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.

Global Regulatory Strategies for Tobacco Control

Abstract: Recent tobacco control regulation in North America and Western Europe has had a salutary effect, even if smoking remains a pressing public health hazard. But in the 21st century, the tobacco industry has quietly moved its locus of activity to lucrative, emerging markets: the vast populations in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. The poorest, least educated, and sickest people on earth inhabit these regions. "Big Tobacco's" new marketing strategy will cause untold morbidity for the world's most vulnerable. However, there are a variety of effective tobacco control policies that nations can and should enact. The World Health Organization treaty, the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, requires signatory nations to adopt a variety of tobacco control policies to the fullest extent permissible under their constitutions. The Second Conference of FCTC Parties recently set regulatory goals in Bangkok, Thailand, including the first FCTC protocol on illicit trade of tobacco products, a second protocol on cross border advertising regulations. Effective tobacco control policies include: national tobacco regulatory agencies; comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship; health warnings on cigarette packets that cover at least half of the packet, convey the risks, rotate messages, and use images; mandating smoke-free environments; and tax and price policies that make smoking prohibitively expensive. This article examines legislation and regulation from all parts of the world in each of these spheres, and evaluates their effectiveness. The imperatives of science, ethics, and human rights oblige society to reduce the burden of smoking, particularly among the most disadvantaged.

Trademarks as Search Engine Keywords: Who, What, When?

Abstract: Most Internet searches result in unpaid (organic or algorithmic) results, and paid ads. The specific ads that are displayed are dictated by the user’s search terms (“keywords”). In 2004, Google began offering trademarks for use as keywords on an unrestricted basis, followed in due course by other search engines. Once that happened, any entity (including sellers of competing products) could have their ads appear in response to a search for the trademarked product. Trademark owners responded by filing more than 100 lawsuits in the United States and Europe, making the dispute the hottest controversy in the history of trademark law. Litigation has focused on purchases by competitors — giving the impression that competitors account for a large portion of such purchases. We find that competitors account for a relatively small percentage of keyword purchases, and many trademark owners purchase their own marks as keywords. We also find a high degree of fluctuation in the number of paid ads and the domain names to which those ads are linked. We conclude that the risk of widespread abuse is low. Trademark owners’ objections seem to have more to do with objections to free riding than with the zone of interests currently protected by U.S. trademark law.

PPACA in Theory and Practice: The Perils of Parallelism

Abstract: Most employed Americans obtain their health insurance through their employer. Monahan & Schwarcz argue in “Will Employers Undermine Health Care Reform by Dumping Sick Employees” 97 Va. L. Rev. 125 (2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1651308 that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) will destabilize employment-based coverage (“EBC”), by encouraging employers to “dump” high-risk (i.e., costly to insure) employees onto the state-run exchanges. The result will be more expensive exchange-based coverage (and less expensive EBC) than would otherwise be the case, undermining popular support for PPACA. Professors Monahan and Schwarcz condemn such conduct, and argue that an immediate fix is absolutely necessary. This reply, forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review – In Brief, evaluates the costs and benefits of preventing employers from engaging in “risk classification by design” (“RCBD”), and offers seven reasons for skepticism about Monahan & Schwarcz’s analysis and recommendations. President Calvin Coolidge memorably observed, “if you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you, and you have to battle with only one of them.” Until we know whether RCBD is one of the nine troubles that will run into a ditch, or the one that we will have to do battle with, space on the immediate policy agenda would be better devoted to the multiple severe implementation challenges that already beset PPACA.

Introduction to Symposium on the International Legal Obligation to Criminalize Marital Rape

Abstract: AJIL Unbound is pleased to publish a symposium on the obligation of states under international law to criminalize marital rape. The lead essay by Melanie Randall and Vasanthi Venkatesh, Criminalizing Sexual Violence against Women in Intimate Relationships: State Obligations Under Human Rights Law, argues that international law requires the criminalization of sexual violence against women within marriage (and other intimate relationships), and that such criminalization should constitute a central element of the human rights agenda for achieving gender equality. The authors contend that the failure to criminalize sexual violence perpetrated by a husband or other intimate partner violates the rights to liberty, autonomy, self-determination, and bodily security and “creates a class of women with lesser legal rights.” According to the authors, international human rights law imposes a due diligence obligation to punish acts of violence against women even when perpetrated by private persons.This initial round of responses includes contributions by Professor Robin West of Georgetown Law and Professor Julie Goldscheid of CUNY Law School.

Student Loans as Taxes

Abstract: The growth of college tuition and the corresponding rise in student loan debt have become major issues of public importance. Total outstanding student debt is at least $1.3 trillion, and tuitions keep growing, even while we arguably need to invest more in higher education to add skills and grow our economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has made higher education reform a major part of his Democratic presidential campaign platform, proposing a new financial transactions tax to pay for large grants to states that offer free tuition to public universities. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, has proposed grants to states to offer ‘‘no-debt-tuition,’’ paid for in part by repealing several tax expenditures. These and other plans would essentially increase federal spending on higher education through expanded progressive taxation.