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.

Was the Gaza Campaign Legal

Abstract: This exchange on Operation Cast Lead - Israel's December 2008-January 2009 campaign in the Gaza Strip - includes essays by Guiora and Luban, followed by Guiora's response to Luban's essay and Luban's response to Guiora's. Luban argues that the Gaza campaign violated both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello proportionality principles. He also argues that the Hamas civil administration were not lawful targets under Israel's own interpretation of the law of armed conflict. Guiora argues that terrorism changes the landscape of armed conflict and requires a reconfiguration of international law. Under this reconfiguration, an entire terrorist organization may properly be targeted.

Pharmaceutical Pricing When Success Has Many Parents

Abstract: Count Caleazzo Ciano, the Italian diplomat and son-in-law of Mussolini, was the first to observe that “success has a hundred fathers.” Anyone who has worked hard on a team project and then seen others claim more credit than they deserved will understand what Count Ciano meant. When pharmaceutical companies bring new drugs to market, they invariably take credit for the discoveries and routinely charge thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars for them. But in most instances, pharmaceutical companies are not solely responsible for the research and development that results in new drugs. The initial (basic) research is typically conducted at public institutions, and is paid for with public funds from the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) or other public sources. Many people seem to believe that pharmaceutical companies are overclaiming – meaning that the public is “paying twice” for drugs – once when tax dollars pay for research and a second time when patients buy the drugs and use them. How involved is the federal government in developing new drugs – and in what ways? How often are patients actually paying twice for their pharmaceuticals – and what does paying twice actually mean? Is paying twice a problem and, if it is, what should we do about it? To answer these questions, one must work through complicated factual, legal, and philosophical puzzles. In this article, we lay out some basic facts and highlight these difficulties. In Part II we document the prevalence of the “paying twice” critique in the debate over pharmaceutical pricing. Part III presents case studies of two drug regimens (Sovaldi and PrEP), which help illustrate the diverse ways in which the government is involved in pharmaceutical R&D. Part III also reviews the empirical evidence on the role of government funding in the development of new drugs and medical devices. Part IV provides a theoretical framework for analyzing the dynamics when two or more parties contribute to the creation of a valuable asset and discusses the possibility of using prizes instead of patents to incentivize drug development – thereby protecting consumers from high drug prices and deadweight losses.

The Politics of Reproductive Health Rights in Uruguay: Why the Presidential Veto to the Right to Abortion is Illegitimate

Abstract: Before the presidential veto of the congressionally approved chapters of the Ley Sobre Defensa del Derecho a la Salud Sexual y Reproductiva (hereinafter “Sexual and Reproductive Health Law”), Uruguay had been heading toward becoming the Latin American leader in gender equality regarding sexual and reproductive health. Uruguay had a valuable opportunity to, once again, be a role model in matters of public health policy, as it is in tobacco control. Nevertheless, former President Tabare Vazquez chose instead to continue defending the alleged effectiveness of criminal legislation to stop a widespread practice that does exist and will persist despite its punishment.

Migratory Songbirds in the Mediterranean: Enforcement Catalysts or Europe's Passenger Pigeons?

Abstract: Many European Union (EU) Member States struggle to control bird poaching, an activity that violates the Birds Directive. This Article focuses on two such states: Malta and Cyprus. A little more than ten years after their 2004 accession into the EU, Malta and Cyprus both still pose difficult questions — not only for the bird-protecting European states that originally enacted the Birds Directive, but also for the EU regulatory machinery. Conceptually, the problem does not differ from transboundary pollution — like clean air and water, birds are a shared natural resource. Whereas northern European bird-watchers enjoy migratory birds as a non-exhaustive and non-exclusive public good, significant numbers of communities within Mediterranean states exploit the birds for individual food consumption, depleting the resource. As the EU expands and includes more countries with a variation of environmental values, how can Member States promote internal enforcement of international environmental obligations? Through the lens of the Birds Directive, this article identifies the systemic regulatory problems that arise when Member States struggle to implement transposed laws (i.e., laws “on the books”). The article then outlines potential responses available, both for improved EU governance and for stronger wildlife advocacy.

Taxation as Insurance

Abstract: A central yet often overlooked aspect of an income tax is that it acts as insurance against the risk of low income. Because a person’s payments to government are a function of income, he can be assured that in a time of low income, his tax payments will decrease and transfers will increase, while the standard benefits of governments continue to flow. Because everyone, no matter how successful, faces some risk of lost income, that assurance provides us an insurance benefit, even if our income never actually drops.