Digital Commons @ UM Law

Faught, Andrew

MARYLAND CAREY LAW MAGAZINE Fall 202123
ON A ZOOM FEED freighted with the nervous words of an interpreter, Kyle Keraga ’21 
listened as clients, many of them 
undocumented Latin American 
immigrants, voiced worries 
about losing housing because 
of COVID-related job losses, 
struggles to find childcare, or 
unscrupulous landlords. 
“Universally, they were scared,” 
recalls Keraga, one of more than 
50 students who took part in 
Maryland Carey Law’s Eviction 
Prevention Project (EPP). “None 
of the circumstances is easy to 
deal with, and they’re only made 
harder by the fact that a deadly 
virus was spreading through their 
community.” 
The Eviction Prevention Project, 
which operated during the 
2020-2021 academic year, is a 
collaboration among Maryland 
Carey Law’s Public Health Law, 
Fair Housing, Medical-Legal 
Partnership, and Mediation clinics 
and the University of Maryland, 
Baltimore School of Social Work. 
Working in Prince George’s 
County and Baltimore City, the 
program reached around 150 
clients worried about losing shelter 
at the height of the pandemic.
Students typically provided 
“quick-hit” legal advice sessions 
for clients, according to Kerri 
Lowrey ’99, deputy director and 
director for grants and research 
for the Network for Public Health 
Law, Eastern Region, based 
at the law school, who led the 
collaboration. They also went to 
court, helping two clients negotiate 
a move-out date, one to have his 
case dismissed, and expunging 
an eviction from another’s record, 
which makes it easier for them to 
rent in the future. Others drafted 
policy briefs on eviction diversion, 
deterring serial eviction filings, 
limiting public access to eviction 
records, and right to counsel, and 
presented a nationwide webinar on 
these issues. Keraga was one of 
four students who testified in the 
Maryland General Assembly and 
Baltimore City Council hearings 
on housing-related bills.
In many cases, Lowrey says, there 
is little legal recourse for those 
facing eviction: “So much of it is 
just listening to people and hearing 
them out and empathizing with 
their situation, while helping them 
navigate the process and secure 
the best possible outcome.” 
The program, she notes, also 
benefitted student participants 
because it showed them the human 
ramifications of lawyering. 
“This was a really tangible way 
for students to make a difference 
in the world,” Lowrey says. “I’m 
hoping that the students who were 
involved in this project, even if 
they go on to work in a big firm, 
keep this experience in the back of 
their heads—that they developed 
some working knowledge of the 
inequities out there, and that they 
can do pro bono work in some 
capacity to serve people.” 
It’s a mindset that resonates 
with Keraga. Before enrolling 
at Maryland Carey Law, he 
was the state coordinator for 
Our Revolution Maryland, a 
community organization that 
advocates in part for permanent 
affordable housing and unionized 
jobs that pay fair and livable 
wages. 
Keraga says he entered law school 
drawn to public interest work and 
could not pass up taking part in a 
public health-related clinic during 
a global public health crisis. 
“I wanted an experience that was 
about helping people deal with 
their problems and standing up for 
the little guy,” he says. “The EPP 
and Public Health Law Clinic gave 
me that experience. I learned the 
bread and butter of being a lawyer, 
and I was glad that we were able 
to help people through some of 
the most difficult periods of their 
lives.” ■
EVICTION
PREVENTION
COLLABORATION
Clinics Collaborate to Provide 
Eviction Prevention Project 
By Andrew Faught
1
Faught: Eviction Prevention
Published by DigitalCommons@U  Carey Law,


English

Eviction Prevention

EVENTS
Honoring the Class of 2021
Event Highlights
In this section
1
et al.: Honoring the Class of 2021
Published by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law,
MARYLAND CAREY LAW MAGAZINE Fall 202133
HONORING THE 
CLASS OF 2021
As vaccination rates increased and infection rates decreased throughout the spring semester, we remained 
hopeful that a traditional, in-person graduation ceremony in May would be possible. Unfortunately, 
ongoing COVID restrictions prevented us from holding the event at that time. But on August 8, over 100 
excited JD, LLM, and MSL graduates walked across the stage at UMBC’s Employers Insurance Arena 
for their hooding. 
The day was particularly jubilant for the JD and LLM graduates who had taken the bar exam less than 
two weeks prior to the occasion.
2
Maryland Carey Law, Vol. 2021 [], Art. 17
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mcl/vol2021/iss1/17
MARYLAND CAREY LAW MAGAZINEFall 2021 34
Day and evening class 
presidents Rebecca 
Carlone and Edward 
Healy also addressed the 
graduates, celebrating 
the tight knit bond of the 
class and reflecting on 
their memorable time in 
law school. 
“As we work to navigate our recovery from this 
pandemic, we are called to a once-in-a-generation 
opportunity. We can help move life forward,” 
Alsobrooks said. “There are so many causes that need 
lawyers with your gifts. In fact, you may find purpose 
and opportunity in an unexpected place.”  
Keynote 
speaker Prince 
George’s County 
Executive Angela 
Alsobrooks ’96 
encouraged 
graduates to tap 
into their unique 
experience to 
help others 
and find 
their purpose 
professionally. 
“It is a joy to be 
in this physical 
space with you and 
your families after 
so many months 
interacting remotely,” 
Dean Donald Tobin 
told the graduates 
before expressing 
his pride in the 
class’s extraordinary 
combination of 
resilience and 
compassion. 
3
et al.: Honoring the Class of 2021
Published by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law,


