¹ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§4321–4370 (1988).

² City of Roswell v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm’n, [1973] 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,181, 20,183 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 1972). Cf. 40 C.F.R. §1500.1 (1992) (NEPA is “basic national charter for protection of the environment”).

³ 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C) (1988).

⁴ 40 C.F.R. §§1500–1508 (1992). See Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979) (Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations entitled to “substantial deference’).

⁵ 42 U.S.C. §4342 (1988).

⁶ Exec. Order No. 11,991, 3 C.F.R. 123 (1978) (amending Exec. Order No. 11,514, 3 C.F.R. 531 (1971)), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. §4321 app. at 971 (1988).

⁷ 5 U.S.C. §§701–706 (1988).

⁸ See, e.g., Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109 (1971).

⁹ 111 S.Ct. 1227 (1991).

¹⁰ 986 F.2d 528, 532.

¹¹ Id. at 533.

¹² Id. at 534.

¹³ Dec. 1, 1959, 12 UST 794, 402 UNTS 71. The Antarctic Treaty, Article II of which establishes “[f]reedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica,” presumably is the international legal authority under which NSF and the United States Government established McMurdo Station.

¹⁴ 986 F.2d at 536.

¹⁵ Id. at 533.

¹⁶ Id. at 534. Cf. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 61 U.S.L.W. 4684 (U.S. June 21, 1993) (applying Aramco presumption against extraterritoriality to executive branch action on high seas).

¹⁷ Oct. 4, 1991, S. Treaty Doc. No. 22, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992), reprinted in 30 ILM 1461 (1991) (not in force). The United States has signed the Protocol and the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification. The U.S. instrument of ratification has not been deposited, however, because implementing legislation has not yet been enacted.

¹⁸ 986 F.2d at 535.

¹⁹ 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The federal action challenged in this case was the issuance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a license for the export of nuclear materials and reactor equipment to the Philippines. There was no majority opinion in the case; two members of the panel filed separate opinions and the third took no part in the disposition of the case. See id. at 1346.

²⁰ 463 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In this case, the challenged action was an underground nuclear explosion on Amchitka Island, Alaska. See id. at 797. Unlike EDF and NRDC v. NRC, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility concerned activities occurring within the territory of the United States with impacts on the domestic environment. Compare Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 463 F.2d at 797 (involving activities within the United States) with EDF v. Massey, 986 F.2d at 529 (involving activities within Antarctica) and NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d at 1347 (involving trading activities with impacts in foreign state).

²¹ 986 F.2d at 535.

²² Id.

²³ Id. at 536.

²⁴ 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(F) (1988).

²⁵ E.g., National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. United States Dep’t of State, 452 F.Supp. 1226 (D.D.C. 1978), appeal dismissed, [1979] 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,517 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 1979) (applicability of NEPA to pesticide spraying in Mexico to destroy marijuana plants assumed without deciding); Gemeinschaft zum Schutz des Berliner Baumbestandes v. Marienthal, [1979] 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,011 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 1978) (construction of apartment complex in West Berlin not a federal project); Sierra Club v. Coleman, 405 F.Supp. 53, 421 F.Supp. 63 (D.D.C. 1975, 1976) (assuming applicability of NEPA to highway through Panama and Colombia), vacated sub nom. Sierra Club v. Adams, 578 F.2d 389, 391 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (declining to decide issue in view of impacts in United States); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. United States Agency for Int’l Dev” [1976] 6 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,121 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 1975) (stipulation requiring Agency for International Development to promulgate regulations on environmental analysis of activities with effects outside United States); Sierra Club v. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 6 Env’t Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1980, [1974] 4 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,685 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 1974) (ordering agency to prepare EIS for nuclear power export activities); People of Enewetak v. Laird, 353 F.Supp. 811, 816 (D. Haw. 1973) (application to U.S. trust territory).

²⁶ S. 3077, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. §5 (1978) (proposing to exempt foreign activities of Export-Import Bank from NEPA).

²⁷ See, e.g., Comment, Forthcoming CEQ Regulations to Determine Whether NEPA Applies to Environmental Impacts Limited to Foreign Countries, [1978] 8 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,111 (June 1978); Comment, Renewed Controversy Over the International Reach of NEPA, [1977] 7 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,205 (Nov. 1977).

²⁸ Exec. Order No. 12,114, 3 C.F.R. 356 (1980), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. §4321 app. 978 (1988) [hereinafter Executive Order], The promulgation of the Executive Order immediately affected pending NEPA litigation concerning overseas environmental impacts. See, e.g., National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. United States Dep’t of State, [1979] 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,517 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 1979) (stipulation of dismissal of claims based on extraterritorial impacts in light of Executive Order), 508 F.Supp. 1, 1 n.1 (D.D.C. 1979) (approving environmental analyses of foreign impacts prepared pursuant to Executive Order); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank, [1979] 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,145 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 1979) (stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of claims based on extraterritorial impacts in light of Executive Order). In 1992 NSF adopted regulations implementing the Executive Order for activities in Antarctica. 45 C.F.R. pt. 641 (1992), 57 Fed. Reg. 40,339 (Sept. 3, 1992). See generally David A. Wirth, International Technology Transfer and Environmental Impact Assessment, in Transferring Hazardous Technologies and Substances: The International Legal Challenge 83, 93 n.32 (Günther Handl & Robert Lutz eds., 1989) (citing regulations of federal agencies implementing Executive Order).

