Volume 66 ♦ 2025-2026
International Governance♦ Online
Sovereignty vs. Solidarity: The United States, Deep-Sea Mining, and the Limits of Multilateral Ocean Governance
This Essay examines the legal and policy tensions between the United States and international frameworks governing deep-sea mining, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). As global demand for critical minerals intensifies, the United States has revived its domestic Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) to enable unilateral seabed mining, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. This Essay explores the implications of this fragmentation, including licensing conflicts, legal uncertainty for U.S. firms, and environmental risks.
Ganeswar Matcha
Constitutions♦ Online
Fuzzy Presidential Powers to Curb Ministerial Abuse of Emergency Powers in India
The Constitution of India vests executive power in the President, but in practice, courts and the public treat the office as largely ceremonial and bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. The divergence between text and convention has produced indeterminate or “fuzzy” presidential powers, and efforts to clarify the President’s role through judicial decisions and constitutional amendments have only added to the uncertainty.
Rohit Raguram
International Relations♦ Online
Adaptation Amid Conflict: Financing Climate Resilience in Conflict-Affected Developing States
May developed countries suspend their obligation to provide climate adaptation finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement during armed conflict? This inquiry is especially relevant for conflict-affected, highly climate-vulnerable states. This Essay explores how developed countries can fulfill their legal commitments and take “bolder collective action to build climate resilience” in highly vulnerable, conflict-affected states.
Yuyan (Nicole) Zhang
Technology♦ Online
Tech Sovereignty v. EU Simplicity
Europe’s digital law is in disarray. EU law conflicts with some European countries’ laws, and these laws, in turn, conflict with other European countries’ laws. The European Commission has enacted several laws aimed at ensuring one simple, harmonious framework for regulating the European digital sphere, including online speech. These regulations seek to create a framework that will apply to all EU countries, but the regulations have inadvertently sparked battles for tech sovereignty both among individual EU member countries and also between individual nations and the EU.
Jordan Smith