Honoring the Class of 2021

MARYLAND CAREY LAW MAGAZINE Fall 202149
SHELDON “SHELLY” Altwarg ’65 credited his education and experience at the University of 
Maryland School of Law with 
enabling him to find and develop 
a lifelong career he loved. 
Using his skills and aptitude, 
he provided counsel and legal 
advocacy to countless families 
and small businesses in northern 
New Jersey communities for 
nearly 60 years.
When Altwarg passed away in 
2020, his wife knew she wanted 
to carry on his legacy at the 
University of Maryland Francis 
King Carey School of Law. 
Thus, the Sheldon Altwarg 
Memorial Scholarship 
Endowment was created. 
Through the family’s generosity, 
and a $2 million bequest, the 
Sheldon Altwarg Memorial 
Scholarship Endowment will 
support incoming Maryland 
Carey Law students for years to 
come.  
Born in 1934, Altwarg completed 
his undergraduate studies at 
Rutgers Newark before moving 
to Maryland to pursue his legal 
education.  
“In my 58 years of teaching (and 
still counting), Sheldon Altwarg 
was one of a handful of the 
most brilliant students I have 
encountered,” says Shale Stiller, 
renowned Maryland attorney and 
long-standing adjunct faculty 
member. “So much so that I 
persuaded my law firm to offer 
him a position, an offer I have 
made on less than a half dozen 
occasions.”
Graduating in 1965, Altwarg 
was grateful for his professor’s 
proposition but chose instead 
to pursue his legal career, 
“practicing a little bit of 
everything,” according to his 
wife, in his home state of New 
Jersey. First he worked with his 
father-in-law, then with a 
long-time law partner and friend, 
until his retirement in 2012.  
“We are honored to carry on 
Shelly’s legacy here at Maryland 
Carey Law and are deeply 
grateful for this incredible 
gift,” says Dean Donald Tobin. 
“Student scholarships are more 
important than ever, and the 
Sheldon Altwarg Memorial 
Scholarship Endowment will 
create meaningful impact in 
the lives of tomorrow’s legal 
leaders.” ■
GIVING 
SPOTLIGHT:
A Lasting Legacy: 
Sheldon Altwarg Memorial 
Scholarship Endowment
1
et al.: Giving Spotlight
Published by DigitalCommons@U  Carey Law,
MARYLAND CAREY LAW MAGAZINEFall 2021 50
LAW 
RUNS 
DEEP
Alumni Profile: 
Marc Broady ’16
MARC BROADY ’16 HAS PUBLIC  service in his blood. His grandfather, the Hon. Robert B. Watts ’49 worked as a civil rights lawyer alongside Thurgood Marshall 
and went on to become the first Black judge on 
Baltimore’s Municipal Court. 
 
Following in those illustrious footsteps, Broady 
completed his JD at his grandfather’s alma mater in 
2016, working during the day as a data and budget 
specialist for Baltimore City Schools and attending 
law school at night. 
 
“My memories of law school are very fond,” says 
Broady, recalling how he felt especially welcomed 
by legendary faculty member Professor Larry Gibson, 
who had been closely associated with Judge Watts. 
 
It was Gibson’s dear friend and mentee, the now 
deceased U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings ’76, who hired 
Broady fresh out of law school as a counsel and policy 
adviser during the congressman’s final three years 
representing Maryland’s 7th district in the U.S. House 
of Representatives. Cummings assigned Broady to 
lead the creation of the Baltimore Chapter of former 
President Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative, in 
which Broady has remained active to honor his mentor. 
“I want to see it through for him,” he says. 
 
With his ingrained community spirit, Broady also 
volunteers on multiple boards, including ROCA, a 
program designed to help high-risk young men 
transform their lives. This year Broady joined the 
Maryland Carey Law Board of Visitors. 
 
The Baltimore native calls his current position as 
vice president of community impact for Weller 
Development “a continuation of public service 
within the private sector.” His job is to act as a bridge 
between the community and the developer of the 
Port Covington district in South Baltimore. Broady 
also spearheads the implementation of an agreement 
with the city requiring that development of the area 
includes support for women- and minority-owned 
business, education initiatives, and affordable housing. 
 
“I don’t expect to leave a larger-than-life legacy like my 
grandfather and Congressman Cummings did,” says 
Broady, “but I feel proud to do work that is helping 
improve the lives of people in the city they both 
loved.” ■
Vice president of community impact 
at Weller Development draws on 
family legacy of public service
2
Maryland Carey Law, Vol. 2021 [], Art. 22
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mcl/vol2021/iss1/22


Giving Spotlight

Sachs, Alan

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law 
DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law 
Maryland Law Review Online 
2021 
Adapting Federal Regulatory Approaches To Advances In 
Agricultural Biotechnology 
Alan Sachs 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/endnotes 
 Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
The citation for the article is Alan J. Sachs, Adapting Federal Regulatory Approaches To Advances In 
Agricultural Biotechnology, 80 Md. L. Rev. Online 36 (2021) 
This Articles from Volume 80 is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review Online by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact smccarty@law.umaryland.edu. 
  
 
36 
ADAPTING FEDERAL REGULATORY APPROACHES TO 
ADVANCES IN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 
ALAN SACHS*  
Since it was first announced by the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (“OSTP”) in 1986, the Coordinated Framework for the 
Regulation of Biotechnology (“Framework”) has sought to achieve 
“reasonable safeguards for the public” by regulating products of 
biotechnology across a network of agency jurisdictions using existing federal 
statutory authorities, as opposed to calling for the implementation of new 
legislation.1  Working to achieve a balance between appropriate health and 
environmental safety regulations while maintaining sufficient flexibility to 
“avoid impeding the growth” of what was considered an “infant industry” at 
the time, the Framework was built on a foundational determination that the 
existing mosaic of existing federal laws, as currently implemented, would for 
the most part “adequately” address regulatory needs.2   
One of the key challenges associated with formulating any federal 
approach to biotechnology regulation is the sheer diversity of products that 
can be developed with genetic engineering—including agricultural crops and 
livestock, pesticides, food, plants, human and animal drugs, and 
microorganisms with a range of industrial applications.  These products are 
already regulated by a myriad of agencies, meaning a unitary statutory 
approach addressing all products of biotechnology would be challenging.3  
More than three decades after the Framework was first announced—and 
notwithstanding periodic controversy,4 continued uneasiness with products 
of genetic engineering among sectors of the American public,5 as well as 
                                                          
 2021 Alan J. Sachs 
 * Principal, Beveridge & Diamond PC.  
 1. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 Fed. Reg. 23,302, 23,302 
(June 26, 1986). 
 2. Id. at 23,303.  
 3. Although a number of federal agencies are involved in regulating products of 
biotechnology, this discussion focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Food and 
Drug Administration (“FDA”), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). 
 4. See, e.g., Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering, and “GMOs:” Why all the Controversy?, 
INST. OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS (Sept. 12, 2018), https://www.ift.org/career-development/learn-
about-food-science/food-facts/food-facts-emerging-science-and-technologies/biotechnology-
genetic-engineering-gmos. 
 5. See CARY FUNK & BRIAN KENNEDY, THE NEW FOOD FIGHTS: U.S. PUBLIC DIVIDES OVER 
FOOD SCIENCE, PEW RESEARCH CENTER 46 (2016), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-
  
2021] ADAPTING FEDERAL REGULATORY APPROACHES 37 
groundbreaking advances in biotechnology that could hardly have been 
foreseen by the Framework’s authors in 1986—OSTP’s original decision to 
balance regulation and flexibility within existing statutory authorities has 
largely stood the test of time.  Contemporary agency efforts to adapt 
regulatory approaches to novel advances in agricultural biotechnology, while 
remaining true to the Framework’s decades-old intent and design, bear this 
out. 
The Framework originally sought to cover the full spectrum of 
biotechnology applications by assigning jurisdiction over the commercial 
end-products of biotechnology based on each agency’s experience with the 
review and regulation of similar products developed using conventional 
techniques.  For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) 
would be responsible for genetically engineered animal biologics, plant pests, 
seeds, animal pathogens, and meat, poultry, and eggs;6 the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) was tasked with responsibility 
over genetically engineered microbial pesticides and intergeneric 
microorganisms;7 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) was 
assigned oversight for genetically engineered foods, food additives, human 
drugs, biologics and devices, and animal drugs.8  In developing their 
coordinated but specific biotechnology regulatory programs, each agency 
was able to rely on authorities prescribed by an array of existing 
environmental laws and other statutes, including the Federal Plant Pest Act 
(superseded in 2000 by the Plant Protection Act (“PPA”));9 the Federal Seed 
Act (“FSA”);10 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(“FIFRA”);11 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”);12 the 
                                                          
