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.

Can't Anyone Here Play this Game? Judging the FTC's Critics

Abstract: The conventional wisdom is that the FTC was the governmental equivalent of a leper colony prior to 1969, and its credibility and reputation were restored only by the adoption of the wise recommendations in the 1969 ABA Report. There is no question that the FTC deserves plenty of criticism for its pre-1969 performance. It is also beyond doubt that there has been a dramatic turn-around in the intervening forty-five years, as the FTC adopted the recommendations in the 1969 Report. But, before we simply genuflect at the wisdom of those responsible for the ABA Report and the inherent virtue of their recommendations, it is worth noting that those recommendations also placed the FTC’s continued existence at risk as well — and did so for an entirely new set of reasons than had been the case pre-1969. Indeed, the last forty-five years of the FTC’s history (which are assuredly an improvement on the first fifty-five) are still a testament to the unintended consequences that can accompany even the best of reform proposals.

Reconceptualizing Free Trade Agreements Through a Sustainable Development Lens

Abstract: The current global pandemic illustrates that existing trade agreement models, including free trade agreements (FTAs), present challenges when countries must deal with exogenous shocks. As economies reopen worldwide, the time is ripe to re-conceptualize trade agreements and align them with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in order to afford a recovery that is both inclusive and equitable. This team report draws from New Market Lab’s program on FTAs and the SDGs. The report incorporates reforms, targeted mainly at FTAs, that could better leverage international trade to drive sustainable development. The report’s recommendations will examine some of the mainstays of FTAs (e.g., trade facilitation, intellectual property rights, and investment) and integrate under-represented topics (e.g., gender, small and medium-sized enterprises, and circular economy), addressing gaps from a sustainable development perspective and thereby ensuring an inclusive road to recovery.

A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions.

Abstract: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool – the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.

A Deer in Headlights: The Supreme Court, LGBT Rights, and Equal Protection

Abstract: In this essay, I argue that the problems with how courts apply Equal Protection principles to classifications not already recognized as suspect reach beyond the most immediate example of sexual orientation. Three structural weaknesses drive the juridical reluctance to bring coherence to this body of law: two doctrinal and one theoretical. The first doctrinal problem is that the socio-political assumptions that the 1938 Supreme Court relied on in United States v. Carolene Products, Inc. to justify strict scrutiny for “discrete and insular minorities” have lost their validity. In part because of Roe v. Wade-induced PTSD, the courts have not generated a replacement paradigm for a society that is radically more diverse than the United States was at that time. The second doctrinal problem is that the discourse of Equal Protection law has morphed into judgmentalism, tending to infuse analysis of classifications with weighing of whether a particular group of persons deserves judicial protection against majoritarian legislation. Finally, a theoretical issue has long plagued Equal Protection law: the role of ideology. Ostensibly irrelevant, it has nonetheless crept into the case law through references to, e.g., “white supremacy,” but has never been fully and properly analyzed.The role of ideology and its relationship to the original meaning argument advanced by Professor Eskridge generates my primary critique of his claim. While the dynamics of gender and sexuality can be separated in many instances, I argue that they are inextricably intertwined in the ideological foundations for discrimination based on sexual orientation (though not always in the manifestations of such discrimination). Recognizing this melded conceptualization would enrich equality principles more than reading a sexual orientation distinction alone into the scope of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a strong doctrinal claim of sex discrimination is available for the Court to invoke.