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.

An O'Neill Institute Briefing Paper: Ebola, the World Health Organization, and Beyond: Toward a Framework for Global Health Security

Abstract: The West African Ebola epidemic has demonstrated that the world remains ill-prepared to respond to infectious disease outbreaks. A host of institutions are now reviewing what went wrong, and new institutions are being considered, including an African Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Bank-initiated Pandemic Emergency Facility. The World Health Organization itself failed in one of its core functions by allowing a preventable infectious disease to spiral out of control in the world’s poorest region. The 68th World Health Assembly (WHA), held in May 2015, provided an opportunity for the Organization to reflect on what went wrong and reform the organization to be better able to address the next epidemic. In this Briefing Paper we lay out the present landscape, including reforms needed of the International Health Regulations, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the outcomes of the 68th WHA, including integrating WHO’s outbreak and emergency response programs; creating a global health emergency workforce, deployable on short notice; and setting up a global health emergency contingency fund. We also consider the vital structural issues the WHA failed to effectively address, including bolstering WHO’s core funding, increasing coherence between the WHO headquarters and regional offices, and enhancing civil society engagement.

Introduction to the Yale Symposium on Trade Law Under the Trump Administration

Abstract: This piece is an Introduction to a YJIL Online Symposium devoted to an examination of how international trade law has changed under the Trump administration. It comes at the halfway point in the administration’s first term, on the eve of the signing of a revised North American trade agreement, and at the height of a tit-for-tat tariff escalation between the United States and its major trading partners. It comes at a moment when the future of the multilateral trading system conceived in the second half of the twentieth century seems unclear, with the possibility of its decline or eclipse now very real. And it addresses critical questions concerning the impact of globalization on major economies with differently oriented market structures. In one form or another, each of the essays in this collection responds to these and related issues at this crucial juncture. This Introduction summarizes the contributions and contextualizes their significance.

Climate Change and the Clean Air Act

Abstract: In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency formally refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, explaining that it had no authority under the Clean Air Act to undertake such regulation and that it would, in any event, decline to exercise such authority for various policy reasons. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court rejected EPA's decision on both counts. The Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and it narrowly circumscribed the circumstances under which the agency could refuse to decide whether greenhouse gases may endanger public health or welfare. This Article, written before the Supreme Court's decision was announced and based on the author's briefs for petitioners in the case, examines in detail the reasons why EPA's views on statutory authority and discretion were incorrect.

The FDA and deference lost: a self-inflicted wound or the product of a wounded agency? A response to Professor O'Reilly.

Abstract: Professor James T. O’Reilly’s article Losing Deference in the FDA’s Second Century: Judicial Review, Politics, and a Diminished Legacy of Expertise is a sweeping critique of the decline of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which until recently was considered one of the world’s premier health and safety agencies.1 According to Professor O’Reilly, the FDA’s decline, resulting in what he contends is the diminishing judicial deference accorded to Agency determinations, is entirely the product of a self-inflicted wound—namely, the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Agency at the expense of science.2 To drive home his theory, Professor O’Reilly dissects two case illustrations: first, the Agency’s unwarranted denial of approval for the overthe-counter sale to those under eighteen of the drug “Plan B,” a postcoital contraceptive, to appease the Administration’s anti-abortion constituency; and second, the Agency’s complete about-face on its

Meta-stories and Missing Facts

Abstract: In this short essay, I connect the study of law and literature to the craft of the fact statement. I reference the pattern of high-profile cases at the intersection of race and law enforcement to argue that the strategic description of setting in literary works can provide a model for "creating context" in legal writing.