foj: friends of jessup!

7/31/2019 foj: Friends of Jessup!

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foj-friends-of-jessup 1/44

ILSA Is Pleased toAnnounce:

• Judge Registration isNow Open! For Re-gional and NationalRounds informationsee pages 12-15; For the InternationalRounds Volunteer Judge ApplicationForm go to http://

www.ilsa.org/judges/

• Debut of the FOJOnline Community:http://www.ilsa.org/foj/fojoomla/

• Release of the White& Case Jessup Guide

Seasons greetings to Friends of the Jessup around the world. We havemany stories and good tidings to share with you in this issue of the FOJ Newsletter.

First, I am delighted to report the Fiftieth Anniversary season of the Jes-sup Competition is turning out to be another successful year in terms of participation. At last count, 550 teams from 82 different countries areregistered. While most of us were resting over the holiday season, thou-sands of studious Jessup participants were hunkering down, lockingthemselves in libraries and planting themselves in front of their com-

puter terminal, resigned to a marathon of research and writing in the final few weeks before

Memorials were due. Let us now wish them the best of luck preparing for oral rounds!

With the Memorial deadline behind us now, FOJs are now being called upon to serve as judges for the qualifying tournaments of the Jessup Competition. On page 12, you will finda schedule of National Rounds listing the dates, locations, and administrators of our qualify-ing tournaments around the globe. If you would like to volunteer to judge at any of thesecompetitions, please contact the appropriate administrator at the listed email address.

In other news, I am happy to announce the debut of the FOJ Online Community. Located atwww.FOJ.org, the FOJ Online Community is a place where FOJs can stay connected to theJessup Competition and to each other. The site includes the latest news on the competition, acalendar of Jessup events, the current and past issues of the FOJ Newsletter, a list of volun-teer opportunities, and discussion forums for FOJs to share tips on judging and coaching.

Of course, the big event of the season will be the Shearman & Sterling InternationalRounds. If you are interested in attending, please mark your calendars and start making your travel arrangements. The International Rounds will take place March 22-28, 2009 at the

Continued Pg. 3

As a milestone 50th anniversary Jessup approaches, it has given me an opportunity to reflectupon my experience with the competition. The Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competitionhas been a big part of my life, and during the time I have been involved with it, I have wit-

nessed many changes. In my early days, this competition was small enough that most ofthe competitors and judges would get to know one another by week’s end. In recent years,the Jessup has morphed into a large-scale affair bordering on becoming a “little city”within Washington. More countries than ever could have been imagined are assembled forthe weeklong event. The number of judges alone, in recent competitions, probably exceedsthe total number of competitors from my early years!

Now, as you may or may not know, the International Law Students Association (or ILSA)consists of a salaried staff of exactly four people (and, up until very recently, ILSA hadonly two paid employees)! They keep it going year-round, and the rest of this huge work-load is shared among a large, and closely-knit group of volunteers – including me.

Continued Pg. 3

The Jessup Effect: A Bailiff’s Perspective

By David Rauzino

I N T E R N A T I O N A L L A W S T U D E N T S A S S O C I A T I O N

Message from the ILSA Executive Director

Volume 5, Issue 2

Inside this issue:

How to Coach a

Successful JessupTeam

5

The 8 Command-ments of a Jessup

Administrator

8

Bailiff Coordinator Jennifer Englander

10

Regional InterestArticles

16

Country In Profile:Qatar

34

FOJ In Profile:Anneliese

Fleckenstein

36

Interview withRonald Bettauer

38

60th Anniversaryof UDHR

40

FOJ Happenings 43

Back Page Fun 44

Contest Info 42

Friends of Jessup Newsletter

http://www.ilsa.org/judges/


http://www.ilsa.org/foj/fojoomla/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers


http://jessup.whitecase.com/


http://www.foj.org/

http://www.foj.org/















Interested in Subscribing to the FOJ Listserv?

It’s Easy!Just click on the link: http://www.ilsa.org/dada/mail.cgi/list/

foj_july_2008/ and sign up your email.

The FOJ Listserv is an email list which the ILSA office usesto automatically send updates and announcements to

subscribers. We protect your email address; it will only beused by the ILSA Executive Office.

The FOJ Newsletter and Listserv keeps you up to date andinformed about everything that happens in the Jessup World!

