This study examines the institutional and legal frameworks governing military engagement in domestic disaster response in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. As climate-related disasters increase, governments are choosing to rely more on military forces for logistical support and emergency response and relief. Through a comparative analysis, this research explores how military assistance is institutionally structured, authorized, and coordinated, as well as critically assesses strengths, challenges, and best practices. The findings reveal that Canada's tiered approval system, while ensuring civilian oversight, can delay military deployment—a challenged which is compounded by the country's vast size. The United States National Guard model allows state-led military response before federal activation, while New Zealand's centralized system enables faster decision-making, but may risk over-centralization. The study recommends streamlining Canada's approval process, establishing a designated domestic disaster response force, and enhancing interagency coordination.
Sakib et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: