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.

A global public health convention for the 21st century.

Abstract: As shown by COVID-19, infectious diseases with a pandemic potential present a grave threat to health and wellbeing. Although the International Health Regulations provide a framework of binding legal obligations for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, many countries do not comply with these regulations. There is a need for a renewed framework for global collective action that ensures conformity with international regulations and promotes effective prevention and response to pandemic infectious diseases. This Health Policy identifies the necessary characteristics for a new global public health security convention designed to optimise prevention, preparedness, and response to pandemic infectious diseases. We propose ten recommendations to strengthen global public health governance and promote compliance with global health security regulations. Recommendations for a new global public health security convention include greater authority for a global governing body, an improved ability to respond to pandemics, an objective evaluation system for national core public health capacities, more effective enforcement mechanisms, independent and sustainable funding, representativeness, and investment from multiple sectors, among others. The next steps to achieve these recommendations include assembling an invested alliance, specifying the operational structures of a global public health security system, and overcoming barriers such as insufficient political will, scarcity of resources, and individual national interests.

The Receding Tide of Medical Malpractice Litigation Part 1: National Trends

Abstract: The U.S. has experienced three medical malpractice (“med mal”) crises in the past forty years. In response, thirty-one states now have caps on non-economic or total damages. Researchers have studied the impact of these caps, relative to control states without caps, but have not studied trends in no-cap states or overall national trends. We find that the per-physician rate of paid med mal claims has been dropping for 20 years and in 2012 is less than half the 1992 level. Lawsuit rates, in the states with available data, are also declining, at similar rates. “Small” paid claims (payout $50,000) have been dropping since 2001. Payout per large paid claim was roughly flat. Payout per physician have been dropping since 2003, and by 2012 were 48% below their 1992 level. The “third wave” of damage cap adoptions over 2003-2006 contributed to this trend, but there are also large declines in no-cap states.A companion article, The Receding Medical Malpractice Part 2: Effect of Damage Caps, is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2285230.

WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?

Abstract: What does the imminent demise of the WTO Appellate Body (AB) mean for the settlement of ongoing and future trade disputes? This editorial discusses two ‘unlikely solutions’, at least in the short term: the US lifts its veto on AB appointments; a WTO organ unlocks the impasse. Appeals pending on 10 December 2019 will most likely be carried-over pursuant to (contested) Rule 15 of the AB Working Procedures. For panel reports released after that date, four main scenarios emerge: (i) appeals ‘into the void’ blocking the panel report, (ii) no appeal ex post, or ex ante no appeal pacts, (iii) Article 25 appeal arbitration, (iv) ‘floating’ panel reports (interim or final), neither adopted, nor appealed/blocked. The transformation from GATT to WTO took half a century. Regular veto rights in the settlement of trade disputes may be back in a matter of months. It is one thing to lose the AB, quite another to return to pre-WTO dispute settlement where panel outcomes are not automatically binding and power relations play a considerably greater role. At the same time, it would be wrong to equate a (temporary?) return to GATT-style dispute settlement with the collapse of a rules-based WTO system.

Minilateralism: How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft

Abstract: Introduction: rethinking cooperation in a multipolar world 1. Multilateralism's rise and fall 2. Playing the numbers in trade 3. Soft law in international finance 4. Hedging bets in the monetary system 5. Managing minilateralism.

Disability discrimination in America: HIV/AIDS and other health conditions.

Abstract: The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was widely hailed at the time of its enactment in 1990 as providing broad protection against disability discrimination, including discrimination against individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the years since its enactment, however, courts frequently interpreted the ADA as providing far less protection than was initially anticipated. The Supreme Court's first case involving HIV and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, Bragdon v Abbott, addressed this trend by ruling that a woman with asymptomatic HIV infection is protected from discrimination in accessing dental services. In doing so, the Court endorsed an interpretation of the ADA that is broadly protective for individuals with disabilities. The Court also ruled that health care professionals may legally refuse to treat a patient because of concern that the patient poses a direct threat to safety only if there is an objective, scientific basis for concluding that the threat to safety is significant. In addition to the ADA, state laws frequently prohibit disability discrimination and apply to some employers and others not regulated by federal law. A state-by-state survey of those laws demonstrates that, consistent with Bragdon v Abbott, individuals with asymptomatic HIV have widespread protection on the state level.