FOJ Newsletter Editorial BoardInternational Law Students

Association

25 East Jackson Blvd. #518

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Phone: 312-362-5025

Fax: 312-362-5073

Email: [email protected]———————

Amity BoyeExecutive Director

Ashley Walker Jessup Competition Coordinator

Jill Schmieder HereauILSA Programs Coordinator

Caroline Cowen Jessup Outreach Coordinator

————

Board of Directors

Chairman

Leila Sadat

Washington University in Saint

Louis School of Law

Student President

Shelby Kammeyer

Vermont Law School

Student Vice President

Megan Sheffer

U. of Denver Sturm College of Law

Student Chief Comm Officer

Pedro Martini

Univ. Federal de Minas Gerais ————

William J. AcevesCalifornia Western School of Law

Kelley Askin, Esq.Open Society Justice Initiative

David Baron, Esq.Greenberg Traurig

Dagmar Butte, Esq.Parker, Bush & Lane

Mark DrumblWashington & Lee University

School of Law

Brian HavelDePaul University College of Law

Sandra L. Hodgkinson, Esq.Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense

for Detainee Affairs

Cynthia LichtensteinBoston College Law School

Pedro M. Muñoz, Esq. Arias & Muñoz

Ved Nanda U. of Denver Sturm College of Law

Michael Scharf Case Western Reserve Univ. of Law

Amb. David SchefferNorthwestern Univ. School of Law

Steven Schneebaum, Esq.Greenberg Traurig

Mark E. Wojcik John Marshall Law School

The FOJ Newsletter accepts submissions for content from FOJs, coaches, judges, students,

professors, librarians, and other legal professionals around the world. Material must be sub-

mitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or text (.txt) format to [email protected]. Artwork,

photographs, and advertisements should be submitted as computer graphic files. The edi-

tors are not responsible for verifying the accuracy of submitted materials and retain the

right to edit all submitted materials; the views represented herein do not reflect the opinion

of ILSA or the editors. All submissions become the property of ILSA. Unless otherwise

noted, all content is copyrighted by the International Law Students Association, Inc. All

rights reserved.

Please contact the ILSA Executive Office for advertising information at [email protected].

International Regional Editors

Francis Yalley—Africa

Dr. Leng Xing-Yu—China

Sergey Alekhin—CIS

Sophie Wernert—Europe

Ricardo Chirinos—Latin Americas

Jared Ormsby—South Pacific

Jonathan Butterworth—UK

Production Assistant Editors

Andrew Fuller

NYU, CAS—Pre-Law

Rebecca Grabski

Kent State, Pre-Law

Jude T. A. Smith

Case Western Reserve University

School of Law

Special Thanks to Denise Smith for

her assistance.


Executive Editors

Mara A. Smith—Editor-in-Chief

Amity Boye—Senior Editor

Elizabeth Black—Final Layout

Caroline Cowen—Final Review

Rusty Dalferes—Final Review

Nedim Hogic—Special Articles

Soroush Kafiabadi—Initial Review

David Roghair—Initial Review

Ashley Walker—Final Review

http://www.ilsa.org/dada/mail.cgi/list/foj_july_2008/


mailto:[email protected]?subject=Newsletter

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Newsletter%20Advertising

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Newsletter%20Advertising

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Newsletter







Message from the Executive Director (Cont’d from page 1)

Fairmont Hotel in Washington, D.C. On January 19, we will send an email to the FOJ Net-work with information about serving as a judge. The Volunteer Judge Application Form for the International Rounds is now available at: http://www.ilsa.org/judges/.

I am particularly delighted to announce a very special Anniversary Celebration will take place during the International Rounds on Friday, March 27 at the Ronald Reagan Interna-tional Building and Trade Center. For more information on this event, please see the Save-the-Date announcement on page 33.

Finally, please join me in congratulating Mara on compiling another wonderful issue of theFOJ Newsletter. Like the prior issue, this second installment is packed full of great content.In particular, I am pleased to see two articles highlighting the important role of bailiffs inthe Jessup Competition, written by none other than our Bailiff Coordinator extraordinaire,Jenny Englander, and our Bailiff-for-Life, David Rauzino. This issue also includes thought-ful articles on coaching Jessup teams, administering national Jessup competitions, and au-thoring the Jessup problem. Together, these articles portray the diversity of roles filled by

FOJs in their service to the competition, as well as some great hints on how to fill theseroles with distinction and success. Among these pages, you will also find articles that dis-cuss the Jessup competition from the perspectives of FOJs in five different countries – China, Bosnia, Qatar, Russia, and Venezuela. These articles are another great demonstra-tion of the diversity represented by FOJs and the competition itself. I hope you will enjoyreading this issue as much as I have.

Warm wishes for a happy and successful New Year!Amity R. BoyeILSA Executive Director

Jessup Effect (Cont’d from page 1)

Although my work, and the work of many of the other volunteers at the Jessup, may beconsidered above and beyond the call of sanity, I consider it to be much more rewardingthan simply being a duty. I think we all feel committed to being part of and helping to or-ganize something really special each year.

Why, then, do I – the non-lawyer – return year after year? Even for someone outside thefield of law, the Jessup is a unique experience. It is an intense week of interpersonal rela-tionships, where one can meet more diverse and interesting people than in the whole of theyear. The term “Jessup family” is often used - and it is very accurate. There exists a fam-ily-like camaraderie where lifelong friendships are forged. In short, I return because, for an“outsider,” the Jessup is the best-kept secret outside the world of international law. I amreally part of a family.

