If it does not, it should and can be made to. The creation and longevity of space debris in Earth’s orbit pose a massive international problem. The rate of the generation of space debris is significantly increasing. At an unknown but proximate time, debris collisions could trigger a cascade effect that eliminates humanity’s access to space for at least hundreds of years unless prompt mitigatory, collective action is undertaken. Academics have proposed a plethora of solutions. Most of those solutions are not viable because they fail to appropriately consider incentives, they misunderstand the recent and developing multipolar geopolitical paradigm shift, they would take too long or cost too much, or some combination of all of these factors. Unilateral action by the United States and determined, collective action by American corporations could greatly ameliorate the space debris problem. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST) is the best conduit for prompt and effective action in this manner. Article IX of the OST delineates how states cannot interfere with each other’s activities in space. While scholars have produced heaps of descriptions and interpretations of the Article IX phrases “due regard” and “harmful contamination,” the key for solving the space debris crisis may lie in the relatively ignored phrase: “appropriate measures.” The appropriate measures clause in Article IX, which is the ideological framing of Article I, might mandate funding the development of active debris removal (ADR) technologies for space-capable states. Those articles, combined with consideration for Article VI, which endows private action with national attribution and responsibility, could allow a synergy between the United States and ADR companies that could shape international law and form a pragmatic solution to the space debris crisis.

Antarctica is an environmentally critical and fragile region, yet human activities and climate change continue to harm the continent. Despite the environmental protections mandated by the Antarctic Treaty, the operation of U.S. Antarctic research stations continues to present material harms to the region, and gaps in the Treaty’s legal framework allow research station operations to escape full environmental oversight. The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a procedural statute guiding federal agency decisions, can supplement these gaps in environmental protections, but its application to Antarctica is challenged by the presumption against extraterritoriality. Yet, strong precedent exists for NEPA’s extraterritorial application outside traditional U.S. jurisdiction. In one pivotal case, NEPA applied extraterritorially to waste management activity at a U.S. Antarctic research station, but this statutory application was confined to agency decision-making that occurred within the domestic United States. This precedent should be extended to warrant NEPA’s true extraterritorial application to Antarctic research station operations. Such extraterritorial application is justified by the United States’ significant legislative control in Antarctica, the absence of foreign policy conflicts, and the broader global implications of continued Antarctic degradation. Implementing NEPA at U.S. stations would enhance environmental oversight and reinforce global Antarctic conservation efforts.

The Major Questions Doctrine is among the newest tools in the Supreme Court’s toolbox to limit the executive branch. The Doctrine explains that agencies addressing issues of economic and political significance must have clear congressional authorization to do so. Critics of the Doctrine see it as a tool to wield whenever the Court disapproves of the actions of the executive, while proponents insist it is a necessity to maintain separation of powers. The Doctrine, however, will likely lead to a flood of cases arguing that an agency has acted without congressional authorization. Since environmental law functions through delegation to the executive branch, it will be an epicenter for major questions litigation. The clearest solution would be for Congress to amend each authorizing statute to explain the delegation’s bounds clearly. This solution is unlikely because of the political will and time required for such a task. This leads to the question: Could Congress amend all agency delegations at once to clearly authorize them to act in the face of major questions? Court precedent suggests that Congress would have to be precise with structuring such a statute and that Congress may not be able to legislate away the Major Questions Doctrine with one statute while staying within the constitutional boundaries of the legislative and executive branches. This Note determines whether Congress can circumvent the Major Questions Doctrine and whether such a statute would require so much structure that it would be impossible to navigate and functionally useless.

Water is necessary for the achievement of global sustainable development objectives and critical to sustaining life on earth. Economic activities, spanning from extractives development to water services privatization schemes, have critically impacted water resources, particularly in developing economies. While State governments endeavor to protect their water resources, regulate in the interest of their populations, or legislate to protect the environment, the current international investment law regime allows foreign investors to initiate arbitration alleging violations of investment treaties, such as inequitable treatment or expropriations of their investment projects. This arbitral process is outlined through investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in investment treaties. This Article examines the contexts and outcomes of a number of current and past ISDS cases to outline how State efforts to ensure the right to clean, affordable water and protect its environmental resources have been compromised by ISDS. States, in implementing legislation and regulation in the interest of protecting water resources and achieving sustainable development, should consider the effects that ISDS and international investment law have on domestic rulemaking.