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.

Toward a Jurisprudence of Law, Peace, Justice, and a Tilt Toward Non-Violent and Empathic Means of Human Problem Solving

Abstract: This essay asks questions about whether there can be a jurisprudence or legal theory of peace and non-violence. Based on a talk at a symposium at Harvard, hosted by the Unbound journal, the article suggests that law should promote peace, non-violence and human flourishing, as much as it currently acts in "violent" (Robert Cover) and prohibitory ways. Suggesting some avenues for further theoretical development in "positive" rights and jurisprudence with an enabling and creative set of legal rules and processes, the essay builds on personal encounters with legal struggles that have proven inadequate to meet basic human needs and suggests we could refocus, or at least "add" to more conventional ideas about the purposes of law and legal institutions to service human needs. The difficulty of building a theory of peace, non-violence and process pluralism in a world that remains violent, focuses on past injustices, and remains state-based, is lamented, even while dilemmas continue in our responses to human cruelty to other humans. But law should be harnessed for more humanely positive, creative, and restorative goals and processes as well as the more common punitive and brittle categories and processes we have now. The essay reports (briefly) on some restorative justice and other process possibilities.

The Abiding Exceptionalism of Foreign Relations Doctrine

Abstract: In their article The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, Professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argue that “[foreign affairs] exceptionalism . . . is now exceptional,” and that this is a good thing. I agree with much of the authors’ normative argument for “normalization” of foreign affairs doctrine (as they define the term). But the authors overstate the extent to which such normalization has already occurred. There have indeed been some recent Supreme Court decisions that seem to lack the exceptional deference to the Executive that had characterized judicial decision-making in the foreign affairs area in previous years. But foreign affairs doctrine remains resolutely exceptionalist in some areas beyond those identified by the authors as reflecting the “unfinished business” of normalization. When these additional manifestations of exceptionalism are added to the ones the authors have identified, the claim that exceptionalism is now exceptional seems overstated.Part I of this response discusses the authors’ definition of exceptionalism and normalization, which the authors describe as “an independent contribution” of the article, “regardless of whether one agrees with [its] broader normalization thesis.” As noted, their definition collapses the question of normalization with the proper interpretation of the Constitution.Part II challenges the authors’ characterization of some doctrines or decisions as exceptionalist. The authors cite Missouri v. Holland as an example of foreign relations exceptionalism. But the holding of Missouri v. Holland is supported by the constitutional text and is consistent with original intent and the case law preceding the decision.Part III focuses on the judicial enforcement of treaties. As I have written at some length in these pages, the Supremacy Clause establishes that treaties are to be enforceable in the courts in the same circumstances as statutes. Yet the courts have engrafted onto the Supremacy Clause a distinction between self-executing treaties and non-self-executing treaties, with only the latter being judicially enforceable.

Legal Ethics and Corporate Practice

Abstract: This innovative casebook is organized around the work flow of lawyers involved in representing corporations. Each chapter integrates professional responsibility issues with a discussion of a particular type of task that both inside and outside counsel perform on behalf of business corporations. The book uses problems to illustrate how various types of work -- from advising a privately-held company to conducting an internal investigation of a multinational corporation -- generate challenges that cut across ethical categories. Each chapter begins with a detailed roadmap of the material that will follow, and most end with one or two detailed problems that require students to draw on that material

New Ebola Outbreak in Africa Is a Major Test for the WHO.

Abstract: On May 8, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) notified the World Health Organization (WHO) of a confirmed outbreak of Ebola in Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumba in Equateur Province. Ebola in the DRC is not unexpected. The first-ever identified Ebola outbreak occurred in the DRC — then Zaire — in 1976. This is the ninth of DRC’s outbreaks, which until now have been confined mainly to rural areas. With high fatality rates, earlier outbreaks quickly burned out due to the natural firewall of remoteness. Bikoro and a nearby village, Ikoko-Impenge, are rural, but on May 16, the WHO confirmed spread to Mbandaka, home to 1.2 million people. Peter Salama, MD, MPH, head of the WHO’s Emergencies Program, called urban spread a game changer that could spill over porous borders. Lake Tumba flows to the Congo River, connecting 2 capital cities (Kinshasa, DRC, and Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo) along the waterway. The WHO warned that 9 neighboring countries, including the Central African Republic, are at high risk.

Lawyers in the Shadow of the Regulatory State: Transnational Governance on Business and Human Rights

Abstract: This paper examines the growth of transnational governance, and what it means for business lawyers advising multinational corporate clients. The term “governance” incorporates the network of actors, instruments and mechanisms that now govern transnational corporations, separate from the nation state. It is reasonable to expect that lawyers play an important role in advising business clients on how to effectively operate within this system. Indeed, many transnational legal instruments are intended to enhance clients’ business goals by enabling them to engage more efficiently in cross-border commerce. Other forms of regulation, such as human rights regulation, purports to impose requirements on companies that go beyond what is necessary to enhance cross-border commerce. In this paper we discuss the transnational governance regime that has arisen to address the adverse human rights impacts of business activities. We focus in particular on the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. We ask what if any role is there for lawyers in fostering acknowledgment and fulfilment of these responsibilities among clients? Is the duty to respect human rights a “legal” obligation in any sense? If a lawyer does provide advice, should it encompass only legal risks to the company that fall within the lawyer’s traditionally defined specialized expertise? Or should it go beyond that to include other concerns?