I have often been asked about how I became involved with ILSA and Jessup (and its“family”). The credit must go to my mom, who used to work for the American Society of International Law (ASIL) as a meeting planner. One year, while I was convalescing from acar accident, my mom invited me to help at ASIL’s annual meeting. She indicated therewould be a conference and “mock trial competition” where law students from around theworld get together and compete. Since ILSA and ASIL shared the same building at thetime, and normally scheduled the Jessup and the annual meeting concurrently, I would helpout, as needed, at the competition.

I thought this week would be a one-time event, with me helping out my mother and theContinued Pg. 4

Volume 5, Issue 2

“The Jessup

International

Rounds are an

intense week of

interpersonal

relationships,

where one can

meet more diverse

and interesting

people than in the

whole of the

year!”





others at ILSA and ASIL, and then returning home to resume my work and school. What Ididn’t expect was how much I would be called on to do at the Jessup because they were soin need of help - and how much I got back from it.

In that short period of time, I met more people, from more countries, than I had met in mylife. I got to know the ILSA staff and volunteers and, as a result, was included as a part ofthis “family.” For someone growing up, and (up to that point) living only in the Philadel- phia area, this was pretty heady stuff. In short, that first Jessup “inverted” the way I lookedat the world, and, in that sense, I’ve never looked back. I am a different person today andmuch of that is attributable to the experiences, friendships, and the unique and broad inter-national view that can only be found at this competition.

I never imagined that I would ultimately remain here so long . Through the years, I’ve doneeverything from scoring to selling t-shirts – everything, except judging and grading memori-als for legal content. However, my primary task has been that of bailiff (or timekeeper).Since each side in an oral argument is limited to a total of 45 minutes, the timekeeping as-

pect of these proceedings is very important.

For myself, I get a very interesting perspective. I meet many of the teams and the judges. Ialso try to get a feel for the students “in the trenches,” who argue the cases and are usuallyextremely nervous (I know I’d be!). I try to take the edge off of this nervousness by makingthe proceedings as easy for everyone as possible.

There is another major facet of the Jessup that is often overlooked. One former ILSA Ex-ecutive Director articulated it in this statement: “In the future, world leaders will look ateach other differently knowing they first met as competitors – and peers – at the Jessup.”This is absolutely the case, and, more than anything else, it underscores what is so reward-ing about this competition. Among the ultimate objectives of the Jessup Moot Court Com-

petition is that of fostering open communication and goodwill among people of many na-tions and diverse backgrounds.

This is what lies at the root of what I, the non-lawyer, find so compelling about the Jessup.It speaks to the idealist in so many of us. I find it reassuring to hear representatives fromopposing states and interests, peacefully resolving often contentious and weighty issues.After becoming friends with many of these players, I leave at the end of the week feelingthat the world could – and will – become a better place.

Although much has changed over my years at the Jessup, many of its positive fundamentalaspects remain unchanged. It always has, and always will, offer a unique sense of interna-tionalism that exists in few other places. This ever-growing Jessup family remains tight andcohesive. There is also an ever-growing network of friends, many of whom remain friends

for years to come. Finally, the purpose and ultimate effect of this competition is to fosterthe spirit of debate and relevant arguments on the major issues in our complex geopoliticalworld, while considering the concerns of both sides. Seeing this process at work is veryintriguing, and is what keeps me returning year after year.

One final note: I would urge anyone who has not attended Jessup for a while, or may be “onthe fence” about attending this year, to come to Washington for the International Roundsthis March. Jessup 2009 will be the 50th anniversary of this competition. Many long-lostfriends and acquaintances will be reconnecting there. I urge you all to be part of this specialevent, not only for the reasons I have outlined, but because as an important anniversary, Iguarantee it will be a truly memorable experience.

Jessup Effect (Cont’d from page 3)


“Among theultimate

objectives of the

Jessup Moot

Court

Competition is

that of fostering

open

communication

and goodwill

among people of many nations and

diverse

backgrounds.”



How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team

Every year coaches and students wonder what should they do to improve their teams and prepare for a successful Jessupyear. The following coaches were asked to contribute to this article for several reasons; they represent various styles of

coaching from around the world, and they have had notable success with their teams competing in the InternationalRounds, advancing minimally to the Semi-Final Rounds. The coaches were asked to provide information about them-selves and their experience with the Jessup Competition and to complete the following questions:

1. How and when do you approach team selection?2. When do you begin Jessup "season"?3. How do you advise a team to approach a problem?4. Any "secret" coaching techniques? I.e: things that work well for your teams, specific styles you encourage, etc.5. What is your advice in general about coaching?