content/uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_FINAL.pdf (finding that 39% of 
Americans believe genetically modified food is harmful to consume). 
 6. USDA’s Role, UNIFIED WEBSITE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY REGUL., 
https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/about (last visited Feb. 11, 
2021). 
 7. EPA’s Role, UNIFIED WEBSITE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY REGUL., 
https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/about (last visited Feb. 11, 
2021). 
 8. FDA’s Role, UNIFIED WEBSITE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY REGUL., 
https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/about (last visited Feb. 11, 
2021). 
 9. Federal Plant Pest Act, Pub. L. No. 85-36, 71 Stat. 31 (1957), repealed by Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-224, 114 Stat. 358. 
 10. Federal Seed Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1551–1611. 
 11. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136–136y. 
 12. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301–399i. 
  
38 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ONLINE [VOL. 80:1 
Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”);13 the Federal Meat Inspection Act 
(“FMIA”);14 and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”).15   
In 1992, OSTP released an update to the Framework reaffirming that 
federal oversight “focuses on the characteristics of the biotechnology product 
and the environment into which it is being introduced, not the process by 
which the product is created” and clarifying that the “[e]xercise of oversight 
in the scope of discretion afforded by statute should be based on the risk 
posed by the introduction and should not turn on the fact that [a 
biotechnology product] has been modified by a particular process or 
technique.”16  OSTP’s continued emphasis on the evaluation of each end-
product of agricultural biotechnology, irrespective of the genetic engineering 
process used in its development, has proved remarkably resilient even as 
scientific advancements over the last thirty years have progressed from 
introducing recombinant DNA (“rDNA”) molecules through almost 
exclusive reliance on bacterial vectors (frequently plant pest organisms 
themselves) to, within just the last few years, the widespread use of 
revolutionary genome editing techniques like Clustered Regularly 
Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (“CRISPR”) that allow developers to 
target specific genome mutations by inserting, deleting, or modifying DNA 
in living organisms.17   
In 2017, OSTP published a second update to the Framework.  While 
concluding that the current federal regulatory system for the products of 
biotechnology “effectively protects health and the environment,” OSTP also 
observed that certain unnecessary costs and burdens associated with 
uncertainty about agency jurisdiction, lack of predictability of timeframes for 
review, and other processes limit the ability of technology developers to 
successfully navigate the regulatory process.18  The 2017 update also 
acknowledged that regulatory complexities hamper the public’s ability to 
easily understand how the safety of these products is assured.19   
Consistent with a number of key recommendations expressed in the 
2017 update, federal agencies have undertaken significant actions in recent 
                                                          
 13. Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2629. 
 14. Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 601–695. 
 15. Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451–472. 
 16. Exercise of Federal Oversight Within Scope of Statutory Authority: Planned Introductions 
of Biotechnology Products Into the Environment, 57 Fed. Reg. 6753, 6753 (Feb. 27, 1992). 
 17. What is CRISPR?, JACKSON LAB’Y, https://www.jax.org/personalized-medicine/precision-
medicine-and-you/what-is-crispr# (last visited Feb. 12, 2021). 
 18. OFF. OF SCI. & TECH. POL’Y, WHITE HOUSE, MODERNIZING THE REGULATORY SYSTEM 
FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS: FINAL VERSION OF THE 2017 UPDATE TO THE COORDINATED 
FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY 1, 5 (2017), 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
01/documents/2017_coordinated_framework_update.pdf.  
 19. Id.  
  
2021] ADAPTING FEDERAL REGULATORY APPROACHES 39 
years to clarify their respective roles, processes, and procedures under the 
Framework.  These efforts have included USDA’s statement that it does not 
regulate plants developed with genome-editing techniques (as long as they 
are developed without the use of a plant pest as the donor or vector, and they 
are not themselves plant pests);20 and FDA’s commitment to develop 
guidance explaining how its current regulatory policy for foods derived from 
new plant varieties applies to foods produced using genome editing.21  In 
May 2020, USDA established comprehensive new regulations, known as the 
“SECURE rule,” that represent an overhaul of longstanding regulatory 
requirements for genetically engineered organisms that pose plant pest 
risks.22   
Efforts sparked by the 2017 update are ongoing.  Recently, EPA 
proposed new regulations to exempt certain plant-produced substances 
developed using biotechnology (known as “plant-incorporated protectants,” 
or “PIPs”) from FIFRA and FFDCA requirements if those substances are 
otherwise found in plants that are sexually compatible with the recipient plant 
and meet certain other criteria.23  Additional initiatives, such as EPA, FDA, 
and USDA’s joint publication of a new “Unified Website for Biotechnology 
Regulation,” reflect broader federal efforts to improve transparency and 
reduce uncertainty for the regulated community and the wider American 
public.24   
Although science never remains static and future advances in genetic 
engineering will undoubtedly press agricultural biotechnology techniques to 
ever-expanding frontiers, agency regulations are necessarily framed around 
an understanding of commercially viable techniques in existence at a 
particular moment in time.  Even so, the Framework’s regulation-by-product 
approach has, for over thirty years, provided federal agencies with flexibility 
to adapt their respective regulatory programs under existing environmental 
statutory authorities to address scientific innovations as well as ongoing 
developments in the understanding of potential risks.   
                                                          
