Offshore wind energy technologies are generally regarded as variable baseload systems. They could therefore serve a crucial role in a net-zero or carbonneutral electricity supply grid. With the spate of growing commercial and government-policy interests in offshore wind, it is important to examine how and to what extent the framework of assessing and reviewing project plans, as well as the process of engaging with impacted stakeholders or alternative users of the outer continental shelf, can become more efficient and less controversial. Thus, this paper discusses the emerging offshore wind energy market in the U.S. and highlights the role of the regulatory state in facilitating a more efficient leasing and permitting process for projects without compromising the protections afforded under applicable laws and regulations. Adopting a thorough yet standardized review of relevant project plans and proactive stakeholder engagement processes is recommended at an early or appropriate time during the permitting process. Understanding the opportunity costs of delayed and canceled projects, addressing misperception of risks, and standardizing best practice measures for resolving common issues could make project review process(es) more efficient. Considering experiences in other jurisdictions such as the UK, such efficiency gains are achievable while protecting the environment and legitimate interests of other users in the outer continental shelf.

This Note will review the long and complex history of Indigenous resistance to the United States settler colonial project through a #LandBack lens and will discuss the different legal and political routes Tribes have taken in their attempts to reclaim and exercise sovereignty over their lands by working with the current American legal and property system. This reveals that the most recent Indigenous calls for land return signal the imminent exhaustion of existing legal and property routes for the #LandBack movement. Tribes working within the United States legal and property system have found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place: submit to state jurisdiction for land owned in fee simple or grapple with the disadvantages of land held in trust by the federal government. Under this current system, #LandBack is conditioned on the consent of the United States. This note concludes with the idea that the most recent iteration of #LandBack is positioned to continue exploring Indigenous-imagined alternatives to the current regimes of property and federal Indian law.

The United States’ plastic pollution problem presents both domestic and global challenges. As this paper illustrates, the inability of the U.S. to effectively regulate plastics negatively affects the environment and human health in the U.S. and in countries that must deal with plastic waste exports coming from the U.S. The paper explores plastic production, use, waste, and recycling in the U.S. and critically analyzes the significant challenges that the U.S. continues to experience in devising and implementing a cohesive and comprehensive plastics regulatory framework. As with many other countries, successful industry lobbying efforts have contributed to the piecemeal approach to regulation. The challenges are compounded in the U.S., where the competitive nature of the federal system appears to have presented industry actors with a number of effective tools with which to prevent effective regulation in this space. Tactics adopted by industry actors range from marketing efforts that frame the problem as one that is purely individual rather than collective; the promotion of scientific studies that emphasize the deleterious economic effects of regulation without adequately addressing the serious environmental and human health problems of plastic pollution; and support of legal mechanisms at various levels to thwart grassroots efforts aimed at implementing effective change. The paper begins by briefly outlining plastic production, use, recycling, and waste in the U.S., with an emphasis on the negative effects to the environment and human health. The paper then critically analyzes regulatory attempts at the federal, state and local levels. In light of the significant role of U.S. industry actors in framing the discussion regarding plastic pollution, the paper reviews key efforts that have prevented effective regulatory action. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations that the U.S. should implement to ensure the effective regulation of plastics.

Climate change has been identified as a global emergency, a major international development issue, and a priority concern by many international and national entities. Women, Indigenous peoples, and children are some of the individuals and groups most affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. The author contends in this article that international case litigation can be a key strategy to set critical legal standards to address human rights violations suffered by women, Indigenous peoples, and children in the area of climate change. This article also proposes international litigation as a powerful catalyst to give agency, autonomy, and participation to these groups, especially in the finding of solutions and strategies to combat climate change. The author discusses cases currently before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child alleging human rights violations under existing treaties connected to state failures in adopting measures to adequately adapt and mitigate to climate change concerns. The author explores whether the litigation of cases before global and regional human rights protection systems can serve to secure the goal of climate justice and be useful in addressing climate change issues faced by women, Indigenous peoples, and children. The article discusses important opportunities in cases to develop key concepts, legal standards, and useful guidance for states on how to best mitigate, adapt, and ensure access to justice for climate change effects. The article delves into four areas in which case litigation before global and regional human rights bodies can be helpful in defining the contours of state obligations to advance the human rights of women, Indigenous peoples, and children in the area of climate justice. These areas include due diligence, extraterritoriality, and non-state actors; a gender perspective and intersectional discrimination; consultation, consent, and effective participation; and access to information and human rights defense. This article also reviews how existing global and regional human rights treaties, as well as new agreements – such as the Escazú Agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean – can serve as important references in human rights litigation efforts related to climate change. This article seeks to contribute to current scholarship exploring the synergies between climate change concerns, international human rights law, the goal of climate justice, and the human rights of women, Indigenous peoples, and children in these areas.

This note will trace the tension between the legal subject-statuses of personhood and citizenship in the creation of non-human legal persons. Specifically, I will examine legal efforts that rely on the legal personhood of nature and ecosystems. These efforts exist in the context of other novel efforts to expand personhood subject-status to non-agents, which require personhood in order to establish standing, but further require guardians to litigate and protect their alleged rights–namely, legal rights of artificial intelligences, of fetuses, and of oft-analogized corporations. This note will focus its discussion of ecosystem personhood within the complaint brought by Deep Green Resistance on behalf of the Colorado River Ecosystem against the State of Colorado, and the subsequent legal failure to achieve protection for the ecosystem through the construction of legal personhood. The success of the State over the ecosystem offers a lens through which to examine the relative possibilities and strengths of person and citizen subject-status. In order to think through the legal necessity and consequences of expanding the category of “person” to non-actors, I will first foreground the current categories of legal personhood and American citizenship in their historical antecedents, specifically during the political period spanning the Civil War, when a new group of natural persons were struggling to obtain full legal personhood and citizenship status. I will also look at the interplay of theories of ecosystem personhood, corporate personhood, and Artificial Intelligence personhood to limn the contours of this nascent recognition of non-human persons under American law. Lastly, this note will explore the historical move from enshrining personhood to enshrining citizenship, and whether this move is required, beneficial, or even possible in the case of non-agents.