The purpose of this article is to provide some advice on varying coaching styles and to offer advice to new coaches andteams about techniques and strategies that have worked for other coaches. Here’s what the coaches had to say:

Robert Beckman - I have been coaching Jessup teams in Singapore since 1978. This has givenme the opportunity to work with some of the best students our law school has produced. Our Jes-sup alumni include the recently appointed Minister for Law (K Shanmugam, Jessup 84); one member of the 4-judge Court of Appeal, the highest appellate court in Singapore (VK Rajah, Jessup 82);high court judges; managing partners of top law firms; top litigation lawyers; and law school aca-demics. It has been a delight to work with such talent and sometimes to make a small contributionto their education. I have done Jessup mooting clinics in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam,and Korea. I am a past recipient of the Pamela Young Award, and I have been serving as a member of the International Rules Committee for the past two years.

Question 1: One of my colleagues (Eleanor Wong, Jessup 1985) does a 3-4 week intensive course at the start of our fallsemester called International Legal Process in which she teaches advanced skills in drafting memorials and presentingoral arguments. The class size is 24-28 students. All of the moot team coaches are judges in the final oral arguments inthe course. From the students in that course we select the members of the 6 or 7 international moot competitions that NUS is participating in, including Jessup. As a general rule, no student is permitted to participate in more than one inter-national moot competition or to repeat.

Question 2: Mid to late September, after the problem is released. However, students drop all work on the problem for one month in November/December to prepare for their first semester exams.

Question 3: First, analyze the case carefully and construct arguments for both sides based on the facts and your sense of fairness and international public policy. Then begin researching the law.

Question 4: I try to select intelligent students who are likely to treat each other with respect and who are likely to work well as a team. I then tell them that their goal should be to strive to meet the standard of our best teams. I also advise

them that we should employ every team member in the way each can best contribute to the team. Some will contributemore to analysis, some to research, some to writing, and some to oral advocacy.

Question 5: If you can motivate the team to work closely together and to strive to achieve a high standard of excellence,your job is for the most part done. All you have to do after that is give them guidance when problems arise. Dependingon your experience, you can also give general guidance on how to research issues of international law, how to draft per-suasive arguments, and how to present oral arguments. Coaches should never attempt to research the law or learn thedetails of the applicable law. They should understand that if the students are good, they will very quickly know muchmore about the facts and the law than the coach.

Continued Pg. 6

Volume 5, Issue 2



How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team (Cont’d from page 5)

Dagmar Butte - I competed at the International Rounds with Lewis & Clark in 1990, where wehad the 5th place Memorials, and I was ranked 5th place oralist. This gave me a false sense of com- petence, and the next year we lost to the University of Washington in the Regional finals, but by

then I was hooked. I began coaching in 1992 and since then I have worn every hat in the Jessupincluding being a 6 time Regional Administrator, 2 time Compromis and Bench Memo author,and 3 term ILSA Board of Directors member. I am a shareholder at Parker Bush & Lane practic-ing in the areas of Business and Family Immigration and Business/Corporate Law.

Questions 1 & 2: Students at Lewis &Clark register for a 1 credit course in the fall semester inwhich they receive a 3 hour crash course in Public International Law and some instruction and practice on oral argument and brief writing. They are then asked to write a 10 page brief and pre-

pare a 20 minute oral argument based on one issue in either a past or present Jessup problem. The briefs and oral argu-ments usually occur approximately 8-10 weeks into the semester and the students are evaluated by 3 former Jessupcompetitors and me. We rank each student, giving slightly more weight (roughly 55%) to the oral argument. We alsolook at several intangibles in relation to the top scorers, such as whether they work well with others, have a positive atti-tude, seem compatible with the returning team members, etc. We usually have a full 5 member team, although our ap-

proach as to who argues varies from year to year.

Question 3: As a first step, I usually require each student selected for the team to dissect and digest the entire Compro-mis, and we then meet to discuss the fact pattern in general and determine – preliminarily – what facts are critical towhich question presented. The students then divide the issues among themselves, and each student is responsible for researching and writing the relevant portion of the memorial on BOTH sides of the issue.

Question 4: There are two things I stress above everything else in coaching a team: 1) learn how to love questions andtruly answer the question asked, and 2) focus on the law and use the facts to illuminate the law rather than presentingthe two in a disconnected fashion. Obviously, speaking style is important, and we spend significant time ensuring thatthe students have a smooth presentational style free from verbal tics, but we find that at least at the InternationalRounds, it is much more important to have a consistent theory of the case that carries through all four QPs and a thor-ough understanding of international law.

Question 5: My general advice to a new coach is to schedule lots of practices, because there is no substitute for doing;to get a wide variety of people to judge practices, including people who do not know international law; and to encour-age students to write down every question they receive in practice and not be satisfied until they have hunted down ananswer. I would also encourage the coach constantly to find ways to bond the team, since success is entirely dependenton how well the group works together. Finally, I would recommend that the coach provide gentle but firm feedback if astudent is rude to practice judges, does not answer questions, or appears to resent the intrusion a question represents.

