International Championship Rounds

Date: 22-28 March 2009
Location: Fairmont Hotel, Washington, D.C., USA
Sponsored by: International Law Students Association (ILSA) and Shearman & Sterling
Competitors: 104 teams from more than 80 countries (additional 9 exhibition teams and 4 observing groups)
Compromis: The Republic of Alicanto v. The Commonwealth of Ravisia – the case concerning “Operation Provide Shelter”
Championship Trophy: 50th Annual Jessup/Shearman & Sterling World Champion Trophy

2009 Jessup Champion: Universidad de los Andes, Colombia
with the team from the Royal University of Law and Economics, Cambodia
See more photos of Universidad de los Andes team.

This year’s special celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition concluded with a special Gala and International Rounds in Washington, D.C. The competition simulates a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ and also referred to as the “World Court”) in The Hague, the Netherlands. This year, 2000+ students at 560+ law schools spent the academic year researching and preparing memorials and oral arguments for the applicant Alicanto and respondent Ravisia in the case concerning “Operation Provide Shelter.” The Compromis dealt with humanitarian intervention, R2P, use of force, accountability of peacekeepers/troops, human rights, due process, and the death penalty.

I served as a judge of memorials and oral arguments in the International Rounds in Washington, D.C.

And the 2009 Jessup results . . .

The Universidad de los Andes from Colombia, representing Alicanto, won the 2009 Jessup World Champion Trophy.

The University College London from the United Kingdom, representing Ravisia, won World Championship Runner-up.

Brief Overview on the Compromis

This year’s Compromis on “Operation Provide Shelter,” written by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (former President of the ICJ), raised challenging political, legal, and moral issues reflective of real-world controversies and on the forefront of contemporary legal discourse. Judge Schwebel intentionally divided the issues such that both the Applicant and the Respondent had strong and weak legal positions. As a result, agents confronted sub-arguments supported by international law but not specific facts, by facts but not necessarily the law, and by controverted emergent legal doctrines. This distribution forced all agents to prioritize which legal arguments would be strongest for their positions, to be creative on legally weak points, and to determine which red herrings and inconsequential points should be largely ignored.

The four legal issues included: (1) the lawfulness of Ravisian military action in Alicanto under international law, (2) whether the Court should call upon Ravisia to produce intelligence related to evidence of ethnic cleansing or, alternately, declare the UN Secretary General should hand over the information to Alicanto, (3) whether radio broadcasts and alleged sexual conduct by off-duty Ravisian troops violated international law and warranted reparations for harm to the “social fabric” of Alicanto, and (4) whether Ravisia must hand over fugitive Piccardo Dontai, who was tried in absentia by Alicanto and sentenced to death.

Highlights from the World Championship Round

The teams from Universidad de los Andes from Colombia (as Applicant) and the University College London, United Kingdom (as Respondent) faced a lively, humorous, and demanding bench, consisting of actual ICJ Judge Bruno Simma as Mr. President, her Excellency Ruth Wedgwood, and his Excellency José Alvarez.

In contrast to the actual proceedings before the real International Court of Justice, the bench was anything but silent and constrained. Rather, oralists (known as “Agents”) were tested on every “locution” and “legal technicality” uttered. I emphasis these words because of their repeated use by the judges and because they demonstrate the essence of this year’s “conversation” with the bench. It was very telling when Simma remarked that the winning team and best oralist won largely on the basis of advocacy skills, not the strength of the legal arguments, as such. His commentary reflected and revealed how challenging the legal issues in this year’s Compromis proved to be.

The bench’s focus on exact word choice and legal technicalities began a mere three minutes into the proceedings. Alvarez stated that Sebastián Machado (First Applicant, UdlA) could have made the nonintervention argument also under article 2(7), not just 2(4), of the UN Charter.