 20. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Secretary Perdue Issues USDA Statement on Plant 
Breeding Innovation (Mar. 28, 2017), https://www.usda.gov/media/press-
releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation.  
 21. U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., PLANT AND ANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACTION 
PLAN 1–3 (2018), https://www.fda.gov/media/119882/download.  
 22. Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms, 85 Fed. Reg. 29,790, 29,791 n.3 
(May 18, 2020) (codified at 7 C.F.R. pt. 330, 340, 372). 
 23. Pesticides; Exemptions of Certain Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) Derived From 
Newer Technologies, 85 Fed. Reg. 64,308, 64,308 (proposed Oct. 9, 2020) (to be codified at 40 
C.F.R. pt. 174). 
 24. About the Coordinated Framework, UNIFIED WEBSITE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY REGUL., 
https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/about (last visited Feb. 12, 
2021). 
  
40 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ONLINE [VOL. 80:1 
Operating within the Framework, regulatory agencies have the ability to 
continuously reinforce their commitments to regulatory certainty and health 
and environmental safety, all of which are necessary to support industry 
innovation and consumer confidence in biotechnology-derived products.  
Looking ahead, there may be growing importance attached to this 
fundamental aspect of the Framework’s approach, which encourages regular 
review and, as appropriate, updating agency policies and requirements to 
adapt to advances in biotechnology and management of associated risks. 
 


Adapting Federal Regulatory Approaches To Advances In Agricultural Biotechnology

Chen, Chun-I

Maryland Journal of International Law 
Volume 35 Issue 1 Article 3 
The East Asian Legal Studies Program: A Legacy Will Never Be 
Forgotten 
Chun-I Chen 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil 
 Part of the International Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Chun-I Chen, The East Asian Legal Studies Program: A Legacy Will Never Be Forgotten, 35 Md. J. Int'l L. 2 
(2021). 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol35/iss1/3 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey 
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of 
DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact smccarty@law.umaryland.edu. 
CHUN-I CHEN (DO NOT DELETE) 11/1/20 11:50 AM 
 
2 
 
The East Asian Legal Studies Program: A 
Legacy Will Never Be forgotten 
CHUN-I CHEN†  
The East Asian Legal Studies Program (EALSP) of the 
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law had many 
memorable and particular features which those who were there will 
recall and miss much.  I here mention only three. 
The first was Professor Hungdah Chiu’s brilliant scholarship, 
superb teaching and profound commitment to his country as a 
patriotic scholar with a sharp sense of integrity.  Professor Chiu has 
always exercised a strong fascination on me.  Educated at National 
Taiwan University in Taiwan, later he went into an entirely different 
legal culture to become one of the towering legal figures in Taiwan 
and the United States. 
It was with particular gratitude and pleasure that I accepted the 
invitation by him to be a research associate at the EALSP to 
undertake advanced research and training in international law under 
his guidance from May 12, 1992 to May 11, 1993.  He carefully 
developed the projects for me at time I was there, i.e.,: 1) to audit the 
courses of public International Law and Chinese Law at UM Law 
School; 2) to participate in the editorial work of The Chinese 
Yearbook of International Law and Affairs; 3) to do comprehensive 
and independent study on the issues of State Immunities in 
International Law; and 4) to review, in anticipation of publication, 
my doctoral dissertation.  It was a wonderful year in my life, my wife 
and I enjoyed the privilege of working with him in person at the 
EALSP.  My first academic article in English was published in 1992, 
 
