A long-standing and often heated debate within the Carter Administration over the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ to federal actions abroad culminated on January 4 in the issuance by the President of Executive Order No. 12114.² Though the Order appears somewhat loosely linked with NEPA, it does direct federal agencies involved in international activities to promulgate regulations requiring environmental evaluations of those activities consistent with the terms of the Order. The agencies have eight months in which to promulgate implementing regulations, after consulting with the Department of State and the Council on Environmental Quality. Appearance of final agency regulations will not end the matter, however. If the history of NEPA's implementation is any guide, promulgation will be followed by the rather difficult process of gaining experience with the rules and by the inevitable litigation interpreting their provisions.

Serious legal and policy questions concerning the form of the Order precipitated an intense and well-publicized conflict within the executive branch.³ On one hand were fears that the institution of an environmental impact statement requirement on exports and foreign activities would deal a deathblow to American exports because the delay and adverse publicity inherent in the EIS process would eliminate the competitiveness of domestic products on the world market. The related and frequently expressed concern that such a policy would impose American environmental standards on the rest of the world gave rise to such terms as "environmental imperialism" and "the world's environmental policeman." The response of the opposing camp was to point to past cases in which our foreign activities have played havoc with the environment in distant locales. Such episodes raise the issue of whether the United States should subject foreign peoples to health and environmental degradation that we would not permit at home. A more practical and relevant question is whether a full understanding of the magnitude of the adverse impacts should be required before we choose to subject foreign peoples to these harms.