Sebastián Machado

Quickly thereafter, Alvarez asked Machado why he used “humanitarian intervention” and “R2P” in the same sentence and whether they constituted the same thing. Machado replied that the two terms could be used interchangeably, seemingly unaware of past instances where agents have attempted to use words interchangeably at their own peril and of Alvarez’s 2007 article, “The Schizophrenias of R2P,” published in the American Society of International Law Newsletter.

In the 2007 article, Alvarez described a distinct difference between R2P and the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Alvarez concluded that humanitarian intervention generally does not include “past crimes, undemocratic regimes, or threatened terrorist acts.” I also recommend reading: (a) Carsten Stahn, “Responsibility To Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging
Legal Norm?” 101 A.J.I.L. 99 (2007), questioning whether R2P is just the old wine of state sovereignty in new bottles, and (b) Gareth Evans’ clarifications of what he believes constitutes the scope of R2P.

Guillermo Otálora

Guillermo Otálora (Second Applicant, UdlA) spent the majority of time answering questions about the radio broadcasts, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), attribution, and state sovereignty. With ten minutes remaining, Wedgwood turned the conversation toward the conduct of the troops, effective control, and command responsibility. Otalora asserted that Ravisia was responsible due to its failure to prosecute. Wedgwood offered, again with the intent of being helpful, that Ravisia might be responsible for oversight of the troops to the extent of ensuring that the troops were doing constructive things in their off-duty time, such as reading or bar review (much laughter). She asked Otálora whether his argument relied on the failure to prosecute or the failure to prevent the conduct. Alvarez then pointed to a potential flaw in Otálora’s argument to see if he had considered the issue. Under the facts, Alicanto had not initiated criminal prosecutions of the alleged sex offenders. Alvarez asked: “Why not? You prosecute them in abstentia (didn’t catch the rest because of the erupted laughter; his statement making reference to the questionable legality of Donati’s trial).”

Annabelle Lee

Annabelle Lee (First Respondent, UCL) rejected multiple leading questions, intended to be legally helpful, from Wedgwood on the applicability of specific language in the Security Council Resolutions. If you are wondering where this line of questioning was going, read the Resolutions again very closely and contemplate how they may be related and what that would mean for Ravisia’s argument under the UN Charter. Next, Alvarez quizzed Lee on her seemingly sole justification for Ravisian military intervention in Alicanto: R2P. He stated: “In your brief, all you point me to is a bunch of Canadians who think that’s so and a couple of reports from a high-level panel and so forth. If there is such a thing [as R2P], can you show me real law?” Her reply that the “distinguished academics from Canada should be taken into account” was met with assorted applause and laughter, and even a broad smile and chuckle from Alvarez. Yet, after one more minute of argument by Lee, Alvarez again reiterated the need for legal proof that a state can act unilaterally with force pursuant to R2P. Lee’s reference to the World Outcome Document proved insufficient. Alvarez asked for specific language from the document. Lee made a good recovery by quoting the criteria given in paragraph 139: “genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or war crimes.” She then faltered when asked whether it explicitly authorized the use of unilateral force and what Ravisia’s position was on whether genocide was occurring.

Alvarez amusingly observed that it was odd that Ravisia was not a party to the Genocide Convention when it was party to every other human rights treaty. Wedgwood asked the difference between ethnic cleasing and genocide. Lee relied on ICTY case law to assert that the two terms are not the same. Simma then bluntly asked, “What about case law from this Court?” Lee referred obliquely to the 2007 case involving the Bosnia Genocide, which she stated “quoted” the ICTY cases, prompting Simma to ask, “Quoted?! So is that the reason why you don’t name the ICJ case because it just reproduced a passage from the ICTY case?” Soft laughter could be heard throughout the room. Wedgwood later clarified that recent ICJ case law recognizes a clear distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Wedgwood remarked that any justification under the Genocide Convention would not apply to the Respondent’s argument for unilateral intervention on the grounds of preventing ethnic cleansing. Lee agreed that the Genocide Convention would not apply to Ravisia’s argument. When Lee continued with an argument under a GA Resolution, Wedgwood replied, “You might have lost your vote there as well.” Lee replied: “No. (pause) Yeah, well, it is the respondent’s contention” and then tried to recover her argument.

