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.

Addressing the Global Tragedy of Needless Pain: Rethinking the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Abstract: The lack of medical availability of effective pain medication is an enduring and expanding global health calamity. Despite important medical advances, pain remains severely under-treated worldwide, particularly in developing countries. This article contributes to the discussion of this global health crisis by considering international legal and institutional mechanisms to promote wider accessibility to critical narcotic drugs for pain relief.

The Perfect Opinion

Abstract: In this Article I collate favorite judicial opinions to inductively derive an archetype of perfection. The question of which opinions we like the most is decidedly subjective, but it also reveals implied preferences for creative judging that might not register on citation counts or be prioritized when editing casebooks. Importantly, our choice of a favorite reflects something about *us*. So why do judges often select non-authoritative opinions (alternative concurrences, or dissents) or no-citation opinions (that don’t cite to prior case law) when asked of their favorite opinion? We might predict that most judges would select, for example, a Cardozo majority opinion that deftly marshals a wide swath of precedent to justify a remarkable turn in the doctrine. Instead it seems that at least some judges share a critical perspective that citation is a “mask hiding other considerations” , and regard over-citation with caution. Despite innovative thinking from academics like Frederick Schauer on the nature and use of authority, this topic remains under-theorized. I contribute to this literature by making a novel observation about implicit authority. Judges who rely on first principles reasoning are making both an empirical claim that these principles inform our positive law, and a normative claim that these principles are in fact a better reflection of our law than the “ordinary legal materials” (case law, etc.) we have to work with. This intellectual move requires tacit knowledge and feel, and so it’s not surprising these opinions write so effortlessly. These above-great opinions together limn an archetype of perfection that we can use as an ideal form. Not surprisingly, this theorizing echoes the work of Ronald Dworkin, who built his own normative theory of perfection in the construct of Hercules. None of us can be him. But perhaps one of our own has enjoyed the herculean moment. This Article searches for it.

The Dormant Second Amendment: Exploring the Rise, Fall, and Potential Resurrection of Independent State Militias

Abstract: The term “militia” is polarizing, misunderstood, misapplied, and generally difficult for modern Americans to digest. That is not surprising, given the depth and breadth of American militia history and militias’ substantial evolution over four centuries.Historically, militia simply refers to a broad-based civic duty to protect one’s fellow citizens from internal and external dangers and is not limited to activities involving firearms. Reestablishing militia’s true meaning and purpose — and reinvigorating independent state militias in the United States to effect that purpose — has the potential to address states’ emerging financial and security gaps and to produce multiple other significant benefits, including recalibrating federalism. This article suggests a method for how best to reinvigorate independent state militias, addresses the major critique against doing so, and initiates a real discussion about the future of state militias — an issue conspicuously underdeveloped in scholarship today.

Making Peace with Your Enemy: Nelson Mandela and His Contributions to Conflict Resolution

Abstract: This is a transcription of the tenth anniversary celebration of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The event was held in honor of Nelson Mandela, and included a panel discussion about his contributions to the dispute resolution field. Panelists included Dean Penelope Andrews of the University of Cape Town Faculty of Law, Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow of the U.C. Irvine School of Law, Prof. Robert Mnookin of Harvard Law School, and Judge Richard Goldstone, a former member of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. An introduction was made by Dean Dan Hamilton of the Boyd School of Law and Prof. Jean Sternlight, Director of the Saltman Center. Prof. Andrea Schneider, Director of the Marquette University Law School Dispute Resolution Program, delivered opening remarks and led the panel discussion.

Deciding Who Decides Who Dies: Capital Punishment as a Social Choice Problem

Abstract: This article is about decision making by juries in capital cases. A jury is a collection of individuals who may possess differing views about factors relevant to the task before them, but who must, nonetheless, arrive collectively at a decision. As such, the members of the jury face a classic social choice problem. We investigate how this problem is likely to be resolved under various institutional regimes, differentiated by the set of individuals who are allowed to participate and the decision rule controlling their activities. As in our previous paper analyzing decision making by juries, we focus here on an aspect of the process that has been neglected in judicial opinions and academic scholarship: namely to what extent, and how, persistent disagreement among jurors can and will be resolved.