scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed that merger consent decrees should include a review and modification provision that would give the agency the ability to petition the court to order further relief if the consent decree fails to preserve or restore competition and protect consumer welfare in a reasonable period of time after the merger is consummated.
Abstract: This short article analyzes a proposal that merger consent decrees should include a review and modification provision that would give the agency the ability to petition the court to order further relief if the consent decree fails to preserve or restore competition and protect consumer welfare in a reasonable period of time after the merger is consummated. This review and modification process would help to protect competition and consumers from insufficient, poorly designed or otherwise ineffective consent decrees. It would place more of the risk of failure on the merging parties who claim to the agency that the merger will not harm competition and that the remedy is sufficient to cure the agency’s concerns. The merging firms then would be incentivized to provide more efficient and effective remedies at the HSR stage rather than bear the risk of potentially more costly remedies, disgorgement and other relief later on. This allocation of risk to the merged firm also would help to deter the post-merger exercise of market power achieved or enhanced by the merger. For the same reasons, it also would increase the deterrence of anticompetitive mergers. The article analyzes the structure of the proposal, its goals and benefits, potential relief provisions if modification is required, and potential criticisms.

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the interface of copyright and new technology, explain how copyright works in the electronic environment, and identify some areas of change needed to maintain the balance between the users and creators of electronic information.
Abstract: Using questions from creators and users of online information, the author explores the interface of copyright and new technology, explains how copyright works in the electronic environment, and identifies some areas of change needed to maintain the balance between the users and creators of electronic information. Overall, the author argues that existing copyright law can be applied to electronic information.

4 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the Founders viewed law as moderately indeterminate, such that ambiguity could not be completely eliminated but judicial interpretation was constrained by well-established canons of construction, and these constraints on judicial interpretation also exerted a moderating influence on the legislative process.
Abstract: Recent scholarship on statutory interpretation has emphasized that certain approaches to interpretation may have "instrumental" effects on lawmaking. In this article, Professor Molot argues that judicial influence over legislative behavior is not a new idea, but rather is an important component of our original constitutional structure. Examining the Founders' ideas on language and interpretation, Professor Molot suggests that most Founders viewed law as moderately indeterminate, such that ambiguity could not be completely eliminated but judicial interpretation was constrained by well-established canons of construction. Professor Molot posits that under the constitutional structure, these constraints on judicial interpretation also exerted a moderating influence on the legislative process. Powerless to control interpretation through political means, legislators had incentives to internalize judicial values of fairness and rationality and engage in careful deliberation and drafting. Professor Molot cautions, however, that if the judiciary was positioned by our original constitutional structure to influence legislators, modern doctrines of deference may undermine the judiciary's structural role. Judges today routinely defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes and regulations, rather than resolving ambiguity themselves. To the extent that interpretative power now resides with politically accountable agencies, rather than politically insulated judges, Professor Molot warns that we may lose an important extra-political influence over legislative deliberation and drafting.

4 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a unilateral accident model under ambiguity to incorporate ambiguity, and adopt the Choquet expected utility framework and represent the injurer's beliefs with a neo-additive capacity, showing that neither strict liability nor negligence is generally efficient in the presence of ambiguity.
Abstract: Standard accident models are based on the expected utility framework and represent agents' beliefs about accident risk with a probability distribution Consequently, they do not allow for Knightian uncertainty, or ambiguity, with respect to accident risk and cannot accommodate optimism (ambiguity loving) or pessimism (ambiguity aversion) This paper presents a unilateral accident model under ambiguity To incorporate ambiguity, I adopt the Choquet expected utility framework and represent the injurer's beliefs with a neo-additive capacity I show that neither strict liability nor negligence is generally efficient in the presence of ambiguity In addition, I generally find that the injurer's level of care decreases (increases) with ambiguity if he is optimistic (pessimistic) and decreases (increases) with his degree of optimism (pessimism) The results suggest that negligence is more robust to ambiguity and, therefore, may be superior to strict liability in unilateral accident cases Finally, I design an efficient ambiguity adjusted liability rule

4 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore and then criticize the two major arguments behind the conventional wisdom that rights undermine efforts to secure a state role in ensuring the material preconditions for the development of those human capabilities essential to a fully human life.
Abstract: In Part I this essay explores and then criticizes the two major arguments behind the conventional wisdom that rights undermine efforts to secure a state role in ensuring the material preconditions for a good society, and therefore, the material preconditions for the development of those human capabilities essential to a fully human life. I conclude in this part that this understanding of rights is mistaken. In Part II, I urge that the pragmatic argument put forward by rights critics and some welfare advocates for forgoing rights-talk and rights-rhetoric also fails: there are very real costs, both in theory and in law, in deciding to forgo putting the case for the state's obligation to provide minimal material goods in terms of rights. In Part III, I briefly describe two core rights that a refashioned liberal state, understood as a vehicle for protecting not just the liberty but also the capabilities of citizens, should recognize: first, a right to be protected against private violence, and second, a right of caregivers to give care to dependents without incurring the risk of severe impoverishment or subordination – a right, to use the provocative phrase coined by the philosopher Eva Kittay, to doulia. Both rights, I think, are directly entailed by the state's obligation to provide the minimal preconditions for the development of those fundamental human capabilities that are themselves essential to a fully human life. Both rights however, could be and should be conceived in the most traditionally liberal terms. The first such right – the right to protection against private violence – although now disfavored in United States rights discourse, seems fully authorized by both the liberal tradition and the American Constitution itself. The second right for which I will argue – the right to provide care to dependents has no similar basis of support in either liberal theory or American constitutionalism. It is not incompatible with either, however, and is at least arguably required by the deepest commitments of both. The right to protection and the right to care are rights that can be framed in liberal terms, and both rights would go a long way toward securing for individual citizens the minimal preconditions of a good society.

4 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118