Mahesh Rai

Other “legal technicalities” included Simma’s corrections of multiple incorrect references by agents to prior ICJ “judgments” when the cases were actually “advisory opinions.” Also, when Lee faltered on her references to and application of the UN Charter, Wedgwood and Alvarez opened their copies of the Charter and read specific passages. Later, Mahesh Rai (Second Respondent, UCL) also found himself facing a bench with open copies of the UN Charter. Rai was also asked to clarify whether he was referring to the Human Rights Council or Committee. Otálora received prompt correction from the bench for referring to “this Court” instead of the intended reference to the European Court of Human Rights. Otálora also repeatedly referred to “due diligence,” prompting one judge to ask where he got that as a standard to be applied here.

Rai encountered one of those dreaded moments for any oralist. Simma asked whether Rai knew of any recent case law from the ICJ relevant to the issue at hand on the jurisdictional scope of human rights treaties extraterritorially. Specifically, he was trying to lead Rai to the October 2008 Order concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation). Rai stated he was unaware of any recent cases. Simma then offered up the case and preemptively and strategically said, “I’m sure you have read the case.” Later in the proceedings, Alvarez asked Rai about treaty reservations, including speculation on whether Ravisia would have entered a reservation, why Ravisia did not, the rules for reservations under articles 19-22 of the VLCT, and the impact of reservations on legal obligations of the state and with respect to other states.

Wedgwood then grilled Rai on the compatibility between his arguments and those made by his co-agent. Specifically, she asked him to reconcile Lee’s arguments under humanitarian intervention and his argument under CEDAW.

During the Applicant’s Rebuttal, Wedgwood asked Machado, “Who has the burden of proof?” Did Alicanto need to prove that Ravisia acted unlawfully, or did Ravisia need to prove that it acted lawfully? Wedgwood then asked a question related to the moral issues to which Machado replied that the court, as stated earlier, deals not with moral issues but with “legal technicalities.” This prompted much laughter and thunderous applause. Yet, Machado’s answer targeted only one of the three judges. During the feedback, Wedgwood observed that a good oralist must convince more than one judge, in an oblique reference to this moment. In gaining a point from one judge, she remarked, he risked losing the other two judges, no matter how well-received the remarks or arguments are by the one judge. In short, oralists need to remember, respect, and address the concerns of all judges.

Lee did the Rebuttal for Ravisia. She answered questions about the status of R-Fan as a regional organization under article 53 of the UN Charter. She strategically targeted refuting Alicanto’s argument of nonintervention and asked the Court to find that the intervention was justified on the grounds of humanitarian intervention. She specifically appealed to the Court to find for Ravisia in order to prevent the Rwanda and Srebrenica genocides of tomorrow. Yet, earlier in her argument when the court probed the strength of her genocide argument, she rejected that position.

For those competitors interested in effective time management, you will be interested to learn that every oralist had difficulties in the Final Round. First, Machado ran out of time to present oral arguments on the confidential materials, relying instead on a single statement referring the Court to Alicanto’s written memorial. For the Respondents, with 5 minutes left, Rai was still answering questions about his first issue, the radio broadcasts. He tried to advance to the next point by saying, “Your excellencies, may I now turn . . . ” when he was interrupted and asked to speculate on the consequences if the Court adopted his last argument. Rai ran out of time before adequately addressing the alleged sexual exploitation by Ravisian troops and the handing over of Donati. When the bailiff held up the “STOP” sign, Rai asked, “May I have more time?”, resulting in much laughter throughout the room. The Court, however, did grant him additional time, which seemed fair given the extra time given to the Applicant.

