scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.


Papers
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: This paper offers a few cautionary notes concerning the enterprise of drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the DSU on the basis of the experience thus far with compliance with panel and AB decisions.
Abstract: When the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) came into force in 1994, it was widely regarded as an important advance over the dispute settlement regime that had prevailed under the GATT Perhaps the most important changes were the creation of a standing Appellate Body, to which member states were given the right to appeal any adverse decision of a dispute settlement panel, and the implementation of automaticity, allowing for the automatic adoption of panel reports unless the member states unanimously choose to block it After nearly seven years' experience with the DSU, the member states, at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in November 2001 in Doha, Qatar, agreed to conduct negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding What the member states will regard as needed improvements to the DSU will reflect their view of the deficiencies of the DSU as it currently exists In turn, the member states' perceptions of existing DSU deficiencies will be based on their experiences with the DSU thus far The Dispute Settlement Body's (DSB) record in achieving compliance with its decisions will be regarded by many as an important - perhaps the most important - datum in assessing the effectiveness of the current DSU After briefly describing the main elements of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, this paper offers a few cautionary notes concerning the enterprise of drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the DSU on the basis of the experience thus far with compliance with panel and AB decisions

16 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The Framework Convention on Global Health could establish a nuanced, layered, and multi-faceted regime of compliance with, and accountability to, the right to health, and significantly strengthen accountability for the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Abstract: The Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH), a proposed global treaty to be rooted in the right to health and aimed at health equity, could establish a nuanced, layered, and multi-faceted regime of compliance and accountability to the right to health. In so doing, it would significantly strengthen accountability for the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which it would encompass. Legally binding, the FCGH could facilitate accountability through the courts and catalyze comprehensive domestic accountability regimes, requiring national strategies that include transparency, community and national accountability and participatory mechanisms, and an enabling environment for social empowerment. A “Right to Health Capacity Fund” could ensure resources for these strategies. Inclusive national processes could establish targets, benchmarks, and indicators consistent with FCGH guidance, with regular reporting to a treaty body, which could also hear individual cases. State reports could be required to include plans to overcome implementation gaps, subjecting the poorest performers to penalties (e.g., restrictions on assuming global health leadership positions) and targeted capacity building measures. Regional special rapporteurs could facilitate compliance through regular country visits and respond to serious violations. And reaching beyond government compliance, from capacity building to the courts and contractual obligations, the FCGH could establish nationally enforceable right to health obligations on the private sector.

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the buyout's implications for agency theory, pointing to three lessons: three-way association among control transfers, governance discipline and hostile takeovers, suggesting that this triptych needs to be unbundled and reconsidered.
Abstract: It is time to consider the lessons to be learned from the recent boom in private equity buyouts, not least in view of its abrupt termination in the wake of tightened credit. In the past, such inquiries have been undertaken in the context of agency theory and have focused on the buyout’s implications for solving the problem of separation of ownership and control. This article reverses the pattern of inquiry to consider the buyout’s implications for agency theory, pointing to three lessons. The first lesson addresses agency theory’s three-way association among control transfers, governance discipline and hostile takeovers, suggesting that this triptych needs to be unbundled and reconsidered. The buyout’s recent salience implies that we need no longer assume that hostility is the acquisition mode best suited to post-merger disciplinary governance. The second lesson concerns agency theory’s account of buyout motivations. The theory posits a world where agency cost reduction determines control outcomes at the transactional margin. On first inspection, private equity buyouts neatly fit this picture. But a deeper examination shows that buyouts are driven by the economics of leverage, with agency cost reduction taking only a secondary motivational role. The third lesson follows from financial returns. Even as buyouts ameliorate the agency costs of separated ownership and control, buyout structures implicate their own agency costs in the form of fees paid to buyout firms. Studies show that buyout firms take so much of the gain that the institutions investing in buyout funds would be better off investing in market indices. There result questions for the line of agency theory that looks to institutional investors as agency cost-reducing monitors. There also result questions respecting buyouts’ incentive compatibility, questions raising doubts as to whether buyout governance structures hold out a template for improving corporate governance generally, even as a matter of agency theory.

16 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: Same-sex relationships have already significantly altered family law, by leading to new formal relationship statuses and incorporation of the principle that both of a child's legal parents can be of the same sex as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Same-sex relationships have already significantly altered family law, by leading to new formal relationship statuses and incorporation of the principle that both of a child’s legal parents can be of the same sex This essay explores further changes that may lie ahead as same-sex marriage debates increasingly affect both family law and the social meanings of marriage Marriage as an institution has changed most dramatically because of the cumulative effects of the last half-century of de-gendering family law Same-sex marriage – and perhaps even more so, the highly visible cultural debate over it – is contributing to this process The author argues that the greatest potential for changes in social meaning will arise in three areas for which there is empirical evidence of significant differences between gay and straight couples: division of household labor, sexual exclusivity, and childrearing In each, although recent data indicate some signs of converging behaviors between the two types of couples, major differences appear likely to continue While the number of same-sex couples in the population is too small to produce significant change in overall patterns of behavior, the issue of gay marriage has generated so much attention and debate that a mixed process of gay assimilation to and effect on the social meaning of marriage is a reasonable expectation As to future legal change, the author identifies three questions likely to arise in the relatively near future that will flow, directly or indirectly, from same-sex marriage: First, we may see an increasing uptake by different-sex couples of marriage equivalent and marriage alternative statuses (eg, domestic partnerships) that have grown out of LGBT rights efforts If present demographic trends continue, the group of different-sex couples most likely to seek access to these new statuses will be persons middle-aged or older Second, federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which will occur if the Defense of Marriage Act is invalidated or repealed, could significantly increase the number of same-sex couples who marry The end of DOMA is also likely to further complicate the law of interstate recognition, as more gay couples have their marriages recognized for federal law purposes, such as tax, but not under state laws that regulate divorce, custody and property division Since 60 per cent of same-sex marriages are performed for out-of-state residents, the complexity of federal-state conflict regarding recognition of particular marriages is likely to increase dramatically Lastly, the author questions whether the issue of “accidental procreation” that has become a theme in court decisions related to same-sex marriage may migrate to marriage law more generally In particular, she suggests that a more stringent set of rules expanding support obligations in marriages (whether of different- or same-sex spouses) in which children are born or adopted would better serve the purposes advanced by social conservatives who purport to argue on behalf of children’s welfare

16 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118