Columbia Wins 2006 Jessup International Moot Court

International Championship Rounds

Date: 26 March – 1 April 2006
Location Final Round: United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., USA
Location: Fairmont Hotel, Washington, D.C., USA
Sponsored by: International Law Students Association (ILSA) and Shearman & Sterling
Registration Fees: US$160-$925 (based on country)
Competitors: 104 teams from 81 countries
Compromis: The Republic of Acastus v. The State of Rubria – the case concerning the Elysian Fields
Championship Trophy: 47th Annual Jessup/Shearman & Sterling World Champion Trophy

After seven months of practice, research, and intense regional and national competitions involving over 2,000 students at 565 law schools worldwide, the final 104 Jessup teams from 81 countries converged in Washington, D.C. for the Jessup International Tournament. The Jessup competition simulates a case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands. The 2006 Jessup Compromis dealt with theories of state succession, the jurisdiction of the ICJ, forced labor as a violation of international law, foreign sovereign immunity, indigenous peoples’ rights to natural resources, public-private ventures, and the construction of a pipeline. The United States team from Columbia Law School won the Jessup World Champion Trophy. Columbia represented the State of Rubria (Respondent) in the Championship Round. The judges said Columbia Law School won the competition on the strength of its oral argument, beating the team from Universidad Catolica Andrés Bello (UCAB) in Venezuela, which represented the Republic of Acastus (Applicant).

The Jessup Championship Round took place 1 April 2006 in an overflowing courtroom in a federal courthouse within a few minutes walk of Capitol Hill and the White House in Washington, D.C. The courtroom was packed with more than 250 participants, sponsors, and organizers. An adjacent courtroom also displayed the Jessup proceedings on a large television screen behind the bench. The audience in the main courtroom generated so much physical heat that two large fans were placed at each entrance to try to lower the temperature. Many in attendance also resorted to using the official event program or other papers to fan themselves. The organizers announced that ILSA will try to find a larger venue with air conditioning for 2007.

While oral “argument” is a conversation, not an argument, the teams from Columbia and UCAB faced difficult “conversations” with three elite justices: Bruno Simma, the presiding judge and an actual member of the International Court of Justice; Nicola Bonucci, director of legal affairs at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and Sir Michael Wood, who until February served as legal adviser to the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Justice Bonucci told the students at the end of the competition, “You certainly faced a very hot bench.” Bonucci said he hoped the many questions from the bench made the competition more interesting to students rather than arguing before silent judges.

Each of the four students usually proceeded through no more than 30 seconds of their prepared statements before the questions began. Maria from Venezuela didn’t even get to her third sentence. After introducing herself and framing that she would address the court on two of Acastus’ requests to the ICJ, Justice Bonucci interrupted and declared that he hoped she was prepared to answer his questions because her co-counsel did a good job of not answering his questions.

Other crowd-hushed moments during the round included a poignant rebuttal by Justice Simma to Tracy Appleton’s (Columbia) use of the phrase “independent tribunal.” Simma asked rhetorically whether all tribunals are independent and stated that a better description would be “ad hoc.” Simma then asked what weight should the court give to one ad-hoc tribunal’s decision? Simma and Bonucci also grilled her on whether she knew any updated cases related to due diligence beyond the Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania, 1947-1949). Simma then asked directly, “Do you know the case to which we are referring?” Appleton conceded that she did not, stammered, and paused. After a few audible “ums,” Appleton recovered control of her argument, referred to the Congo case, and successfully continued to field questions.

Vincent Levy (Columbia), who won the Orals, asserted that national sovereignty should trump allegations of human rights violations. Justice Bonucci asked why not relocate the pipeline and solve the matter at hand. Levy replied that the Compromis said there is “no other way.” Bonucci pointed out that the Compromis facts did not preclude other options. The facts only stated that the other options would be more expensive.

Venezuela also faced difficult questions from all three justices. Justice Wood asked the first question. Wood asked why UCAB used two different terms to refer to the change of statehood status: “succeeded” and “continuation.” UCAB replied that the two terms could be used interchangeably. Wood then asked why two terms were used and how those terms related to each other.

Both teams were grilled on the importance of the use of scholars to determine international law.

Before the announcement of the winners, the spectators were requested to remain in the courtroom while the judges deliberated. The spectators rose for the departing justices, remained standing after their departure, and erupted into thunderous applause for the competitors.