© 2020 Chun-i Chen. 
† Distinguished Professor, Department of Diplomacy and Department of Law (joint 
appointment), National Chengchi University. 
CHUN-I CHEN (DO NOT DELETE) 11/1/20  11:50 AM 
2020] THE EAST ASIAN LEGAL STUDIES PROGRAM 3 
 
and my long-time research work in State Immunity of International 
Law came out because of the stimulus of him then.  In 1999, 
sponsored by the Fulbright Foundation, I returned to the EALSP as a 
Fulbright Visiting Scholar to finalize my treatise on State Immunity. 
The book was published in 2000. 
Professor Chiu was my mentor.  Of the many people who have 
helped me in developing my academic career, I am by far the most 
indebted to him.  He passed on April 12, 2011, but his spirit was 
much alive at the EALSP afterwards.  His works have often struck 
me as many years ahead of the legal thinking of his time. 
The second was the smoothness and efficiency of the overall 
administration of the EALSP run by Associate Director Chih-Yu T. 
Wu.  Mrs. Wu and her enthusiastic team did everything possible to 
make success of the program.  She paid great and meritorious 
endeavors on organizing numerous national and international 
conferences, such as the First International Law Association (ILA) 
Asia-Pacific Regional Conference in 1995 and the 68th conference of 
ILA in 1998.  She also actively promoted academic exchange 
programs and opportunities for students and scholars at UM Law 
School with National Chengchi University in Taiwan.  She took care 
of every visitor, student, and scholar who come to the program from 
Asia.  We are very conscious of how much we depended on her and 
know what an important role she played at the EALSP.   She has 
contributed greatly and indefatigably to the work of the program over 
33 years, showing the amount of work she had put in during the years 
for which we all are grateful.  She has made many friends and know 
her work has been appreciated by former President Ying-jeou MA of 
the Republic of China, President Nigel N. T. LI of the Chinese 
(Taiwan) Society of International Law, and President Ming-Cheng 
KUO of the Nation Chengchi University.         
The third was uniqueness of the East Asian Legal Studies 
Program in the USA.  As I know, it was the only one which published 
research papers/books in international law in both Chinese and 
English.  Over the years, the program had published more than 240 
titles related to contemporary East Asian studies, and 22 volumes of 
Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs.  The 
intellectual quality of these books/papers was to the highest standard 
because the production was greatly facilitated by the exceptional 
skills and dedication of the team at the EALSP.  In addition, the 
affiliated Chines Law library, later incorporated into the law library, 
CHUN-I CHEN (DO NOT DELETE) 11/1/20  11:50 AM 
4 MARYLAND JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 35:2 
 
at the program had a great collection and expertise in resources for 
research on mainland China and Taiwan, much of which was relevant 
to legal research, including historical and social sciences materials.  
The EALSP was especially useful to law students or scholars who 
intend to work in Taiwan and mainland China or do research on 
Chinese legal systems, and greatly benefited and enhanced them to 
develop a successful career in the field of international law and 
comparative law as myself. 
It is a program would be remembered forever.   In addition to 
thank University of Maryland School of Law, I am very grateful to 
Professor Michael Van Alstine and Professor Peter Danchin for their 
inspiration and initiative, they had devoted not only academic 
activities of the EALSP but also its administration after Professor 
Chiu gone.   Members of the EALSP family in Taiwan all recognize 
the value Professors Van Alstine and Danchin have done and we 
thank them for it.  In the light of the experience at the East Asian 
Legal Studies Program, I am much looking forward to working with 
them again. 


The East Asian Legal Studies Program: A Legacy Will Never Be Forgotten

Levinson, Sanford

Are (American) Secessionists Necessarily Revolutionaries?

Albert, Richard

Roznai, Yaniv

Emergency Unamendability: Limitations on Constitutional Amendment in Extreme Conditions

Scanlon Beleson, Caroline

The National School Lunch Program: Lunch is for Kids Not Political Propaganda

Desierto, Diane

Maryland Journal of International Law 
Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 4 
COVAX: A Primer to International Efforts in Vaccine Distribution 
and Inequities 
Diane Desierto 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil 
Recommended Citation 
Diane Desierto, COVAX: A Primer to International Efforts in Vaccine Distribution and Inequities, 36 Md. J. 
Int'l L. 14 (2022). 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol36/iss1/4 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey 
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of 
DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact smccarty@law.umaryland.edu. 
3_DESIERTO VOL. 36_14 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2021 12:50 PM 
 
14 
 
COVAX: A Primer to International Efforts in 
Vaccine Distribution and Inequities 
DIANE DESIERTO 
 
