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.
Topics: Supreme court, Global health, Public health, Health policy, Human rights
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze the pursuit of justice in relation to two major events: the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, and the international crimes that Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, was accused of committing.
Abstract: This article establishes that politically motivated pursuit of criminal justice at the international level undermines trust in the international legal order and inflicts multilateral harm that goes far beyond the facts subject to judicial process. The author analyzes the pursuit of justice in relation to two major events: the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, and the international crimes that Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, was accused of committing. In the first example, the author examines the role of the UN Security Council, including reference to the efforts of the US, relative to the investigation and establishment of a special tribunal for Lebanon; and in the second, the role of the US in the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. Both cases demonstrate that justice is the main victim of politicizing the judicial process.
5 citations
••
5 citations
•
TL;DR: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract: This article introduces a special issue of Health and Human Rights (volume 15, issue 1) that features articles exploring potential elements of and key questions and issues surrounding the Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH) The FCGH is a proposed global health treaty that would be grounded in the right to health, with the aim of closing domestic and global health inequities It would set standards and ensure financing for health care and public health services, while also addressing social determinants of health The FCGH would raise the priority of health in other sectors, ensure effective private sector regulation, and incorporate community engagement and special measures to support the needs and rights of marginalized populations It would include a robust regime of monitoring and enforcement, one that balances global standards with national ownership and initiative Articles in this special issue can be clustered around three topics First, several address accountability for realizing the right to health, including through a proposed judicial mechanism based on the Latin American experience, utilizing human rights bodies and responding to the interdependent nature of all human rights, clarifying right to health responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies with respect to access to medicines, and addressing traditional medicines Second, two articles address global health funding and governance One proposes an umbrella mechanism to develop common standards for all financing mechanisms, and the other proposes right to health-based standards for global health organizations, including addressing for their interactions with other sectors and potential for right to health capacity building And third, several articles explore the role of the FCGH in social mobilization, including its potential to support HIV/AIDS advocates and several specific ways the treaty could mitigate threats to continue progress of the HIV movement Another of these articles emphasizes the importance of the process towards an FCGH being one that facilities popular mobilization around the right to health In addition, an opening editorial to the special issue highlights the value of a treaty with an all-encompassing goal of the right to health and health equity, while a final article offers several risks to the FCGH that must be considered Finally, we emphasize that the critical thinking and robust debates about the FCGH and how it can best ensure the right to health must continue The process of developing the treaty must give voice above all to marginalized populations, who suffer most from the health inequities that the FCGH is intended to redress
5 citations
•
TL;DR: The subject-of-the-constitution (POS) model as mentioned in this paper is a new model of constitutional review, a new lens through which to read the Constitution, which is based on Akhil Amar's notion of refinement of the actors bound by the Bill of Rights.
Abstract: The Constitution empowers and restricts different officials differently. Because different government actors are vested with different powers and bound by different restrictions, one cannot determine whether the Constitution has been violated without knowing who has allegedly violated it. The predicates of judicial review inevitably depend upon the subjects of judicial review. Thus, every constitutional inquiry should begin with the subject of the constitutional claim. And the first question in any such inquiry should be the who question: who has allegedly violated the Constitution? The who question establishes the two basic forms of judicial review. The dichotomy between judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action is the organizing dichotomy of constitutional law. Judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action are two fundamentally different enterprises - formally, structurally, temporally different. And these basic differences dictate both the structure and the substance of judicial review. Properly understood, a facial challenge is nothing more nor less than a challenge to legislative action, and an as-applied challenge is nothing more nor less than a challenge to executive action. Clear thinking about the who question thus solves deep jurisdictional riddles. And the solutions to these riddles, in turn, have profound feedback effects on the substantive scope of constitutional rights and powers. This article begins with the intellectual primogenitor of this approach: Barron v. Baltimore. It then presses beyond Barron, using Chief Justice Marshall's method to address the questions that he left unanswered. It proceeds to analyze several clauses of the Bill of Rights, in the first systematic effort to identify their implied objects. As it turns out, these objects form a pattern, which amounts to a central, structural theme of the Bill of Rights that has long been overlooked. This article then turns to the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine exactly who is bound by its most resonant clauses. Building on Akhil Amar's insight that the Bill of Rights underwent refinement when incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, this article identifies perhaps the most important refinement of all: refinement of the actors bound by the Bill - refinement of its objects. In short, this article and its predecessor, The Subjects of the Constitution, amount to a new model of constitutional review, a new lens through which to read the Constitution. This approach begins with a grammatical exercise: identifying the subjects and objects of the Constitution. But this is hardly linguistic casuistry or grammatical fetishism. The subjects and objects of the Constitution are not merely features of constitutional text; they are the pillars of constitutional structure. The very words federalism and separation of powers are simply shorthand for the deep truth that the Constitution empowers and restricts different governmental actors in different ways. To elide the who question is to overlook the central feature of our constitutional structure. And it is this structure, above all, that is the object of the Constitution.