²⁹ See generally Sanford E. Gaines, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”: An Executive Order Ordains a National Policy, 3 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 136 (1979); Francis M. Allegra, Note, Executive Order 12,114—Environmental Effects Abroad: Does It Really Further the Purpose of NEPA?, 29 Clev. St. L. Rev. 109 (1980); J. D. Head, Comment, Federal Agency Responsibility to Assess Extraterritorial Environmental Impacts, 14 Tex. Int’l L.J. 425 (1979); Christopher C. Lehmann, Note, The International Application of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: A New Strategy, 1979 Wash. U. L.Q. 1063; Comment, NEPA’s Role in Protecting the World Environment, 131 U. Pa. L. Rev. 353 (1982); John C. Peirce, Note, Exports and Environmental Responsibility: Applying NEPA to the Export-Import Bank, 12 Cornell Int’l L.J. 247 (1979); Glenn Pincus, Note, The “NEPA-Abroad” Controversy: Unresolved by an Executive Order, 30 Buff. L. Rev. 611 (1981); Sue D. Sheridan, Note, The Extraterritorial Application of NEPA under Executive Order 12,114, 13 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 173 (1980); Therese M. Welsh, Note, Agency Responses to Executive Order 12,114: A Comparison and Implications, 14 Cornell Int’l L.J. 481 (1981); Matthew T. McGrath & Carl T. Gulliver, Recent Development, Executive Order on Extraterritorial Environmental Impacts, 13 J. Int’l L. & Econ. 455 (1979); Comment, President Orders Environmental Review of International Actions, [1979] 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,011 (Jan. 1979).

³⁰ See, e.g., S. 1278, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991); H.R. 1271, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991); S. 1089, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989); H.R. 1113, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).

³¹ Executive Order, supra note 28, §1-1.

³² Id. §3-1.

³³ See EDF v. Massey, 986 F.2d at 530 (in summarizing Executive Order, noting that “what is at stake in this litigation is whether a federal agency may decide to take actions significantly affecting the human environment in Antarctica without complying with NEPA and without being subject to judicial review”). Cf. supra note 7 (judicial review of agency compliance with NEPA available under Administrative Procedure Act).

³⁴ Executive Order, supra note 28, §2–4(a)(iii).

³⁵ 748 F.Supp, 749 (D. Haw. 1990), appeal dismissed as moot, 924 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1991).

³⁶ Greenpeace USA v. Stone, [1991] 21 Envtl. L. Rep (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,378 (D. Haw. Aug. 9, 1990).

³⁷ Greenpeace, 748 F.Supp. at 768.

³⁸ Id. at 763.

³⁹ Id.

⁴⁰ Greenpeace, 924 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1991).

⁴¹ 647 F.2d 1345, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

⁴² 748 F.Supp. 749, 761 (D. Haw. 1990).

⁴³ Cf. League of Conservation Voters, 1992 Presidential Profiles 34 (1992) (statement by presidential candidate William Clinton in debate that “I support legislation to apply the National Environmental Policy Act to federal actions overseas”).

⁴⁴ Statement by the Department of Justice on EDF v. Massey (Mar. 15, 1992 [sic]).

⁴⁵ At least one case pending in the D.C. Circuit raises this question. NEPA Coalition of Japan v. Cheney, Civ. No. 91-1522 (D.D.C. filed June 20, 1991), is an action seeking to compel the Department of Defense to comply with NEPA with respect to certain of that agency’s specified activities in Japan.

⁴⁶ See, e.g., Thomas M. Franck, Political Questions/Judicial Answers: Does the Rule of Law Apply to Foreign Affairs? (1992); Thomas M. Franck, Courts and Foreign Policy, Foreign Pol’y, Summer 1991, at 66.

⁴⁷ See 463 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

⁴⁸ Cf. Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986) (political question doctrine inapplicable to questions of statutory interpretation involving foreign relations concerns). See generally Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) (violation of environmental statute found, but no injunctive relief awarded).

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Letter from Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, to Gerald Studds, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, United States House of Representatives (Apr. 11, 1989) (asserting that “application of existing NEPA requirements [to impacts abroad] could raise sovereignty issues”), reprinted in Appropriation Authorization for the Office of Environmental Quality for Fiscal Years 1989–1993 and Oversight of the National Environmental Policy Act: Hearing on H.R. 1113 Before the Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife of the House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. Ill (1989).

⁵⁰ See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §402 (1987) (bases of jurisdiction to prescribe).

⁵¹ E.g., Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Feb. 25, 1991, reprinted in 30 ILM 802 (1991) (not in force, but signed by United States). See generally Wirth, supra note 28 (discussing additional international instruments).