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 & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Tobacco control and beyond: the broader implications of United States Clove Cigarettes for non-communicable diseases.

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTIONAs implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) accelerates and states seek to address risk factors for non-communicable disease more broadly, tension has increased between the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and public health. For example, Indonesia recently brought a successful claim against a U.S. law that prohibits cigarettes with a characterizing flavor other than menthol or tobacco. 1 Indonesia succeeded in arguing that the regulation discriminates against clove-flavored cigarettes of Indonesian origin in favor of menthol-flavored cigarettes of U.S. origin.2Also in the WTO context, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Ukraine have challenged an Australian law prohibiting the presence of branding on tobacco packaging other than product and variant names in a standardized location, font size, and style.3 This regulation, commonly referred to as "plain packaging," is the first of its kind and may represent a turning point in the regulation of tobacco packaging.4More broadly, the tobacco industry has launched a new wave of international litigation.5 Outside of the WTO, Philip Morris has also been active in using trade and investment agreements to challenge tobacco control measures directly. In 2010, Philip Morris launched a challenge to Uruguayan tobacco packaging measures under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Switzerland and Uruguay. 6 In 2011, the company launched a similar challenge to Australia's plain packaging legislation under the Australia-Hong Kong BIT.7 In 2012, Philip Morris lost a claim in Norwegian courts that challenged a prohibition on the display of tobacco products at the point of sale under the European Economic Area Agreement.8This resistance to regulation comes at a time of heightened concern about risk factors for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), as reflected in the recent Political Declaration of the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of NCDs. Increasingly, states are also using the lessons learned in tobacco control to address other risk factors for NCDs, such as harmful alcohol use and poor diet. Some of these efforts, such as a move to graphic warning labels on alcoholic beverages in Thailand, have also proven controversial under WTO law.This Article builds on earlier analysis of the implications of WTO law for regulations to address NCDs.9 More specifically, this Article examines the implications of United States-Clove Cigarettes and subsequent technical barriers to trade (TBT) disputes for tobacco control and control of NCDs associated with alcohol and poor diet. Part II of this paper describes the limited scope of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the "TBT Agreement"), which may prove to be an important caveat to the implications of United States-Clove Cigarettes and other TBT disputes. Part III examines the principle of non-discrimination as applied in TBT disputes and the possible effects of this approach on domestic regulatory autonomy in the context of NCDs. Part IV examines how application of principles governing necessity may affect the issues.II. THE SCOPE OF THE TBT AGREEMENTThe two provisions of the TBT Agreement most relevant to regulations addressing NCDs are Articles 2.1 and 2.2, which govern non-discrimination and necessity respectively.10 Before discussing these provisions in further detail in parts II and III of this paper, it is important to note that those provisions apply only to technical regulations.11 Accordingly, it should not be assumed that the law as developed in United States-Clove Cigarettes and subsequent TBT disputes will affect all measures to address NCDs.The phrase "technical regulation" is defined in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement as a:Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. …

How Can Donors Help Build Global Public Goods in Health

Abstract: Aid to developing countries has largely neglected the population-wide health services that are core to communicable disease control in the developed world. These mostly non-clinical services generate "pure public goods" by reducing everyone's exposure to disease through measures such as implementing health and sanitary regulations. They complement the clinical preventive and treatment services which are the donors' main focus. Their neglect is manifested, for example, in a lack of coherent public health regulations in countries where donors have long been active, facilitating the spread of diseases such as avian flu. These services can be inexpensive, and dramatically reduce health inequalities. Sri Lanka spends less than 0.2% of GDP on its well-designed population-wide services, which contribute to the country's high levels of health equity and life expectancy despite low GDP per head and civil war. Evidence abounds on the negative externalities of weak population-wide health services. Global public health security cannot be assured without building strong national population-wide health systems to reduce the potential for communicable diseases to spread within and beyond their borders. Donors need greater clarity about what constitutes a strong public health system, and how to build them. The paper discusses gaps in donors' approaches and first steps toward closing them.

Temporary Protection: Towards a New Regional and Domestic Framework

Abstract: During the past thirty-five years, the United States has seen the direct influx of thousands of individuals leaving politically unstable countries. While some seeking entry have proved themselves to be refugees and obtained permanent protection in the United States, far more, including a large number of people fleeing civil war, natural disasters, or comparable forms of upheaval in their home countries, have failed to demonstrate that they would be targets of persecution. Yet, their return to their home countries has been complicated by the very circumstances that led to their flight: conflict, violence, and repression. Over time, the United States developed a series of ad hoc responses that protected such individuals, culminating in the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT”), which provided legislative authority for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). Nevertheless, after eight years, many problems remain in the application of the law. Solving these problems will contribute both to better immigration control and more humane responses to future crises. Current policies fail on two accounts. First, the temporary protection provision in the law generally has failed to protect the vast majority of those in danger as a crisis develops and unfolds. If the United States government protects significant numbers at all, protection is provided outside the confines of the United States. Even so, the mechanisms for responding extraterritorially are not well developed. Second, current policies regarding protection in the United States do not provide the control mechanisms to ensure that protection is not abused and that return, when appropriate, is effected. The choice to admit people for temporary protection has been a difficult one for the United States for two main reasons: the lack of control over entry; and the inability to implement a fair but firm end game. These constraints together with the fear of litigation challenging domestic protection regimes have led policymakers to keep protection seekers offshore, such as on Guantanamo, or to return them directly to countries they fled without providing an opportunity for them to present requests for protection. But not having a fully developed regional or domestic capability for addressing these complex movements comes at a considerable cost. Estimates for the agency costs of handling the 1994 Cuban exodus through the use of offshore safe havens were more than $500 million. Further, an immigration system that cannot fairly and efficiently process protection seekers lacks credibility for which it pays a significant public cost.

The "Conscience" Rule: How Will It Affect Patients' Access to Health Services?

Abstract: On May 2, 2019, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a final rule that heightens the rights of hospitals and health workers to refuse to participate in patients’ medical care based on religious or moral grounds. The rule covers OCR’s authority to investigate and enforce violations of 25 federal “conscience protection” laws. Tied to the US Constitution’s spending power, the rule applies to state and local governments, as well as public and private health care professionals and entities if they receive federal funds such as Medicare or Medicaid. The rule applies to a range of important health services such as abortions, sterilizations, assisted suicide, and advance directives — extending to sex reassignment and HIV treatment.