One of the most significant outcomes of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was the sobering estimate of the financing needed by developing countries to promote sustainable development and the demand that northern countries dramatically increase concessional financial flows to the South.

Introduction

The Price-Anderson Act (the Act)¹ is the legal backbone for the development of civilian nuclear power in the United States, and for the conduct of nuclear weapons complex environmental cleanup. Initially enacted in 1957, and amended since, the Act was intended to limit the accident liability of nongovernmental entities that produce nuclear power and/or work with nuclear materials and provide compensation for injury and damages caused by accidents.²

It is now well understood in the legal and business communities that environmental statutes may impose liability on current owners of contaminated property without regard to the fact that the environmental damage may have resulted from activities of prior occupants that predated the current owner's acquisition of the site.¹ A business that acquires a contaminated property and consequently inherits such liability may attempt to recover under its occurrence-based comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies that were in effect during the time that pollution occurre

"Sustainable development begins at home."¹ —Paula J. Dobriansky, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, to U.N. Economic Commission for Europe Regional Ministerial Meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Sept. 24, 2001

There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon, real favors from nation to nation.¹

As the United States embarks on a war against terrorism, it is instructive to recall George Washington's 1796 farewell address warning. Nations will act only in their perceived self-interests. Assistance from other countries comes with a cost. Note, for example, the U.S. restructuring of Pakistan's $ 379 million bilateral debt to reward its cooperation in the fight against the Taliban and the al Qaeda terrorist network.²

You are in your office one afternoon when the phone rings. It's the vice president of environmental affairs for one of your clients. He tells you the company just discovered a major violation of an environmental law. The good news is that it has been corrected. "Do we have to report it?," he asks. Your quick review of the law and regulations shows there is no requirement to report. "O.K.," he says, "but should we report it anyway?"

Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson introduced America's first Patent Act.¹ The Act introduced the use of intellectual property rights to foster and reward human creativity. However, Jefferson and the Act's other authors were conscious that unchecked extension of these new rights could also harm society by unduly restricting the spread and use of new inventions. Accordingly, they placed limits upon what subject matter could be patented.

Introduction

Trade associations and other representatives of regulated entities frequently decry federal agencies' use of guidance documents and the like in lieu of notice-and-comment rulemaking.² The U.S. Congress has denounced such "back-door regulation,"³ and even public interest groups and individuals will sue over "de facto" or "spurious" rules when it suits their purposes.⁴