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.

Women's Voices, Work and Bodily Integrity in Pre‐Conflict, Conflict and Post‐Conflict Reconstruction Processes in Sierra Leone

Abstract: This article focuses on the historical trajectories of women's empowerment in Sierra Leone, taking three entry‐points as a means of exploring the dynamics of change over the pre‐conflict, conflict and post‐conflict periods: voice and political participation; work and economic participation; and bodily integrity. Looking at pathways of empowerment in pre‐conflict Sierra Leone, at experiences of women during the time of conflict over the course of a long and brutal civil war from 1991–2002, and at post‐conflict possibilities, the article highlights some of the changes that have taken place in women's lives and the avenues that are opening up in Sierra Leone in a time of peace. It suggests that understanding women's pathways of empowerment in Sierra Leone calls for closer attention to be paid to the dynamics of conflict and post‐conflict reconstruction, and to the significance of context in shaping constraints and opportunities.

Decarceration Courts: Possibilities and Perils of a Shifting Criminal Law

Abstract: A widely decried crisis confronts U.S. criminal law. Jails and prisons are overcrowded and violence plagued. Additional causes for alarm include the rate of increase of incarcerated populations, their historically and internationally unprecedented size, their racial disproportionality, and exorbitant associated costs. Although disagreement remains over the precise degree by which incarceration ought to be reduced, there is a growing consensus that some measure of decarceration is desirable.With hopes of reducing reliance on conventional criminal supervision and incarceration, specialized criminal courts proliferated dramatically over the past two decades. There are approximately 3,000 specialized criminal courts in the United States, including drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, and reentry courts. The existing scholarly commentary on specialized criminal courts is largely trapped in the mode of advocacy, alternately celebratory or disparaging, and insufficiently attentive to the remarkable variation between different specialized criminal courts. In contrast, this Article takes a closer and more critical look at the marked expansion of these courts as a peculiar strategy to devise alternatives to conventional jail- and prison-based sentencing.This article reveals that specialized criminal courts have become significant terrain for a contest between competing criminal law reformist models and that different outcomes in this contest may portend starkly contrasting futures for U.S. criminal law and governance. More specifically, this article introduces a typology and critical theoretical account of four criminal law reformist models at work in specialized criminal courts: a therapeutic jurisprudence model, a judicial monitoring model, an order maintenance model, and a decarceration model. Part II argues that, whereas the first three of these models threaten to aggravate existing pathologies in U.S. criminal law administration — expanding criminal supervision, diminishing procedural protections, and possibly even increasing incarceration despite opposite intended effects — the fourth, less predominant model, a decarceration model, holds the potential to bring about substantial transformative change in U.S. criminal law. On a decarceration model, specialized criminal courts function as experimental diversionary programs that assign otherwise jail- or prison-bound defendants mental health and drug treatment, job and housing placement, along with other services in lieu of incarceration. On this model, integration within social contexts outside criminal justice systems substitute for the surveilling function of criminal supervision and incarceration.Part III provides a theoretical framework to capture the possibilities for criminal law reform opened by a decarceration model, which may cognitively reframe shared understandings of crime and punishment; engage in institutional reinvention, transforming criminal law administrative institutions into different configurations; and facilitate systemic change by spurring conceptual shifts and freeing resources from criminal law administration for other sectors. Part IV begins to explore the more general perils attending a specialized criminal courts law reform strategy, including excessive legalism; dilution of the retributive and deterrent features of criminal punishment; inefficient proliferating specializations; and legitimation of harshness in conventional courts and unfairness toward less sympathetic, racial minority, or otherwise stigmatized defendants.

Chronicling the Complexification of Negotiation Theory and Practice

Abstract: The essay reviews the content of twenty-five years of the Harvard Program on Negotiation's Negotiation Journal, identifying themes and issues explored on its pages in the past, the current issues challenging the field’s scholars and practitioners, and the issues likely to confront us in the future. It argues that while we in the field hoped for simple, elegant, and universal theories of negotiation and conflict resolution, the last twenty-five years have demonstrated the increasing complexification of negotiation theory and practice, from increased numbers of parties and issues, and dilemmas of intertemporal commitments, ethics, accountability, and relationships of private action to public responsibility

Sharing Technology and Vaccine Doses to Address Global Vaccine Inequity and End the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Abstract: Although COVID-19 cases are declining rapidly in the US, they have reached record highs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The nucleus of the pandemic has shifted decidedly to the global south. The South-East Asia region and Latin America now represent 75% of global weekly deaths. On June 22, the Latin America region reported more than 1 million weekly new cases and 30 000 new deaths. Latin America has the highest deaths per capita, where deaths in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Peru have reached 177 to 564 per hundred thousand. The Africa region has had increasing numbers of cases, with Uganda and Zambia experiencing 10 000 and 17 000 new weekly cases, respectively. Increasingly, the pandemic is where the vaccines are not. Approximately 1.2% of the global vaccine supply has been received by low-income countries and just 14% by lower-middle-income countries, which account for nearly 40% of the world’s population. In contrast, more than half the US adult population is fully vaccinated, including most health workers and individuals from vulnerable populations. Yet sub-Saharan Africa has doses to cover only an estimated 18% of health workers and older individuals. South Asia has not vaccinated all priority groups, and vaccine supplies would fully vaccinate just 9% of the total population. Vaccine inequity is driven by insufficient supply and unfair allocation. Powerful high-income countries prepurchased sufficient doses for their entire populations, sometimes twice the number needed. In contrast, COVAX, a global initiative to procure and equitably allocate vaccines, failed to secure enough doses even for its modest goal of covering 20% of lower-income country populations this year. Pfizer, for example, agreed to sell COVAX only 40 million doses, and had delivered just over 1 million by mid-May. On June 13, the G7 countries pledged to share 1 billion vaccine doses, half of which would come from the US. But this represents only a fraction of the approximately 11 billion doses needed to vaccinate the world. Support for LMICs to enable them to produce vaccines for their populations and significantly more donations are necessary to vastly increase supplies and ensure equity. The US and allied governments could take several steps to overcome barriers to vaccinating the world.

Shareholder Litigation in Mergers and Acquisitions

Abstract: Using hand-collected data, we examine the targeting of shareholder class action lawsuits in merger & acquisition (M&A) transactions, and the associations of these lawsuits with offer completion rates and takeover premia. We find that M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits are completed at a significantly lower rate than offers not subject to litigation, after controlling for selection bias, different judicial standards, major offer characteristics, M&A financial and legal advisor reputations as well as industry and year fixed effects. M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits have significantly higher takeover premia in completed deals, after controlling for the same factors. Economically, the expected rise in takeover premia more than offsets the fall in the probability of deal completion, resulting in a positive expected gain to target shareholders. However, in general, target stock price reactions to bid announcements do not appear to fully anticipate the positive expected gain from potential litigation. We find that during a merger wave characterized by friendly single-bidder offers, shareholder litigation substitutes for the presence of a rival bidder by policing low-ball bids and forcing offer price improvement by the bidder.