5 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the OECD's work on profit reallocation and ask whether this multilateral effort can be successful in stabilizing the international tax system, and conclude that the current procedural and institutional architecture for cementing international tax relations among states is inadequate to stabilize either of the strawmen.
Abstract: This paper is about how the world reestablishes international tax order.
The paper focuses on the OECD’s work on profit reallocation and asks whether this multilateral effort can be successful in stabilizing the international tax system. The analysis centers on the current leading concepts for reallocating profit among jurisdictions under what is known as “Pillar One” of the OECD work programme. To analyze whether any Pillar One concept can be turned into a stable multilateral regime, it is necessary to specify certain elements of what a proposal to reallocate profits might entail. Accordingly, this paper sets out two strawman proposals. One strawman uses a “market intangibles” concept that explicitly separates routine and residual returns. The other strawman may reach a similar result, but does not explicitly attempt to separate routine and residual returns. Instead, in current OECD parlance, it might be described as a “distribution-based” approach.
The paper asks whether either of the two strawmen could be agreed and stabilized multilaterally given the tools of modern international tax diplomacy. I conclude that the current procedural and institutional architecture for cementing international tax relations among states is inadequate to stabilize either of the strawmen. Nevertheless, with certain changes, reestablishing order may be possible. Moreover, I conclude that there are six key structural decisions that impact the ability to stabilize the international tax architecture in any Pillar One approach, and that these decisions are likely to be implicitly made in the course of choosing a political direction for Pillar One work in 2019. The choices made with regard to these decisions determine whether or not it will be possible to stabilize Pillar One.
Even if good resolutions are reached along these six dimensions, there are only a couple paths to stabilize the system. One path would involve using every tool in the current OECD arsenal in new and more expansive ways, and then substantially depoliticize international tax matters and remove G20 involvement, such that logics of appropriateness developed among tax administrators isolated from political pressures and acting through transnational networks could lend stability to a new set of rules and principles. Even then, only a few Pillar One compromises could be stabilized this way. The alternative path, which could stabilize a broader range of proposals, requires formalizing the new regime in international law through a true multilateral treaty.
5 citations
Authors
Showing all 585 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lawrence O. Gostin | 75 | 879 | 23066 |
Michael J. Saks | 38 | 155 | 5398 |
Chirag Shah | 34 | 341 | 5056 |
Sara J. Rosenbaum | 34 | 425 | 6907 |
Mark Dybul | 33 | 61 | 4171 |
Steven C. Salop | 33 | 120 | 11330 |
Joost Pauwelyn | 32 | 154 | 3429 |
Mark Tushnet | 31 | 267 | 4754 |
Gorik Ooms | 29 | 124 | 3013 |
Alicia Ely Yamin | 29 | 122 | 2703 |
Julie E. Cohen | 28 | 63 | 2666 |
James G. Hodge | 27 | 225 | 2874 |
John H. Jackson | 27 | 102 | 2919 |
Margaret M. Blair | 26 | 75 | 4711 |
William W. Bratton | 25 | 112 | 2037 |