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.

WTO Deference to National Health Policy: Toward an Interpretive Principle

Abstract: Critics of the WTO often cast it as an obstacle to human health, particularly in the poorest nations. Not only does this portrayal overlook potential synergies between trade and health; it all but ignores recent developments within the WTO that have affirmed member states' power to promote health. The WTO's framers paid little heed to health policy. Over the past few years, however, politics and the AIDS pandemic have pushed health to center stage as a trade issue. This article reviews the WTO's response. It considers the WTO's treatment of national health policies in several contexts - GATT Art. XX(b) (permitting health regulations that restrict trade), the SPS Agreement (governing food safety regulation), and the TRIPS Agreement (limiting manufacture and sale of patent-protected medicines). It identifies an emerging pattern of heightened deference to national authority when member states' health policies conflict with other values protected by trade agreements. The WTO system, I argue, has come to treat protection for health as a de facto interpretive principle when disputes arise over members' treaty obligations. But rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all conception of rational health policy, WTO decision-makers have preferred the path of deference to members' varied policy choices. This approach sensibly accommodates the psychology of health politics, differences in culture and resources among member states, and hopes for recognition of health as a value in international law.

Behind the Annual SEC Enforcement Report: 2017 and Beyond

Abstract: The SEC's enforcement report for fiscal year 2017 reports moderate declines in the number of filed enforcement actions, 754 compared with 868 in fiscal year 2016, and in the total monetary penalties ordered, $3.8 billion compared with $4.1 billion in fiscal 2016. The narrative accompanying the release suggests that despite the change in SEC leadership, nothing has really changed in enforcement. This review looks behind reported numbers. By comparing enforcement with prior years, and during the first and second half of the fiscal year 2017, the review reports on changes that have taken place, in particular in enforcement against Wall Street firms and public companies. In addition to offering data on settlements and fines, the review also offers statistics on where the SEC chooses to file cases - in court or in administrative proceedings - and recent data on admissions in enforcement actions.

What to do about unsafe medicines

Abstract: Because buyers cannot be aware of deceit in the sale of drugs, regulators need to balance the scales

Climate Change and Human Rights: Intellectual Property Challenges and Opportunities

Abstract: Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change will require innovation and the development of new technologies. Intellectual property laws have a key part to play in the global transfer of climate technologies. However, failures to properly utilize flexibilities in intellectual property regimes or comply with technology transfer obligations under international climate change agreements calls for a human rights based analysis of climate technology transfer. Climate change is an unprecedented challenge and requires unprecedented strategies. Given the substantial impact of climate change on all of humanity and the ethical imperative to act, a complete rethink of traditional intellectual property approaches is warranted. This report proposes a series of intellectual property law policy options, through a human rights framework, aimed at promoting access to technologies to reduce the human suffering caused by climate change.

Can Vermont Put the Nuclear Genie Back in the Bottle: A Test of Congressional Preemptive Power?

Abstract: Even before the nuclear core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors in Japan re-stoked public anxiety about nuclear energy, Vermont’s Senate, under the auspices of Vermont Act No. 160, voted to block continued operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant after the expiration of its forty-year operating license. This article examines whether a state can legislatively override a permit issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extending the license of a power plant. The author places this question within a broader federalism context, in which states assert their sovereign rights to regulate the environment in the shadow of federal mandates. She finds persuasive the absence of an express preemption provision in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or language mandating the use of nuclear power, the AEA’s reservation of state authority over the generation, sale, and transmission of energy produced by nuclear power plants, and the passage of environmental laws giving states regulatory authority over some aspects of nuclear power plant operation. Additionally, the author argues that policy arguments favoring preemption, such as the need for uniformity and coordination of shared resources, superior federal resources and technical knowledge, and prevention of spillover effects do not apply in this situation; while arguments against preemption, such as preserving states as robust centers of governance and regulatory experimentation and as checks on federal government excesses and errors, and avoidance of regulatory gaps and regulatory capture, do. Even collective action problems, which arise when a state thinks solely of its own interests to the detriment of other states or the nation as a whole and often favor preemption, are weak. An argument that Vermont’s initiative may derail recent national efforts to “restart” the nuclear power industry as a way to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and its global carbon footprint also gains little traction. For these and other reasons, the author concludes that Vermont Act No. 160 should withstand a preemption challenge.