These are bad habits for any lawyer, but in Jessup they are deadly. A bad impression once made is tough to erase in the20-22 minutes the students have to present their case. Teach the student to love the formalized conversation with the bench, and you have created a good Jessup competitor who – win or lose – will come away with skills he can use for life and experience he will treasure.

Ricardo Chirinos – I participated in Jessup as a competitor in 2004 and 2005 as part of the teamrepresenting Universidad Católica Andrés Bello (Venezuela), and have been coaching this same teamsince 2006. I volunteer with the Venezuelan Jessup Foundation in order to make the Jessup Competi-tion known in Venezuela and encourage the participation of other law schools in the country. Morerecently, I was appointed as International Regional Editor of the FOJNL for Latin America. I am anassociate with Macleod Dixon in Caracas, Venezeula.

Question 1: Our academic year starts in October and ends in July. Normally we organize the selec-tion of the students towards the end of the school year (although we never have a fixed date).

Question 2: As soon as we select the team members, although the real work starts (of course) with the release of theCompromis. Continued Pg. 7





Question 3: Normally Jessup problems are very complex and involve very technical questions that cannot be properlyapproached without well-conducted research coupled with logic and common sense. These are the tools that I think areessential for Jessup.

Question 4: Can’t reveal any of my secrets or my team members will kill me. However, I can share two very importantsuggestions I always give them. First, I always encourage them to watch the videos of previous competitions since ithelps a lot (especially for new team members) to switch to “Jessup Mode.” In addition, both while writing the memori-als and practicing for the oral rounds, I always ask them to “look at the big picture” so they do not miss the key issues.

Question 5: I always suggest that competitors remain involved with Jessup and encourage them to becomecoaches. Having the experience of participating in Jessup, coaches are able to identify the mistakes they committedwhile they participated and create new ways of doing things that normally help the team work in a more efficient man-ner. Coaching of course requires a lot of patience, time, and organization, but at the end it is a great way (especially for those that do not have international law-related jobs) to keep ourselves updated in international law, to have our mindswork hard to help the teams solve complex legal problems, to contribute to our society in a very meaningful way, and toshare a little of all we learned during our own Jessup experience.

Justin Hogan-Doran – I coached the Shearman and Sterling World Cup Champion team, Uni-versity of Sydney, in 2007. I am a Barrister practicing in New South Wales, and a member of Seven Wentworth Chambers. After law school I clerked as associate to Judge Sir Ninian Stephenat the ICTY at The Hague in 1996-1998, during its first two trials of Tadic and Erdemovic. I com- pleted the BCL and MPhil at Oxford focusing on private and public international law. Beforecoming to the bar, I also worked as a Management Consultant with McKinsey’s and the BostonConsulting Group. Outside of practice, I teach part-time at the University of Sydney in Transna-tional Commercial Litigation and Public International Law.

Question 1: We competitively select students. We shortlist about 20-25 applicants. Each applicant will have 5 days toread a past memorial and be grilled for 10 minutes or so by judges in a mock four-person moot just like in Jessup. Thisis not to test style so much as to see how quickly the applicant can digest and synthesize a lot of new and complex mate-rial. We then shortlist 8-10 applicants for interviews to find the best team combination.

Question 2: We select the team in early August to allow students to change enrollments for the Semester (Jessup is asubject at Sydney). The real work begins only when the Compromis comes out. Work intensifies in late November after exams. Students are expected to devote 60-70% of their time in December and January (our summer break) toJessup. Only a few days off for Christmas are allowed. It is an intense season!

Question 3: First, develop a working hypothesis built on propositions of fact and law you think the answer has to be towin each side of the argument. Then, set about proving/disproving each proposition by research and constantly testingand reviewing your working hypotheses. Don’t try to read everything. Read forensically – research and read only to prove or disprove an argument, and focus on the best writers, not the most writers. Work together to analyze and syn-thesize the material. In short, think and discuss more, read less.

Question 4: The answer to 3 is the starting point. As a coach, you challenge the output of that process, testing logic andweighing the proof being presented. You don’t give them an answer, but you do challenge any weaknesses in the argu-ments so the students improve the arguments and their thinking. Never stop asking “why?” Encourage team membersto challenge each other, but respectfully and with the humility of realizing today you may be right, but tomorrow youmay well be wrong….

Question 5: A coach needs to find a very difficult balance between encouragement and criticism, and between teachingthe students and treating them as ‘equals’ – as adults and lawyers – to encourage them to become just that. At the sametime, you need to remember that they are young adults, or young in the law, and their main aim is to learn. Also, ahappy

Continued Pg. 8

Volume 5, Issue 2




team is a successful team. The competition is long and arduous, and only by mutual support and respect can the teamlast the distance. Pick a team of helpers, and they will help each other succeed.