In announcing the Jessup winning team, Bruno Simma, the presiding justice, said both the U.S. and Venezuelan teams performed admirably during the Championship Round. “The court extends its warmest and most sincere congratulations to both teams,” Simma said. For a team to make it into the Championship Round is a great accomplishment: “You are both winners.”

The judges faced a difficult decision in picking the winner, Simma told the students, because written briefs from both teams were of equal quality. Columbia University took top honors, however, on the strength of its oral presentation, he said. One of the Columbia University team members, Vincent Levy, also won the “Best Oralist Award” in the competition.

The third judge in the competition, Sir Michael Wood, who until February served as legal adviser to the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told the students they faced both a demanding legal question and demanding questions from the bench.

Simma joked with the students that the judges at the ICJ are unaccustomed to being addressed as “Your Excellency,” as the students addressed them during orals. He added, though, he wouldn’t mind if Jessup competitors continued using the title in future years.

Technical Catastrophe Averted

Michael Peil, the Executive Director of ILSA, faced eight hours of gut-wrenching, stress-inducing ulcers when the sole laptop containing all the data had “technical difficulties.” The data were not backed up. The competition almost came to a “screeching halt.” Almost, but thankfully not! An exhausted techie restored the data and saved the day. He received a special award for his heroic efforts.

More PRAISE

On that same note, accolades go out to the all the staff – Michael Peil, Elizabeth Black, Ian Costello, and more for all their wonderful efforts! While you weren’t around, judges, coaches, and participants were heaping words of praise for your efforts to build the world-class tradition of Jessup!

Jessup Overview

The Jessup competition offers students the opportunity to conduct legal research, write briefs, practice oral advocacy skills, and network with their peers, international lawyers, and renowned judges. The competition reinforces the value of international collaboration and the importance of the Rule of Law in building and promoting a peaceful, global society of nations.

This year, more than 2,000 law students representing 565 law schools from 89 countries competed at national and regional levels for the honor of representing their countries. A total of 104 teams from 81 countries advanced to the International Tournament held in Washington, D.C. Teams were identified by number and judges were unaware of the schools or countries the participants represented.

2006 Awards

Spotlight on 2006 Jessup Teams

2006 Jessup Compromis

The Compromis provides the facts of the case and serves as the domain problem to be used by all teams. The 2006 Jessup Compromis dealt with the theories of state succession, the validity of a treaty reservation, the jurisdiction of the ICJ, forced labor as a violation of international law, foreign sovereign immunity, and the construction of a pipeline.

The Republic of Nessus, a founding member of the United Nations, peacefully divided upon geographical lines into two new states: the Republic of Acastus (Applicant) and the State of Rubria (Respondent). The new border divided the Elysians, a unique community of 5,000 indigenous inhabitants who lack education and access to political power. Acastus granted rights of citizenship to all Elysians. At the same time Rubria applied for and received UN membership, Acastus informed the United Nations of its “continuity” intent to assume and to continue the unimpaired UN rights and obligations of the Republic of Nessus. Acastus accepted all prior treaty obligations and ICJ jurisdiction. Acastus also requested the name and flag be changed to reflect the new status. This request by Acastus created a dispute over statehood recognition and allowed the applicants and respondents to argue traditional and newer theories of state succession, including universal succession of unimpaired rights, the “tabula rasa” of clean slate, and partial state succession. Did the former State of the Republic of Nessus cease to exist and thereby terminate the rights of both new states to the UN membership rights? Could either Acastus or Rubria claim to be the proper successor of the Republic of Nessus as a matter of international law? Is state recognition a legal or a political decision?

Statehood recognition was particularly relevant to Rubria’s reservation with ICJ jurisdiction. Rubria rejected ICJ jurisdiction if the opposing party had not been a party to the Statute of the Court for at least twelve (12) months at the time of the application to the Court.

The core of the dispute centered upon the construction of a new pipeline within Rubria. The pipeline would require the destruction of over half of the Elysians’ agricultural lands. What rights do indigenous peoples have in regards to the appropriation and development of their historical lands and natural resources? What are private corporate rights or liabilities when operating in cooperation with foreign governments? Are governments immune from liability under foreign sovereign immunity when their actions become more commercial in nature? Where and what is the threshold for invalidating foreign sovereign immunity?

Read the full text and corrections and clarifications.

The teams were responsible for determining:

• Did the ICJ have jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since Acastus has succeeded to Nessus’s status as a party to the Statute of the Court?
• Would the construction of the pipeline violate the rights of the rights of Acastus’s citizens of Elysian heritage?
• In constructing the pipelines, was Rubria acting within its sovereign rights over its territory and natural resources?
• Were the activities of private security force in the Elysian Fields, including the forced labor of civilians, attributable to Rubria and a violation of international law?