During this extra time to specifically address questions about Donati, Rai stated that Ravisia would turn over Donati to Alicanto if it received adequate assurances that he would not be put to death. Rai did not address the due process issues related to Donati’s trial in absentia.

Feedback from the Judges

Wedgwood emphasized the need to be Darwinian with the arguments. Find the best arguments and then do not hopscotch to back-up arguments without a good reason. She complimented all the oralists for their advocacy skills. Alvarez remarked how the proceedings were dissimilar to those at the ICJ. He also said that today’s arguments were “not about the law” but rather about advocacy skills. He wished to have joined the applause but for courtroom decorum. He recognized the sacrifices that competitors had to go through to get here, and how, in the absence of simultaneous translation, many competitors mastered advocacy in a foreign language.
Simma described how satisfying judging the Jessup is in comparison to proceedings at the ICJ.

The 3-panel bench of “Your Excellencies” included:

• Bruno Simma as Mr. President and a judge at the International Court of Justice since 2003.
• Ruth Wedgwood is the Edward B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy and director of the International Law and Organizations Program at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, in Washington, D.C. and a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva
• José Alvarez is the former president of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia Law School in New York.

2009 Awards

Jessup Cup World Champion

Back row: Ricardo Alarcón, Liliana Obregón
Front row: Giselle Herrera, Guillermo Otálora, Sebastián Machado

Jessup Cup World Championship Runner-up

Other Awards

To be posted later.

Quarterfinal and Semifinal Teams

Semifinal Rounds: Final 4
Artistotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece (Team 529) v. University College London (Team 404)
Universidad de los Andes, Colombia (Team 217) v. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina (Team 258)

Quarterfinal Rounds
India (Team 247) v. University College London (Team 404)
Universidad Catolica Andres Bello, Venezuela (Team 169) v. Universidad de los Andes, Colombia (Team 217)
Artistotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece (Team 529) v. London School of Economics, United Kingdom (Team 256)
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina (Team 258) v. University of Ottawa, Canada (Team 152)

Spotlight on 2009 Jessup Teams

Cambodia, Royal University of Law and Economics – 5 members. Nearirath Sreng, Sonita Khun, Kimsan Soy, Panha Piseth, and Thirith Vireak. It was the first time for Cambodia to send a team. Their last match was against Columbia University from the United States. Their motto simply stated on their business cards: “We believe in Miracles!” Irath said that Jessup taught her how to lead a team. The rest of the team expressed how much they appreciated the opportunity to come to the United States to compete in the Jessup. They received support and training from the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and several past Jessup competitors. Then, when it seemed as if they would not be able to afford the trip, they received last-minute funding from their Prime Minister Hun Sen. Once again proving that hard work can transform dreams into reality.

Hong Kong, China, Chinese University of Hong Kong – 5 members. Peter Chang, Charmine Cheung, Chester Hui, Simone Hui and Spencer Wong. The team members were PCLL and J.D. students. The team was coached by Professor Michael Ramsden, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, CUHK. The CUHK team narrowly defeated University of Hong Kong (HKU) at the national rounds with a nerve-wrecking tie-breaker based on raw scores. Chester Hui took Best Oralist at nationals. When I asked if they had any reflections on their experience, one of the oralists replied, “I am speechless!”, to much laughter.

Iraq, Sulaymaniya State University – 4 members. Awara Azad Ahmed, Kanar Jamal Abdullah, Hemin Fuad Rahim and Hilal Zangana. The team was coached by Dr. Hussein Ali, an Iraqi expert in international law. The National Administrator was Haider Hamoudi. The team received support from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the International Human Rights Institute at DePaul University College of Law, and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. At the Jessup Gala dinner, the team shared a table with Judge Rosalyn Higgins, who graciously autographed their event programs. Visa problems prevented the team from the University of Basra from participating in the International Rounds.

