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.

The Phantom Menace of the Responsibility Deficit

Abstract: The strongest argument for the conclusion that corporations should be held morally responsible for their actions has been advanced by Philip Pettit. Pettit's argument proceeds in two steps; arguing first that corporations are fit to be held morally responsible, and second that, given this fitness, they should be. This chapter assumes that Pettit has established his first point – that corporations can bear moral responsibility, – but argues that nevertheless, they should not. The argument for this conclusion is based on the twin observations that 1) attributing moral responsibility to corporations has no useful practical value – it does not supply any desirable end that is not achievable without corporate moral responsibility – and 2) attributing moral responsibility to corporations is incompatible with the basic values of a liberal society.

Innovative Solutions to Closing the Health Gap between Rich and Poor: A Special Symposium on Global Health Governance:

Abstract: 451 Health plays a fundamental role in our lives as individuals and as members of society. At the individual level, health is critical to a person’s well-being and can affect his or her opportunities in the world. Health is also important to public welfare because a basic level of human functioning is a necessary condition for the development and stability of economic, social, and political structures within a society. International norms reinforce the special value of human health ranging from the constitutional mission of World Health Organization (WHO), to the human right to health, through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) — all of which oblige states to act in concert for the protection and promotion of health. Social justice, which compels the fair disbursement of common advantages and sharing of common burdens,1 “captures the twin moral impulses that animate global health: to advance human well being by improving health and to do so particularly by focusing on the needs of the most disadvantaged.”2 At present, the world’s poor bear a vastly disproportionate burden of disease and injury. As life expectancy has steadily increased in the developed world, the least developed countries and transitional states have seen a decrease.3 Health disparities between the rich and poor, however, cannot be simplified to a division between rich and poor countries. Rather, health disparities also exist within countries whereby different levels of health are linked to socio-economic conditions of life.4 Many of the poor living in Europe and North America, for example, have life expectancies equal to those in the least developed countries.5 In addition, many of the health problems of poor countries can threaten more wealthy countries as diseases have the ability to migrate rapidly across the globe. Hence, the concept of global social justice (or global health equity) promotes the attainment of health for the world’s population. The glaring health disparities between the world’s rich and poor can be attributed to social and economic factors.6 Addressing these factors, which are commonly referred to as the social determinants of health, can dramatically improve the patterns of systematic disadvantage that profoundly and persuasively undermine prospects for well-being of the poor. For example, a lower socioeconomic status (as determined by education, occupation, and income) is strongly correlated to poor health outcomes due to conditions of material disadvantage, diminished control of life circumstances, and lack of social acceptance.7 In addition, factors such as daily living conditions, the built and natural environment, and equitable distribution of power and resources can have an impact on health. Despite the international community’s awareness of deep and persistent health inequities,8 foreign aid often is not aligned with local priorities and does not address the principal determinants of health. Instead, international development assistance for health tends to be framed by donor countries in terms of their geostrategic and philanthropic interests. Donors often foreword

Shareholder Litigation: Reexamining the Balance Between Litigation Agency Costs and Management Agency Costs

