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.

Global Health Law: A Definition and Grand Challenges

Abstract: ∗As a consequence of rapid globalization, the need for a coherent system of global health law and governance has never been greater. This article explores the health hazards posed by contemporary globalization on human health and the consequent urgent need for global health law to facilitate effective multilateral cooperation in advancing the health of populations equitably. It sets forth the first definition of the emerging field of “global health law.” After explicating the central features identified in the definition, the article examines the “grand challenges” to reaching the full potential of global health law to advance human health in just and effective ways.

Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law

Abstract: This article seeks an answer to a question that should be well settled: for purposes of antitrust analysis, what is 'market power' and/or 'monopoly power'? The question should be well settled because antitrust law requires proof of actual or likely market power or monopoly power to establish most types of antitrust violations. Examination of key antitrust law opinions, however, shows that courts define 'market power' and 'monopoly power' in ways that are both vague and inconsistent. We conclude that the present level of confusion is unnecessary and results from two different but related errors: (1) the belief or suspicion that market power and monopoly power are two different concepts, when they are in fact, for antitrust purposes, qualitatively identical. We argue that attempting to distinguish between market power and monopoly power creates a false dichotomy; and (2) the failure to recognize that anticompetitive economic power can manifest itself in two distinct ways, and these differences have significant legal and policy implications. The true distinction is between anticompetitive economic power that is exercised by restricting one's own output, and such power exercised by restricting the output of one's rivals. Identifying this fundamental distinction and discarding the false one can help to clarify a number of troublesome antitrust issues. The body of this article describes these conclusions, and the bases for them, in some detail. The appendix presents a shorter, more technical description of the principal argument. Readers already familiar with the main body of antitrust law and conversant with antitrust economics may wish to begin by reading the appendix.

In Aid of Removal: Due Process Limits on Immigration Detention

Abstract: The use of immigration law to detain foreign nationals has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, as the federal government has increasingly resorted to immigration law as an authority for preventive detention in settings where criminal law would not permit it. Most prominently, the Attorney General used immigration law to justify detaining the majority of those arrested in the mass preventive detention campaign he conducted and is conducting in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Congress has mandated detention of certain foreign nationals deportable for having committed criminal offenses, a practice currently under review by the Supreme Court. And the INS has used detention of Haitian asylum seekers for symbolic purposes. In this article, I argue that apart from the detention of enemy aliens during wartime, due process prohibits preventive detention in any setting - immigration or otherwise - absent an individualized showing that the person is either dangerous or a flight risk, and a legitimate government purpose other than detention itself. These due process limits apply across the board, to bail decisions in the criminal context, to civil commitment, and to immigration detention. Yet because immigration law in recent years has lost sight of these basic principles, taking due process seriously would have radical consequences for immigration detention as currently practiced. Part I lays out the general principles that apply to civil preventive detention, which establish that substantive due process is violated without an individualized showing after a fair adversarial hearing that there is something to prevent, namely danger to the community or flight. Part II applies this general framework to immigration detention. It first demonstrates, by a review of Supreme Court decisions, that the Court has applied the same due process principles to immigration detention that it has to other forms of civil detention; in other words, this is not a subject on which immigration exceptionalism, or the plenary power doctrine, has played much of a role. Second, I apply these general principles to several immigration law developments since 1996, illustrating that significant aspects of the INS's current detention policy and practice violate due process. Finally, I take up the issue of detention of entering aliens, and argue that cases holding that due process does not limit entering aliens' detention are predicated on an erroneous conflation of the decision to exclude and the decision to detain.

Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet

Abstract: A BRICS Internet, the Euro Cloud, the Iranian Internet. Governments across the world eager to increase control over the World Wide Web are tearing it apart. Iran seeks to develop an Internet free of Western influences or domestic dissent. The Australian government places restrictions on health data leaving the country. South Korea requires mapping data to be stored domestically. Vietnam insists on a local copy of all Vietnamese data. The nations of the world are erecting Schengen zones for data, undermining the possibility of global services. The last century’s non-tariff barriers to goods have reappeared as firewalls blocking international data flows. Data localization requirements threaten the major new advances in information technology — not only cloud computing, but also the promise of big data and the Internet of Things. Equally important, data localization requirements undermine social, economic and civil rights by eroding the ability of consumers and businesses to benefit from access to both knowledge and international markets and by giving governments greater control over local information. Legitimate global anxieties over surveillance and security are justifying governmental measures that break apart the World Wide Web, without enhancing either privacy or security.

Why rich countries should care about the world's least healthy people.

Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this student-lead discussion is to have students reflect on the various crisis‟ developing countries face, the possible causes of these problems, and to discuss why it is important for developed countries to assist them. This seminar would be a good way to wrap up a unit about the Millennium Development Goals 2015, but can also be used as an introduction to thinking about development aid.