Lesotho, National University of Lesotho – 2 members. Motlatsi Joseph Nku and Limpho Linake. Both agents argued each round and shared the burden equally across Applicant and Respondent arguments. Four additional teammates were unable to participate in the Jessup this year, due largely to financial constraints and visas. In a country where the annual income is less than $400 per year, they paid the equivalent of US$130 for each visa to travel to the United States. Further, they faced the challenges of limited Internet access, inadequate access to current international law books, and little financial sponsorship beyond some limited funding from the National University of Lesotho and their coach Gerald McGinley. They warmly welcome donations of books, funding, travel expenses, and hotel accommodations for 2010’s team. This year’s competitors are committed to helping grow their university’s Jessup team.

Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University – 5 members. Timothy John R. Batan (team captain), Jill Julie V. Genio, Maria Tara A. Mercado, Jose Victorniño “JV” L. Salud, and Ramon Miguel C. Samson. They are assisted by attorneys Silvia Jo G. Sabio, Aris L. Gulapa, Cecille L. Mejia, and Domnina T. Rances and by team administrators Claudine Esther F. Lim and Marck Joseph A. Macaraeg. Their advisor, Nina, came with them to Washington, D.C. This marks the 5th year that Team Ateneo has advanced to the International Rounds.

Slovakia, Team Slovakia – 2 members. The two agents divided the arguments with one person specializing in Applicant and the other person specializing in Respondent. As a result, for each round, one agent conducted all the oral proceedings. If you thought standing for 20 minutes in front of the judges was difficult, think about fielding all the questions for 40-45 minutes.

South Korea, Seoul National University – 3 members. This was the first Jessup competition for all team members. At the national level, they defeated Handong International Law School, Korea University, and Yonsei University to return once again to the International Rounds.

United States, University of Detroit Mercy – 3 members. Robert Walker (2nd Jessup Competition), Carla Hanneman, and Yalda Riah (1st Jessup Competition). 1 researcher. 1 coach. During the national competition, the UDM team won second-place at the Jessup Midwest Super Regional, narrowly losing to Northwestern. It is the first year for UDM to participate in the International Rounds. At the International Final Rounds, Carla stated, “What we learned about ourselves is the best thing.” Robert and Yalda nodded in full agreement.

Vietnam – 4 members. Nguyen Ngoc Lan, Pham Van Trung, Pham Ba Viet, and Tran Hoang Yen. The team was coached by Trinh Hai Yen. During the initial four rounds, they competed against teams from New Zealand, Mexico, the Ukraine, and the Philippines. This is the third time that Vietnam has competed at the International Rounds. The team received support, in part, from the Embassy of Vietnam in the U.S. The coach said the main obstacles for the team were financial constraints and language. She said the team’s participation helps support increased lectures, training, and student involvement in international law, which also leads to increased quality of legal teaching and research in Vietnam.

Jessup Tips for 2010

See the separate posting, Jessup Moot Court Competition – 21 Tips from 21 Judges, for the following sage words of wisdom:

• 21 Tips from 21 Jessup Judges
• Tips from bailiffs
• Tips from coaches/advisors/administrators
• “Reverse Tips” from your fellow competitors

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.

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 of his papers, comprised of 120,000 items ranging from speeches, reports, legal papers, travel journals, and personal correspondence.

2010 Jessup Topic

ILSA announced that the 2010 Jessup Compromis will address the right to self-determination and the lawfulness of measures taken to protect the economic resources of a state.

Preparation

• Advice for Orals provided by Duke University
• 2009 Jessup Moot Court Competition – 21 Tips from 21 Judges
• International Law Resources
• United Nations Resources
• What Is International Law?
• What Is R2P and the Responsibility to Protect?
• R2P: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes with Gareth Evans
• Human Rights Research Guide (including women, children, refugees)

Organizations

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

Facebook / LinkedIn / Twitter

• Facebook Group: I’m participating in the 50th Jessup International Law Moot Competition
• Facebook Group: Jessup 50th Anniversary Celebration Gala
• Facebook Group: I did the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition
• Inside Justice.com Twitter