22 U.S.C. § 2284

Eligible countries

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

In order for a foreign country to be eligible to participate in a debt-for-nature exchange under this part, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development shall determine that—(1) the host country is fully committed to the long-term viability of the program or project that is to be undertaken through the debt-for-nature exchange;(2) a long-term plan has been prepared by the host country, or private conservation group, which adequately provides for the long-term viability of the program or project that is to be undertaken through the debt-for-nature exchange or that such a plan will be prepared in a timely manner; and(3) there is a government agency or a local nongovernmental organization, or combination thereof, in the host country with the capability, commitment, and record of environmental concern to oversee the long-term viability of the program or project that is to be undertaken through the debt-for-nature exchange.(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, § 464 [474], as added Pub. L. 101–240, title VII, § 711, Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2522.)Editorial NotesCodification

Another section 464 of Pub. L. 87–195 is classified to section 2274 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: Forjone v. The State of California

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Forjone v. The State of California (2011) ca2 “Accordingly, the district court was not required to hear the case before a three-judge panel pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2284 . IV. Decision Granting the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of standing pursuant to Fed.”

United States v. State of La. (1997) lawd “§ 1973c and 22 U.S.C. § 2284 , to the extent the Merced panel is similar to ours, we decline to follow that decision for three reasons.”

United States v. Louisiana (1997) lawd “§ 1973c and 22 U.S.C. § 2284 , to the extent the Merced panel is similar to ours, we decline to follow that decision for three reasons.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.