Abstract: Shareholder lawsuits are a principal legal means to control management agency costs in corporations, yet they generate their own agency costs from the attorneys who bring representative litigation. The key policy question, and one that is central to good corporate governance, has long been how to properly balance the positive management agency reductions from shareholder litigation against the often-maligned litigation agency costs. We address the tradeoff inherent in this debate using our empirical study of shareholder litigation in Delaware. Our data set of all 1000 corporate fiduciary duty cases filed in Delaware in 1999 and 2000 is the largest empirical study of shareholder litigation. We find that more than 80% of these cases are class actions against public companies challenging one type of director decision - whether or not to participate in a corporate acquisition. By contrast, derivative suits, the traditional shareholder litigation that is the staple of corporate law casebooks, make up only about 14% of all fiduciary duty suits. The acquisition-oriented class actions are a new, previously unstudied category of representative litigation, an area long dominated by studies of state derivative suits and federal securities fraud class actions. We find these suits do provide some management agency costs reductions, but these are concentrated in only one subset of the suits that are brought. Settlements leading to relief in an acquisition setting are not spread across all acquisitions complaints (including hostile, second bidder acquisitions etc.), but rather concentrated where there is a majority shareholder who is attempting to cash-out the minority interest held by public shareholders on terms that have been picked by the majority. On the opposite side of the equation - whether these suits possess high litigation agency costs - we find conflicting evidence. The acquisition oriented class action suits have many characteristics that have been identified in other contexts as indicators of agency costs (e.g., suits filed quickly, many suits per transaction). Yet, these litigation agency costs are below the level of perceived costs that spurred securities fraud legislation, for example. We suggest that Delaware could reduce the litigation agency costs associated with class actions without increasing management agency costs by instituting two procedural reforms. First, Delaware should enact a lead plaintiff provision, similar to that adopted for federal securities fraud class actions in PSLRA, to encourage larger investors to become more active monitors of fiduciary duty litigation. Second, we suggest that Delaware should put in limitations on professional plaintiffs as in PSLRA in order to reduce litigation agency costs further. Our article also examines derivative lawsuits from the two-year period, but we find that they do not look much like our acquisition cases (e.g., longer time to file and to settle, fewer suits per transaction and more motions). Derivative cases in our database are concentrated in areas where management agency costs seem likely to be high and produce a number of beneficial settlements that are concentrated in duty of loyalty contexts. Given these characteristics and the current balance between reducing management agency costs and increasing litigation agency costs in derivative litigation, we suggest that Delaware could loosen some of the restrictions that it has placed on shareholder plaintiffs in derivative cases.

A Taxonomy of Police Technology’s Racial Inequity Problems

Abstract: Over the past several years, increased awareness of racial inequity in policing, combined with increased scrutiny of police technologies, have sparked concerns that new technologies may aggravate inequity in policing. To help address these concerns, some advocates and scholars have proposed requiring police agencies to seek and obtain legislative approval before adopting a new technology, or requiring the completion of “algorithmic impact assessments” to evaluate new tools. In order for policymakers, police agencies, or scholars to evaluate whether and how particular technologies may aggravate existing inequities, however, the problem must be more clearly defined. Some scholars have explored inequity in depth as it relates to specific police technologies. But to date, none have provided an explanation of how police technology aggravates inequity that can be applied across all technologies—including future technologies we have not yet encountered. This Article fills that gap. It offers a proposed new taxonomy that parses the ways in which police technology may aggravate inequity as five distinct problems: police technology may (1) replicate inequity in policing, (2) mask inequity in policing, (3) transfer inequity from elsewhere to policing, (4) exacerbate inequitable policing harms, and/or (5) compromise oversight of inequity in policing. Naming and defining these problems will help police agencies, policymakers, and scholars alike analyze proposed new police technologies through an equity lens and craft policies that respond appropriately. This framework should be built into evaluations of police tools performed in accordance with Community Control Over Police Surveillance (“CCOPS”) ordinances being passed in a growing number of cities. To assist with these practical applications of the taxonomy, this Article also offers a model equity impact assessment for proposed police technologies, and explains why the time is ripe for introduction of such an assessment. Finally, this Article explains how the proposed taxonomy and impact assessment tool can be used to evaluate new technologies through an equity lens in contexts beyond the criminal legal system. As policymakers consider requiring algorithmic impact assessments in other domains, they can draw on the framework provided in this Article for one possible model.

Health Worker Shortages and Inequalities: The Reform of United States Policy

Abstract: The United States and other rich countries have done very little to address the dire global shortage of health workers. In some instances, the conduct of the world’s richest countries has exacerbated the shortages experienced in poor countries. We advocate that the Obama Administration adopt two principal strategies to assist with solving the global health workforce crisis. The first strategy requires that a significant part of the U.S.’s development assistance for health be shifted towards building health systems in partner countries, in particular training and employing health workers to deal holistically with the most pressing health problems experienced by the poor. Secondly, the U.S. should pursue a high level of national self-sufficiency in its health workforce and not continue its heavy reliance on recruitment of migrant health workers to fulfil the demand for health workers in the U.S..