Cara Cameron - is a partner at Davies, Ward, Phillips and Vineberg specializing in corporate/commercial litigation. She graduated from McGill University and coaches the McGill Jessup team.

Question 1: At McGill, for all the competitive moots students submit an application and go throughan "audition" (they are given a problem to argue in front of a bench of judges). I understand thatthey are then selected on the merits of both their application (academic and other criteria) and howthey fared in the audition. The decision is made over the course of the summer. As the coach, I donot participate in this process.

Question 2: I begin it as soon as school starts in the fall and I learn who the team members are. We begin, in any event, before the problem comes out.

Question 3: I tell the team members that they should immediately divide themselves into sides (applicants and respon-

dents) and choose their issues. I strongly recommend that they research and write their respective issues from the posi-tion they will be arguing in the oral pleadings. In the end, the only way to succeed at the oral rounds is to know your material inside, out and backwards, and the only real way to do that is to do the research and writing yourself. I stronglyrecommend against the team assigning a particular issue to a team member to research both sides. I find that this stiflescreativity and, given that the Jessup problems are so complex and controversial, I find that the result is that the studentcomes out understanding very well how both sides are weak, without being able to focus and argue how either one isstrong!

Finally, I urge students to consider, when choosing their sides and issues, taking a position that they find initially lessintuitively appealing. My experience is that if they start out a sceptic and, in the end, can come up with an argument thatthey themselves find convincing, they are more likely to have honed in on something that will convince the bench.

Question 4: I don't think it is a secret, but I don't think that anything beats watching yourself on videotape for improvingyour pleading style. (I know in my own experience, it is an epiphany every time!)

As for the rest, I think that 90% of success (whether at the research and writing phase, or in the oral rounds) is simply based on working harder than the other teams. Thus, the best thing you can do for a team as a coach is to encouragethem to work hard!

Question 5: I think that the most challenging and important thing for a coach to do is to encourage the students not justto play, but to play to win. It takes a lot of courage to really go for it with all you have (it makes the possibility of failureso much more of a risk), but it also makes the experience (win or lose) so much more enriching and meaningful for the

The personal decision to administer a Jessup competition may be stirred by very diverse motivations. Ultimately, it usu-ally comes down to reproducing a positive experience from our years as competitors, promoting international law, andunderstanding the challenges behind (and supplementing) legal education. Different competitions mean different experi-ences. The following are solely impressions from my five years as Jessup national administrator for France.

1. Strive for quality and excellenceThe quality of judging is a reward for students and a positive label for a national competition. A high-level nationalcompetition is also more enjoyable for judges and in the long run, once the loss is digested, for teams as well!

Continued Pg. 9

The Eight Commandments of a Jessup AdministratorBy Sophie Wernert, Jessup National Administrator, France




The Eight Commandments of a Jessup Administrator (Cont’d from page 8)

In the past five years, the level of the French competition has significantly improved, pri-marily thanks to Jessup-experienced judges from abroad. Also, and this is very specific tothe French competition, the number of foreign exchange students, whether native English

speakers or not, traditionally with much more time on their hands than regular French stu-dents, has helped to spread a wealth of experience and know-how between teams, and con-tributed to mutually enriching their skills.

2. Be familiar with the Official RulesAs primary enforcer of the Rules, administrators are accountable for ensuring fair condi-tions of competition and monitoring the development of the Jessup season. The OfficialRules have been drafted over the years based on best practices with problematic situations.Only in extremely rare instances do the Rules not provide an answer to a specific issue. Nevertheless, it is always necessary to point out didactically the relevant portions of theRules whenever corresponding with teams.

3. Remember that you were once a competitor

Having a competitor’s point of view in mind contributes to making sure that decisions have been weighed and explained in enough detail. Sometimes it has proven difficult to educatestudents as to what is expected from them in the competition, especially with regards toadvocacy skills and how they are an essential part of presenting legal arguments, as op- posed to a superficial, unnecessary artifact. Jessup, as any other moot court, is not a chesscompetition with a logical result pending certain actions. Judging legal arguments leavesroom for subjectivity. That parameter has to be explained and accepted by teams.

4. Create opportunities for teams to learn and interactJessup is as much a learning experience as a vocational training opportunity. The chancefor students, through side activities or networking events, to meet and interact with profes-sionals (whether competition judges, sponsors, or special guests) and discuss career man-agement and opportunities is another privileged means of rewarding teams for their hardwork.

5. Show appreciation to volunteers for their commitmentJudges, bailiffs, coaches, and other volunteers give up their free time. They should betreated with respect and consideration. Each contribution, even minor, solidifies the competition and must be acknowledged as such.

6. Make the experience memorable, especially for the non-advancing teamsThe ultimate outcome of a national competition is to prepare the champion team(s) for what they should expect at the International Rounds, which already have a magic of their own. In a way, however, there is a more significant duty towards the teams not advancingto the International Rounds, and to make the national rounds a valuable event for them.

