not to) achieve a suitable federalist response to the management of natural resources in a State, there is much that can be learnt from a collaborative federalist perspective to facilitate better negotiation, greater cooperation and eventual compromise between all parties involved. While recognising the extreme particularity and sensitiveness of the political situation in Iraq, it is suggested that the development of a legal framework and legal discourse around collaboration within the realm of federal relations may enable greater clarity, fairness and ultimately legitimacy in the distribution of oil and gas resources and revenue in Iraq.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".