Because of rising sea levels from global warming, the entire population of the small, low-lying central Pacific island state of Kiribati will need to relocate to a distant land. In Kiribati President Anote Tong’s words, “We need to begin [the migration process] now ... because [we] will either be dead or drown.” Climate change seriously impacts 325 million people, kills 300,000 people, and costs the world $125 billion every year. By the year 2100, global average sea levels may rise up to 1.9 meters, wiping out low-lying island nations, making large parts of Bangladesh uninhabitable, and increasing the chance that major coastal cities like New York will flood. Forty-three small island countries are particularly vulnerable to rising sea-levels, and some, like Kiribati, may end up entirely underwater. Kiribati, which sits only 6.5 feet above sea level on average, is particularly vulnerable to wholenation displacement, as rising sea levels would render most of it uninhabitable. Because fewer than a quarter of residents have jobs, most I-Kiribati (Kiribati citizens) depend on employed relatives and foreign aid.6 Kiribati’s 95,000 inhabitants suffer from significant overcrowding, low incomes, poor sanitation, and severe pollution. As sea levels continue to rise, Kiribati will run out of fresh drinking water and become uninhabitable long before the islands are submerged. The country will eventually face widespread population displacement and de facto statelessness, and Kiribati may no longer have a permanent population. Other countries should help I-Kiribati transition to life in a new nation-state by giving these displaced people an opportunity to pursue an education and acquire work skills and by according them the same rights as permanent residents in that nation. The international community should aid Kiribati in tackling the effects of climate change by providing more affordable loans and grants to Kiribati; coordinating humanitarian and emergency relief efforts in times of displacement; and helping I-Kiribati relocate to ensure that their human rights are protected.

In 2007, quagga mussels were found in the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. Since then, the Western states, with assistance from the federal government, have passed legislation, promulgated regulations, and implemented boat inspection programs and public outreach campaigns to prevent the spread of quagga and zebra mussels in the western United States through the movement of watercraft. This Article provides an overview of the quagga and zebra mussel invasion, including environmental and economic impacts, and highlights the recent legislative and regulatory efforts of Western states to slow the geographic expansion of dreissenid mussels. The Article concludes with a brief discussion of the ongoing challenges associated with zebra and quagga mussel prevention.

On December 18, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction enjoining whale activist group Sea Shepherd from approaching Japanese whaling vessels (“Whalers”). in the Southern Ocean. The decision comes after a bitter two-decade struggle over whaling in and around the Antarctic region. The saga has involved public campaigns, dangerous attacks, and international litigation that seemed to resolve when the Australian Federal Court (“AFC”) issued an injunction on whaling in Australian-claimed regions of the Antarctic. The inclusion of U.S. courts in what otherwise has been a Southern-Hemisphere affair represents a new twist in the story. The Whalers took the legal initiative and brought suit in the U.S. Federal District Court seeking injunctive relief under the Alien Tort Statute. The District Court denied relief for, among other reasons, the doctrine of international comity -a respect for the judgments of foreign courts. On appeal, the Whalers won temporary reprieve pending a decision on the merits. *1052 The injunction is set to be tested. On February 17, the Sea Shepherd kept up its promise to protect the whales and engaged the Whalers to prevent their hunt of minke whales. In turn, the Whalers have begun a contempt action against Sea Shepherd over an alleged breach of the injunction. What remains to be seen is how the U.S. Court of Appeals will proceed in an area already adjudicated by the Australian Injunction.

In 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead. Since then, quagga and zebra mussels have been detected at several other lakes and rivers in the southwestern United States. Because of the serious ecological and economic problems that the mussels create, all Western states have developed inspection and decontamination stations to help stop the spread of these invasive species to new bodies of water. The locations of these inspection stations vary and not every boat will pass through an inspection station; therefore, states need more information about the movement of boats, particularly boats leaving high-risk areas. An electronic tracking and information-sharing database is one way that states could gain the needed information regarding the movement of boats. However, legal and practical challenges hinder the ability to utilize such a system. The Fourth Amendment and the Privacy Act of 1974 both create legal obstacles to the electronic tracking of boats and sharing of that information. Further concerns exist about funding and the possibility that the government may use a boater’s location for purposes other than preventing the spread of mussels. However, there are other ways to achieve the state’s goals. For instance, a banding program in which a color-coded band is placed on a boat when it is decontaminated would allow inspectors to know where a boat is coming from and whether it is at high risk for being infested, while at the same time reducing privacy concerns.

This quote from Milton Friedman encompasses the increasingly ambivalent attitude that many Americans feel toward our government’s growing body of regulatory measures. Do they really work? Does regulation cause more problems than it solves? In a time when concepts like global warming and resource conservation are at the forefront of national debate, some private actors and businesses are taking their own initiative. These companies have decided that pausing for the government to address such problems would subject consumers to a waiting game they cannot afford to play anymore. These forward-thinking corporate leaders have taken it upon themselves to bypass the bog of administrative law and to voluntarily commit to practices grounded in concepts like sustainability and transparency. This growing field, known as corporate social responsibility (CSR), is a company’s commitment to undertake voluntary actions, obligations, or ethics to help the businesses to become more “socially responsible.” These behaviors benefit corporate shareholders by fostering positive consumer perceptions, as well as ancillary stakeholders (such as the communities where the companies are based) through philanthropy, environmental *1042 stewardship, or improved working conditions. While there are a number of sweeping laws governing business conduct toward the environment--restrictive statutes like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -- America’s hands-off approach to the free market makes consumer-based environmentalism difficult at best. Thus, it falls to the directors of major market participants to decide whether or not to embrace an environmentally responsible approach to running their business. While at one time corporations may have viewed CSR as a burden, more recently executives see it as a cost-saving model of sustainability. Companies such as Whole Foods, Toyota, and even Walmart are now unflinchingly basing their business plan on a model of competitive, eco-friendly investment. Though this trend in responsible behavior paints a nice picture of corporate America caring for its consumers, often the results of such efforts might not be exactly what those consumers had envisioned when choosing one brand over another. The implementation of socially and environmentally responsible initiatives can be incredibly time consuming, and while companies like Walmart might be cutting costs with efficient light bulbs and toilets, such practices require a great deal of monitoring, especially when these products involve vast supply chains. Reports on the methods used in implementing CSR policies indicate that the way companies initiate, organize, and monitor the process is just as important as the results they hope to achieve. This Comment explores the maturing field of corporate social responsibility, highlights economic drivers, and levels Milton Friedman’s criticism of lofty policy objectives at corporate attempts to juggle both CSR and the fiduciary duty owed to their shareholders.