7. Invite feedback, even negative, from teams and judges, once the competition is overThe ability to hear grievances is fundamental. To a certain extent, the sentiment, whether justified or not, that a team’s abilities have not been fully acknowledged, may taint thereputation of the whole competition for a number of years.

8. Be the soul of the competition and the glue keeping it togetherTeams generally encounter a series of identified problems throughout the Jessup season:team-building, academic/coaching support, financing, travel issues, etc. Administrators arenot social workers; however, mediation between team members may be necessary to keep ateam together, especially those not benefiting from a strong moot court program.

Volume 5, Issue 2

“Administrators

are accountable

for ensuring fair

conditions of

competition and

monitoring the

development of the

Jessup season.”

Jessica Ball (Irish Team1984) here in Paris, 1987,

as the Jessup Administra-

tor from Paris II and

Friend of the Jessup



In 2003 I was an ILSA student officer. Many of you know the student officers as the people working the hospitality table, putting together the ILSA conference, and . . . bailiffing!

I had competed in Jessup at the regional level, but had no experience as a bailiff. I wasassured it was an easy job and, most importantly, that LOTS of bailiffs were needed. So, Isigned up.

Bailiff orientation was a little intimidating – there was a lot to learn, and I worried I wouldmispronounce a judge’s name, bungle the case name, lose track of the time, or, heaven for- bid, hold up the wrong time card. There was a lot of pressure involved with being a bailiff (which I believe would be confirmed by both judges and bailiffs). That is why when asked,I immediately agreed to serve as bailiff coordinator . Aside from the fancy title, I figured itwould be a lot better to sit behind a table telling people where to go than to worry aboutcounting the time, conflicted judges, and fainting oralists. I mean, there could be no pres-sure coordinating the bailiffs, right?

Did I mention it was my first year at the Jessup International Rounds?

As new as I was to the world of bailiffing, I certainly had no idea what the bailiff coordina-tor did. I quickly learned. That year, the competition schedule was running about tenmatches in each of the fifteen preliminary rounds, requiring me to fill approximately 150 bailiff spots as each match requires one bailiff. This might be a good time to describe therole of the bailiff. My standard “bailiff coordinator stump speech” is as follows: The bail-iff manages the round from start to finish. Pre-match preparation includes ensuring theroom is prepared with clean glasses, fresh water, pencils, paper, and, not unimportantly, theright teams and the right judges and a podium. During the round the bailiff announces the judges, notifies the teams and judges of time remaining, makes sure the air conditioning isworking properly, and does anything else required to make everything run smoothly. Post-round, the bailiff conducts crowd control and collects scoresheets from the judges to turn infor recording, which is complicated when they forget to make sure the judges sign thescoresheets before returning to the black hole of the judges’ room. Since 2004 my stumpspeech has been greatly enhanced by Shearman & Sterling and my subsequent ability totell bailiffs they also receive a bag full of goodies.

If it sounds like bailiffs do not do a whole lot, be certain that without a bailiff, there is noJessup round. That year at the Omni Shoreham we needed to fill 150 bailiff spots. Thisdoes not mean we needed 150 individuals, thankfully. Because of dedicated volunteerssuch as Dave Rauzino, who traditionally bailiffs in all 15 preliminary rounds and all run-off rounds, the number of individuals who actually have to be convinced to bailiff is some-where between a handful and a heck of a lot. The twist that year was that I had to recruitabout half of the bailiffs (if not a little more) that I needed during the week, and I was not

installed as the bailiff coordinator until about 6pm on Sunday evening – the day before thefirst preliminary round.

The most visible part of being bailiff coordinator occurs in between the rounds. As each bench of three judges is gathered in the judges’ room, a bailiff is preparing the room, asdescribed above, and ultimately returns to the judges’ room to escort the judges to theround. In a perfect world each bailiff is ready and waiting by the time his or her bench of judges is gathered. This process can be thrown off course for a number of reasons, includ-ing (most commonly) a shortage of bailiffs. Managing which bailiffs and judges arecoming and going, who is available to bailiff which match, all while trying to convincetired and over-worked volunteers to bailiff “just one more round” and train last-minute

Continued Pg. 11


International Rounds Bailiff Coordinator—Jennifer Englander

“During the round

the bailiff

announces the

judges, notifies the

teams and judges of

time remaining,

makes sure the air

conditioning is

working properly

and does anything

else required to

make everything

run smoothly.”

Jennifer Englander

Bailiff Coordinator



Each year, thousands of law students from around the world participate in the Jessup, many of whom are first-time competitors or come from countries where mooting is not part of the traditional legal education curriculum. With this inmind, the White & Case Jessup Guide was created to provide all students with advice on how to do well in the Jessup.Visit the White & Case Jessup website at: http://jessup.whitecase.com/.

