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 & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Limitations of Arbitration

Abstract: One of the casualties of the Asian financial crisis has been the comforting notion that arbitration permits international transactions to avoid unpredictable local courts. A string of rulings by Indonesian, Pakistani, and Indian courts illustrate the limits of arbitration. These rulings have been prompted by foreign exchange crises, allegations of corruption, disputes about privatization, political instability, and, sadly, limited respect for contractual obligations. To project developers operating in an unstable country, it may appear that international arbitration has most value if the developers are prepared to obtain recovery solely from offshore assets. Even then, the time and expense involved in recovery efforts is significant.

Punishing Poverty: California's Unconstitutional Bail System

Abstract: Relying on an empirical study of pretrial detention and bail that we recently conducted in Southern California, this Essay argues that bail schedules are unconstitutional because they are used presumptively in a way that typically denies defendants the individualized pretrial detention determination to which they are entitled.

Jury nullification and the rule of law

Abstract: Despite an intractable judiciary, there is widespread consensus within the legal academy that jury nullification is compatible with the rule of law. This proposition is most strongly tested by “substantive nullifications,” where a jury nullifies simply because it disagrees with the law itself. While some substantive nullifications can comport with the rule of law, most commentators’ wholesale acceptance of the practice is not justified. They err by ignoring the nonsubstantive, procedural nature of the rule of law in favor of one determined by substantive “justice,” and also by taking a naively undifferentiated view of a “community's” morality (even though jurisdictional and vicinage morality can diverge). In doing so, a healthy vision of antityrannical nullifications is presented, but this leaves out many problematic cases. Once these errors are rectified, a more nuanced picture emerges, and it becomes apparent that localism will often disrupt the congruence feature of the rule of law.

The Business and Human Rights Landscape: The Third Pillar: Remedies, Reparations, and the Ruggie Principles

Abstract: In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously approved the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) proposed by John Ruggie who had been serving as the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General the previous six years. The endorsement of the Ruggie Principles signals an important milestone in the corporate social responsibility movement that has been building momentum since the 1990s. Importantly, the UNGPs present a comprehensive framework to increase the prevention of human rights violations that arise out of business activities while at the same time instituting greater accountability when harm occurs. Specifically, States have a duty to protect human rights while businesses have a duty to respect human rights. In the event that harm occurs, however, victims must have access to a remedy. Significantly, this third pillar gives the framework teeth by assuring a response to human rights violations. This chapter examines the role of remedies in this dynamic framework to offer an initial assessment of where we are two years into the implementation stage of the Ruggie Principles. To provide background, the article begins with a basic overview of the third pillar on remedies, including its history within the development of the Ruggie Principles, its basic content and significance. Additionally, the authors present a conceptual framework for understanding the “system of remedy” envisioned by the UNGPs, as well as clarifying some universal concepts arising out of human rights law that should be used to interpret the UNGPs’ reference to this right. A typology of judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms is also provided to demonstrate how the system of remedies works in practice. Finally, the authors explore relevant issues with regard to evaluating the effectiveness of remedies according to international standards.

Federalism and the Court: Congress as the Audience?

Abstract: The Supreme Court's revival of federalism as a limit on national power has roots, in part, in the Court's mistrust of the national legislative process and its sense of institutional competition with Congress. To the extent that the Court is concerned about careless legislating, six rules of "care and craft" in drafting legislation are proposed for members of Congress to consider: develop a factual record, reflect the source of constitutional authority, tailor the statute to reach "national" and not "local" matters, consider the implications of decentralized enforcement for surviving constitutional challenges as well as for efficacy, consider whether state governments are treated comparably to the federal government, and be particularly cautious in efforts to overrule the effects of the Court's decisions. To the extent the Court is concerned with its own institutional prerogatives, however, or is committed to a categorical divide between areas constitutionally committed to the states and the federal govern...