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.

Terrorist Speech and the Future of Free Expression

Abstract: The crucial point is this: Both liberal, democratic states, and non-state terrorist organizations need free speech Prominent scholars have written elegantly and at length on the role of this liberty for the former While their arguments surface at times in the text, the author does not dwell on them Instead, she wrestles with the question: Under what circumstances are the interests of the state secured and the opportunism of terrorist organizations avoided? Here, the experiences of the United States and United Kingdom prove instructive On both sides of the Atlantic, where the state acts as sovereign, efforts to restrict persuasive political speech have relaxed over time to allow for more criticism In the United States, Brandenburg v Ohio cemented this shift In the United Kingdom, change came gradually The practical elimination of treason and seditious libel, and incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law through the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA), marked the transition If free speech remains central to our understanding of liberal democracy, it would nevertheless be naive to rely on these alterations to protect expression in the contemporary counter-terrorist environment-regardless of how remarkable they might be in the context of what went before

The Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence

Abstract: The Supreme Court has approved a uniform code of evidence for all federal courts. Amendments to the Supreme Court's rules are now pending in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of a specialist in the law of evidence, Professor Rothstein analyzes the differences between the Supreme Court's proposals and the House amendments and suggests solutions to these conflicts.

What Prioritizing Worse-Off Minority Groups for COVID-19 Vaccines Means Quantitatively: Practical, Legal and Ethical Implications

Abstract: To help mitigate structural disadvantage, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) framework for equitably allocating COVID-19 vaccines proposed increasing allocations to worse-off minorities through the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). However, the extent of benefit is unknown. Moreover, since SVI includes a race variable and could face legal challenges, it is desirable to quantify using an alternative such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) that does not include race and can offer more targeted prioritization as it is centered on the block-group, not census-tract level. We therefore sought to determine what shares of minorities would be offered vaccines under the NASEM’s allocation framework comparing: 1) no disadvantage index, to 2) SVI to 3) ADI.

Human Subject Research: International and Regional Human Rights Standards.

Abstract: This article will place the discussion of human subject research within the larger context of human rights law, both at the international and regional level, and examine existing normative human rights frameworks that can be used to protect research subjects. The traditional approach has commonly focused on the ethical aspects of human subject research and little has been said about the implications of human experimentation on the enjoyment of basic rights. The difference between ethical principles and human rights is clearly determined by the non-enforceability of ethical norms and the legally binding nature of human rights obligations. A human rights approach to bioethics, and particularly to human subject research, can bring about a defined system and universally accepted set of rules in a field where sociocultural and religious diversity come into play.

Systemically Important Banks (SIBs) in the Post-Crisis Era: 'The' Global Response, and Responses Around the Globe for 135 Countries

Abstract: Financial system policymakers around the world continue to respond vigorously to the problems in financial markets, financial institutions, and financial system regulation and supervision brought into high relief by the global financial crisis. However, the overall understanding of what those responses are remains rather vague and limited. Our study contributes to improving the state of knowledge by focusing on one particularly relevant issue, the regulation and supervision of systemically important banks (SIBs). The heart of our contribution is the presentation of information heretofore obscure, or new, or both. Our approach is to develop two complementary perspectives. The first perspective is what we have characterized as "the global view." That discussion begins by noting that the G20 and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) are the architects of the most significant agenda in the world to reform the global financial system, including in particular as that system operates through systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). We explain what the G20 and the FSB are, how they came to occupy the driver's seat so to speak, and the evolution of their major financial system reform initiatives since the darkest days of the global financial crisis. Our discussion highlights SIFIs initiatives, emphasizing in particular those pertaining to global systemically important financial institutions/banks (G-SIFIs and G-SIBs). Our second perspective is a country-specific one. It starts by making the important observation that while most of the largest banks around the world have not been designated as "globally" systemically important, they are nevertheless systemically important when considered in a national or "domestic" context. Under those circumstances it is therefore fortunate that, due to recent World Bank efforts, a large set of information exists about the regulation and supervision of SIBs. Our study summarizes and highlights the new data collected by the World Bank on the post-crisis regulation and supervision of SIBs by 135 countries around the world. Broadly, that analysis shows that countries are more similar than different in the measures they have adopted for regulating and supervising SIBs. We conclude our study by suggesting that, although that fact should aid countries in coordinating policies internationally, there is a very long way to go in that respect.