I have a slightly different view from Dr. Oke in regard to his 
doubts regarding the utility of a waiver. To the extent that the 
precedent that we are looking at is whether or not there could be a 
waiver for countries that lack domestic manufacturing capabilities, to 
instead import a cheaper generic drug of the Covid vaccines that 
could be produced in other countries, mainly the particular hubs, such 
as in India and China, that is still an open question, and part of the 
proposal that is up before the TRIPS council involves that dimension 
and that aspect of the waiver as well. 
But I want us to take a step back and focus on where we are at 
the moment with respect to the negotiations and deliberations that 
states are undertaking with respect to the possibilities of such a 
waiver, and the relaxation generally of intellectual property rules. If 
we look internally to intellectual property law, it might seem that 
there are quite insurmountable political differences, as well as legal 
hurdles, to carry us over the threshold to a waiver. My source for 
looking at this, these particular obligations on the part of states as 
they undertake negotiations like these, emanate primarily from two 
fundamental norms, both in treaty law and in the Charter of the 
United Nations, and I am talking about the obligations on non-
discrimination and the obligations on equality that are enshrined in 
both in the Charter of the United Nations, as well as in the Covenant 
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights.  
Before I elaborate on these two norms and explain why they 
should be the predicate basis for how states are negotiating solutions 
in regard to the TRIPS framework and vaccine distribution, I would 
like to show you some data from the Civic tracker. The civic freedom 
3_DESIERTO VOL. 36_14 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2021  12:50 PM 
2021] VACCINE DISTRIBUTION AND INEQUITIES 15 
tracker was set up in concert and in collaboration with the 
Commission of The Office of the High Commissioner for Human 
Rights and you can see that basically the entire world is almost under 
a state of emergency with varying degrees of lockdowns and 
measures that are in place and affect privacy, freedom of assembly 
and expression. This is what makes the situation radically different 
from previous pandemics. In this pandemic, along with an attempt to 
try and make determinations for the effectiveness of vaccines, and the 
equitableness of the distribution, we have a climate with relative non 
transparency as a result of prevailing restraints on Civil and Political 
freedoms and simultaneous challenges with respect to the evaluation 
of compliance with economic, social, cultural rights. At the outset 
this should make it eminently clear that even trying to make a legal 
assessment of what is equitable, what is non-discriminatory, what is 
equal, within the requirements of international law is difficult to do in 
a climate where information is purposely suppressed; where 
transparency, either from the private sector distributors of the 
vaccine, or from host governments that are purchasing the vaccine, or 
even from a facility such as Covax, transparency is not really 
forthcoming. In this particular climate we have to acknowledge that 
many states are making decisions, largely out of some sense of either 
state driven interests or vaccine nationalism, but also under a climate 
of lack of data. 
In regard to what the particular vulnerabilities are, region to 
region, country to country, county to county, I want to move to this 
other chart which tells us the number of people who have been fully 
vaccinated against covid 19 on a worldwide basis. If we see in 
particular where the gray areas are, these are areas, particularly in the 
developing world, in Sub Saharan Africa, in South and Southeast 
Asia, and East Asia, as well as parts of Latin America, the data is not 
forthcoming as to who has actually received the vaccine, and the 
extent to which there has been uniform, transparent reportage and 
exchange of information in regard to the efficacy of the vaccine and 
whether or not we’re dealing with variants. The same website also 
gives a relatively clear picture of why it is hard to try and make out a 
case of non-discrimination in regard to vaccine policies, and why 
there is also a challenge in regard to equality as a norm of 
international law under human rights law when we are talking about 
access to vaccines.  It is the assessment of vulnerabilities that 
determines whether or not certain populations get access to the 
vaccine faster than other populations, and that assessment of 
vulnerability is contentious. To begin with, the assessment cuts 
across different healthcare systems, different systems with respect to 
3_DESIERTO VOL. 36_14 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2021  12:50 PM 
16 MARYLAND JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 36:1 
the multi-dimensional aspects of health, with respect to social 
determinants of health, as well as physical, physiological, and 
medical determinants of health. These systems vary country to 
country, and yet we are proceeding on a premise that if we look at the 
hard numbers as to which countries have been getting doses of the 
vaccine, that is enough to frame our understanding of whether the 
legal criteria for non-discrimination and equality are being met.  
It is not just about the raw numbers of whether vaccines are 
being allocated, but in targeting access for the vaccines, how are 
vulnerabilities being assessed consistent with the right to the highest 
attainable standard of physical and mental health, consistent with our 
understanding of the overall determinants, social as well as 
physiological, of the right to health. Is it enough to say that if we look 
at the number of covid fatalities vis-a-vis the number of covid 
incidences, that is enough for policymakers to determine what 
vaccines should go to a certain quantum or to a particular area? A lot 
of the policy making, unfortunately, has come after the fact of law, 
and law has largely been left at the wayside when it comes to the 
framework and the distribution and development of vaccines, and the 
ongoing assessment of whether or not we are looking at short, 
medium or long-term distribution of these vaccines, which is why I 
think it is perfectly relevant to think about a waiver at this time. 