Rules and Procedures

Teams first compete in qualifying tournaments held in each nation. In China, India, Australia, and the United States, regional qualifying tournaments are held. The champions from the qualifying tournaments advance to the International Tournament, generally held in the spring in Washington, D.C.

Important Rule Changes in 2006

• ILSA repealed the 2005 rule limiting participants to two years of participation.
• Memorial page limits are abolished. Memorial word-count limits are revised from 12,000 words to 9,500 words.
• No passing notes to the person speaking or to the lectern.
• No laptops or electronic devices in the courtroom.
• Read the full text of the 2006 Rules.

General Team Requirements

• Teams consist of two to five members.
• Each participating student must be currently enrolled.
• Teams may incorporate information from other teams only if that information is obtained legally during the course of the tournament.

The Memorial Requirements (maximum 9,500 words)

• Cover Page
• Table of Contents
• Index of Authorities
• Statement of Jurisdiction
• Questions Presented
• Statement of Facts
• Summary of Pleadings
• Pleadings

The Oral Rounds Requirements

• Two members from each team participate.
• Each team is given a total of 45 minutes.
• No team member can speak for more than 25 minutes.
• Unused time allocated to one member may not be used the other member.
• Teams may reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal
• Judges may allocate an additional 10 minutes to each team.

Jessup Hints

• Know the facts of reference cases.
• Slow down your pace of speaking.
• In regional competitions, the justices may allow you to speak longer before interrupting. In the international competition, be prepared to make your core argument in 2-5 minutes; the rest should be discussion time.
• Know your team’s entire argument. Some judges intentionally ask about your co-counsel’s arguments.
• Anticipate hypotheticals. Have a few hypotheticals in mind to suggest as more appropriate examples.

Informal Recommendations from 2006 Jessup Judges

• Be prepared to start sentences with: “As in the case…” or “As in the treaty…” rather than relying so heavily on scholars.
• Know what constitutes customary international law. It is not sufficient to claim that “most of the countries” or a “majority” of the countries comply with the practice.
• Practice preparing for judges who will test you and your knowledge. They will intentionally try to take control of your argument, use up your time, and leave you without any time to present your argument. Remember, this is your argument. Focus on your most important points and assert them early.
• Think about global cultural differences when addressing the solution. Have you chosen one cultural viewpoint?

About the Jessup Competition

The Jessup Competition is the leading international law moot court competition. Founded in 1959 by Harvard University, the competition is named after Philip C. Jessup, an international jurist and professor of international law.
The competition is administered by the International Law Students Association (ILSA). The competition is held annually with regional and national competitions occurring worldwide from December until March. Generally, the International Championship Rounds are held in the spring in Washington, D.C. Since 2003, the global law firm of Shearman & Sterling has sponsored the competition’s international rounds and championship trophy.

2006 Jessup Registration Fee

Schedule I: US$925.00 United States
Schedule II: US$420.00 Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Schedule III: US$160.00 All other countries and territories.

About Philip Caryl Jessup

Philip Caryl Jessup (1897-1986) earned his LL.B. from Yale and his Ph.D. from Columbia. He was a professor of international law at Columbia University (1925-1946). He represented the United States to the United Nations and played an active role in the United Nations Committee on Codification of International Law in 1947. During the 1960s, he served as a judge of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. He authored numerous books, including: A Modern Law of Nations (1948), Transnational Law (1956), Controls for Outer Space (1959), The Price of International Justice (1971), and The Birth of Nations (1974). The US Library of Congress offers a collection his papers, comprised of 120,000 items ranging from speeches, reports, legal papers, travel journals, and personal correspondence.

2006-2007 Jessup Volunteers Needed

Each year, thousands of volunteers are needed worldwide. Attorneys, judges, bailiffs, and clerical staff are needed for mock courts. In addition, financial sponsors are needed to assist teams with travel and participation costs. If you would like to volunteer, contact ILSA. Make sure you include your contact information, availability, skills, and desired tasks.

Jessup Resources

Preparation

• Advice for Orals provided by Duke University
• United Nations Documents
• World Best Memorial 2005 (Applicant)
• World Best Memorial 2005 (Respondent)
• Russian Best Memorial 2005 (Applicant)
• Russian Best Memorial 2005 (Respondent)

Organizations

• International Law Students Association (ILSA)
• American Society of International Law
• Shearman & Sterling
• Asian Law Students Association (ALSA)