Browsing by Author "Quigley, Fran"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Better Late than Never: How the U.S. Government Can and Should Use Bayh-Dole March-In Rights to Respond to the Medicines Access Crisis(2017) Quigley, Fran; Penman, JenniferThe Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed pnvate patenting of inventions discovered with federally-funded research. Congress balanced that significant benefit to private entities by empowenng the government to 'arch in"and grant a license to another manufacturer when the license holder has not made the invention available to the public on reasonable terms. Bayh-Dole also allows march-in when necessary to alleviate health or safety needs. Remarkably, federal agencies have not once exercised these rights since Bayh-Dole's passage, even in the face of significant problems with access to medicines discovered with federal funding This Article argues that the current medicines pricing and access crisis, highlighted by the inaccessibility of an effective prostate cancer drug discovered by government funding, calls for the US agencies to finally fulfill the terms of the ActItem For Goodness' Sake: A Two-Part Proposal for Remedying the United States Charity/Justice Imbalance(2016) Quigley, Fran; Robert H. McKinley School of LawThe approach to addressing economic and social needs in the United States strongly favors individual and corporate charity over the establishment and enforcement of economic and social rights. This charity/justice imbalance has a severely negative impact on the nation's poor, who struggle with inadequate access to healthcare, housing, and nutrition, despite high overall U.S. wealth. This article suggests a two-part approach for remedying the charity/justice imbalance in the United States. First, the U.S. should eliminate the charitable tax deduction, a policy that does not effectively address economic and social needs, forces an inequitable poverty relief and tax burden on the middle class, and lulls the nation into a false sense of complacency about its poverty crisis. Second, the U.S. should replace the deduction with ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This twopart process would reverse the U.S. legacy of avoiding enforceable commitments to economic and social rights. Charity would take a step back and justice a step forward.Item For Goodness’ Sake: A Two-Part Proposal for Remedying the U.S. Charity/Justice Imbalance(2015) Quigley, FranThe approach to addressing economic and social needs in the United States strongly favors individual and corporate charity over the establishment and enforcement of economic and social rights. This charity/justice imbalance has a severely negative impact on the nation poor, who struggle with inadequate access to healthcare, housing, and nutrition, despite high overall U.S. wealth. This article suggests a two-part approach for remedying the charitv/justice imbalance in the United States. First, the U.S. should eliminate the charitable tax deduction, a policy that does not effectively address economic and social needs, forces an inequitable poverty relief and tax burden on the middle class, and lulls the nation into a false sense of complacency about its poverty crisis. Second, the U.S. should replace the deduction with ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This two- part process would reverse the U.S. legacy of avoiding enforceable commitments to economic and social rights. Charity would take a step back and justice a step forward.Item Growing Political Will from the Grassroots: How Social Movement Principles Can Reverse the Dismal Legacy of Rule of Law Interventions(2011) Quigley, FranThe international community's efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights in developing countries have been largely unsuccessful. This record of disappointment is typically attributed to a lack of political will for reform in the host societies. As a result, an estimated four billion people worldwide are without access to human rights, and suffer without recourse from discrimination, theft, and other forms of physical and emotional harm. In order to more effectively bring about reform, it is time for rule of law promoters to draw upon the lessons of social science, and particularly the study of social movements. This Article represents the first effort to view the challenge of instilling political will for law reform through the prism of social movement theory and its analysis of events like the U.S. civil rights movement, the South African anti- apartheid movement, and the Eastern European democracy movement.Item How Human Rights Can Build Haiti: The Lawyers, the Activists, and the Grassroots Movement(Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2014-04-11) Quigley, FranThis book tells the story of a team of Haitian and U.S. human rights advocates who work to bring justice to the poor and reverse the sad legacy of Haitian lawlessness and suffering. These brave activists organize demonstrations at the street level, argue court cases at the international level, and conduct social media and lobbying campaigns across the globe. They are making