Abstract
Part II of this Note relays the facts surrounding Pakootas v. Teck Cominco, Ltd.,gives a brief history of CERCLA and its liability requirements, and then summarizes the reasoning of both the district court and the Ninth Circuit. Part II also includes an overview of the presumption against extraterritoriality and the possible means of rebutting it. Part III addresses the question of whether the application of CERCLA in Pakootas was in fact extraterritorial and discusses some of the flaws in the Ninth Circuit's reasoning. After concluding that this was an extraterritorial application of CERCLA, this Part III then examines the Ninth Circuit's current stance on the extraterritoriality doctrine. Next, Part IV considers the ways in which the Ninth Circuit might have held the application of CERCLA to be extraterritorial in Pakootas without disregarding its existing precedent and then explores the international and policy considerations that may have been a part of the Ninth Circuit's deliberation. Part IV then discusses the existing problems with the international dispute resolution avenues available to transboundary pollution plaintiffs, and concludes with a proposal for a simple solution that will allow United States and Canadian courts to work hand in hand to develop an interdependent jurisprudence that will help to equitably address future transboundary disputes.
Recommended Citation
Jennifer S. Addis, A Missed Opportunity: How Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. Could Have Clarified the Extraterritoriality Doctrine, 32 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1011 (2009).
