Minnesota Law Review

Note, How the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Has Created a Gap in Environmental Protection at the 49th Parallel

Harmful pollutants are crossing the United States-Canada border as actors on either side of the boundary export environmental risk and harm through transboundary rivers. However, public international law has been unable to provide a remedy for the problem. Furthermore, efforts to address the problem in national courts have run afoul of the presumption against extraterritoriality. This rule is used to limit the application of environmental statutes to wholly territorial pollution cases.

This Note begins by explaining why the public international law system is ill-suited for addressing transboundary pollution along the United States-Canada border, and why it is appropriate for national courts to rule on these cases. It continues by examining the jurisdictional rules in both the United States and Canada that control the use of statutes in transboundary cases. In the United States, the presumption against extraterritoriality has developed exceptions that may allow for the application of environmental cases where either the conduct or the effects are located within the country. In Canada, recent developments in jurisdictional law allow courts to hear cases having a real and substantial connection to the forum.

This Note draws on insights provided by these two jurisdictional frameworks to propose a collaborative model for addressing transboundary cases. Under this model, the courts of each country have concurrent jurisdiction over transboundary cases, but work together to develop procedural rules that allocated jurisdiction over a case based on the court able to provide an adequate remedy.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]