historic claims and achieving real success as they tackle the Haitian cholera epidemic, post-earthquake housing and rape crises, and the Jean-Claude Duvalier prosecution, among other human rights emergencies in Haiti. Haiti is a haven for suffering. Four out of five Haitians are not formally employed, and most children are not in school. The per capita income is less than $2 per day. Most Haitians do not have access to a clean source of drinking water. Not coincidentally, a late 2010 outbreak of cholera killed almost 8,000 people, sickened a half-million more, and continues to claim victims. The current state of affairs is sad but not surprising. Like efforts to rebuild a house without first ensuring a strong foundation and solid framing, emergency relief and even long-term investment in Haiti is doomed to failure until human rights are respected and the rule of law is in place. History tells us that the only way to transform Haiti’s dismal human rights legacy is through a bottom-up social movement, supported by local and international challenges to the status quo. That recipe for reform mirrors the strategy followed by Haitian human rights attorney Mario Joseph, his U.S. colleague Brian Concannon, and their clients and colleagues profiled in this book. Joseph, Concannon and a growing number of supporters, including human rights experts interviewed for this book, believe that the tipping point for human rights in Haiti can be the grassroots/transnational movement pushing forward the claims of the thousands of Haitian cholera victims. The cholera litigation filed by Joseph and Concannon could force the world’s most influential organization, the United Nations, to embrace the rule of law in deed as well as in name. By recognizing the poorest of Haitians as individuals with enforceable rights, the UN can create a global precedent that will have an impact for generations to come. Together, Joseph, Concannon, and their allies represent Haiti’s best hope to escape the cycle of disaster, corruption, and violence that has characterized the country’s two-hundred year history. At the same time, their efforts are creating a template for a new and more effective human rights–focused strategy to turn around failed states and end global poverty.Item Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: a Comparison with the Old Code(1988) Quigley, Fran; Sheff, Danielle OatesItem Torture, Impunity, and the Need for Independent Prosecutorial Oversight of the Executive Branch(2011) Quigley, FranAllegations of Executive Branch misconduct present an inherent conflict of interest because prosecutorial discretion is invested in a U.S. Attorney General appointed by-and serving at the pleasure of-the President. Various commentators, including Justice Antonin Scalia, Professor Stephen Carter, and the many critics of the former independent counsel statute have posited that checks on executive power pro- vided by the Legislative Branch, the Judiciary, and political pressure will overcome any potential conflicts of interest. This sanguine view of adequate Executive Branch oversight was put to the test when high-level members of the George W. Bush Administration authorized acts of torture. After widespread public disapproval, Congress and the courts responded with efforts to rein in the Administration's actions. However, the Department of Justice under the Bush Ad- ministration not only refused to investigate and prosecute allegations of sanctioning torture, but its attorneys also led the efforts to overcome congressional, judicial, and popular resistance to the Executive Branch conduct-and did so while explicitly acknowledging that the Executive Branch could expect little or no judicial oversight for its actions. Ultimately, the President who sanctioned torture left office, and the voters elected a President who expressed sharply different views on torture. However, the subsequent Administration of President Barack Obama, al- though affiliated with a different party and on record as opposed to acts of torture sponsored by the previous Administration, has also declined to pursue prosecution of high-level members of the Bush Administration. This most recent development shows that the conflict of interest presented by presidential control over Executive Branch prosecution transcends predictable concerns of self-preservation. The conflict of interest also highlights the natural desire of a sitting President to avoid prosecutions of previous executive officials when such prosecutions would consume political capital needed for the President's broader legislative and foreign policy agendas. When it comes to controlling Executive Branch criminal conduct, the current structure designed to provide checks and balances comes up empty and thus must be reformed. The most direct and effective reform would be the direct election of the U.S. Attorney General. Even less precise remedies, such as a revived and improved independent counsel or Congress enacting provisions to break up the current monopoly over Executive Branch prosecution, would be significant improvements over the current system, which mocks the principle of equal justice for all.