When the latest estimates say that we will not receive global 
herd immunity until at least 2023, and when most of the world is 
under a state of emergency, we have to remember that not everybody 
is experiencing Covid-19 in the way that the United States is 
experiencing it. We are looking at protracted situations of lockdowns, 
protracted vulnerabilities in health care systems and infrastructures, 
protracted situations of extreme poverty where we now have 290 
million people being pushed further into extreme poverty and being 
told to wait their turn simply because that is how it is in the 
international system; that is not in itself a situation that comports with 
the legal criteria for non-discrimination and equality. 
So let me turn to the legal criteria. Why do I focus on non-
discrimination and equality? If we think of the non-discrimination 
norm, which is present within Charter law, specifically in article 55 
of the Charter of the United Nations, and in article 1 of the Covenants 
on Civil and Political Rights and article 2 the Covenant on Economic, 
Social, Cultural rights, and which calls for all member states to 
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. There are four 
essential criteria to determine non-discrimination, and I have argued 
3_DESIERTO VOL. 36_14 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2021  12:50 PM 
2021] VACCINE DISTRIBUTION AND INEQUITIES 17 
in previous work that this is just supposed to be the floor. When it 
comes to the intersectional understanding of compliance with human 
rights, non-discrimination requires proof of differential treatment. 
Further, that differential treatment should be based on a prohibited 
ground of discrimination, which include race, sex, gender, education, 
birth status, language, religion, among others. The third element is 
that that differential treatment which is based on a prohibited ground 
of discrimination must result in the deprivation of the enjoyment of a 
certain human right. And lastly, there must be specific discriminatory 
intent in the measure. This last aspect, the discriminatory intent, is 
often the most difficult to prove, which is why in circumstances when 
you have non-discrimination taking place, especially in the climate 
that I have laid out where there are states of emergency, difficulty of 
access to human rights defenders, difficulty of access to courts, let 
alone leaving one’s house given multiple checkpoints, it is difficult to 
exact accountability through the non-discrimination norm by going to 
court. If we were to think about it at the individual or community 
level where inter-sectional disparities occur, where those who are 
most affected by Covid-19 cut across many of the markers of 
discrimination, women, women of color, children, persons with 
disabilities, these are entities that are the least empowered to be able 
to seek access to courts before their own jurisdictions, let alone courts 
in other jurisdictions to gain redress for the discriminatory treatment 
in regard to the provision of health services, and specifically access to 
Covid-19 vaccines.  
If we can already see that it will be a futile exercise on the part 
of individuals to try and seek recourse under this climate of states of 
emergency around the world, what, then, is the counterpart obligation 
of these states that are tasked to respect the duty of non-
discrimination? I argue that that duty of non-discrimination imposes 
deeper burdens on them when they are negotiating at the World 
Trade Organization in regard to this particular appeal for waivers. 
Because in this sense, we’re not just looking at trade law, we’re 
looking at their existing duties of cooperation under the Charter of 
the United Nations, their existing duties of cooperation and non-
discrimination, as well as equality, under human rights law, to which 
all, or at least 175 countries in the world, including all the vaccine 
producing states are a party to these treaties, as well as to the 
counterpart obligations erga omnes and jus cogen norms that may be 
verily associated with human rights norms. And yet, it is hard to 
make the case, as it stands, because everybody is living in a state of 
emergency and to the extent that governments have been appealing to 
a wider sense of executive discretion during a state of emergency, it 
3_DESIERTO VOL. 36_14 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2021  12:50 PM 
18 MARYLAND JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 36:1 
is easy to compartmentalize the debate and think about this as just a 
question of whether or not TRIPS and the requirements for a waiver 
are met. It is easy to compartmentalize that and think that 
participation in an international organization should only be about the 
founding treaties, or the organic treaties, the lex specialis that governs 
that particular international organization. But this is why I go back to 
the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental duties to 
cooperate, that exist regardless of what the lex specialis is: these are 
continuing obligations. 
Unlike in previous pandemics and previous epidemiological 
situations, the unique challenge to Covid-19 is that the assessments of 
vulnerability are taking place at a time when information is not open, 
when information is hard to obtain on the ground and when 
assessments of vulnerability can very readily differ jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction. If this is the situation that we have before us, why are we 
not in thinking about creating proposals, such as Covax, which aims 
to have at least 20% of populations in the developing world 
vaccinated; Why are we thinking of these programs quite 
hermetically, in isolation from the continuing general international 
law obligations of states? It makes it look like vaccine development 
and distribution is more of a humanitarian act, rather than an 
international legal obligation that is not optional on the part of states. 
So much of the framing of the entire issue of vaccine distribution is a 
framing of equity for the sake of equity, not as a legal norm but as an 
appeal to aid on the part of the developing world. This, however, 
should be an appeal to the rule of law, which has been left by the 
wayside with the kind of rhetoric that we have seen in the framing of 
vaccine development, distribution and access.  
 
 


University of Maryland, Baltimore

Not a member yet

Table of Contents