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.