The White & Case Jessup Guide is a student-focused "how-to" manual containing recommendations on working withthe Jessup Compromis, researching international law, writing Jessup memorials, Jessup oral pleadings (available in

January 2009) and using Jessup skills in your legal career (available in January 2009). We hope Jessup competitors andtheir coaches will find it a valuable resource for getting the most out of participating in the Jessup.

Many individuals, both from within White & Case and from the Friends of the Jessup community contributed to thewriting of the White & Case Jessup Guide. In particular we would like to recognize and thank Elizabeth Black, Dagmar Butte, Rusty Dalferes, Diana Haladey, Dave Lau, Mark Luz, Michael Peil, Alka Pradhan, Kim Rooney and QuangTrinh. Based on their many years of experience as Jessup competitors, coaches and judges, these individuals providedinvaluable advice and recommendations.

The White & Case Jessup Guide is an ongoing project that will be regularly updated with new chapters and features, sowe invite you to visit our website regularly. If you have any questions or recommendations, please contact Mark Luz([email protected]) or Elizabeth Black ([email protected]).

International Rounds Bailiff Coordinator (Cont’d from page 10)

volunteers who have never bailiffed before, gives new meaning to “grace under fire.” Or, perhaps the appropriate phrase is “trial by fire.” That first year there was more fire than grace, but the process improved over time.

Fortunately, many students from around the world who do not advance to compete at the International Rounds stilltravel to Washington D.C. to volunteer as bailiffs. It is an incredible opportunity for them to watch other oralists, learnfrom the judges, and partake in all that the Jessup has to offer. Memorably, one of the Kenyan Jessup teams and long-time judge Mathias Grabmair bailiffed my first year. Yes, these stellar judges got their start at the bailiff table. Of course, notwithstanding the bailiffs already at my disposal, countless students, judges, and probably a few strangers toJessup (and law) helped complete the bailiff schedule that year. In subsequent years bailiffs have been recruited in ad-vance of the International Rounds.

The bailiff staff is generally comprised of students from around the world who competed in Jessup at the regional level,students who travel to Washington, D.C., to attend the ILSA Spring Conference, and local students who are interestedin international law, international relations, moot court, debate, or generally having a good time. Many FOJs have beeninstrumental in introducing their students, law clerks, and associates to the joys of volunteering at the Jessup Interna-tional Rounds, in turn adding to the bailiff staff. To all of those FOJs, thank you. The competition cannot go on with-

out bailiffs, and we would not have enough bailiffs without all of you.

Many students who bailiff at the International Rounds do not return to Washington, D.C., to compete. However, theydo return time and time again to bailiff, judge, and partake in the week as a Friend of the Jessup. I encourage all of youto inspire a new wave of FOJs by getting your students, associates, law clerks, and Jessup team members involved asvolunteers at the Jessup International Rounds. We can always use more bailiffs!

Volume 5, Issue 2


mailto:[email protected]







Volume 5, Issue 2



The 2008 Shearman & Sterling Final Round DVD:

The Case Concerning Criminal Proceedings betweenAdova and Rotania is available for purchase at http://www.ilsa.org/merch/dvd.php. The video allows studentsto observe the general procedure and staging of oralrounds, the types of questions asked by judges, and thespeaking style of world champions. The ILSA website alsohas DVDs from 2004 to 2007 and other ILSA merchandiseavailable for purchase. If you have any questions or would

like to submit an order, please contact Caroline Cowen [email protected].

Volume 5, Issue 2

http://www.ilsa.org/merch/dvd.php










My trip to Istanbul was an awesome one. October 2008 saw me on a plane to lovely Istan- bul with great expectations, although with duty in mind. Nevertheless, I found time to sit back during flights and immersed myself in reading a good book! I will briefly tell what Iread later. But I must say that my trip was made more successful by virtue of my relation-ship with the Jessup Moot. My schedule as a Recruiter for the prestigious LLM program of McGeorge School of Law, California , saw me literally globe-trotting from Lima, Peru toKiev, Ukraine, to Moscow and then to Istanbul (not forgetting stops in Vienna & Milan).

Prior to my trip I emailed all contacts I knew in these cities, and just to cover all the roughedges I also updated my Facebook status to: “Hey guys I am coming to these cities..., know

anyone there?” At least I hoped someone would respond and help as a city guide to enableme to see some tourist sites and kill any possible boredom after my official events. Itworked! Former Jessup participants and friends responded, even those Jessupers I didn’teven know personally – this is the Jessup connection. I was referred from one friend of theJessup to another and each one welcomed me very warmly in the ‘Jessup tradition’ intotheir cities. On this note, I must not fail to mention the lovely Begum Meram (Istanbul Uni-versity), who not only welcomed me, but introduced me to her Dean, lecturers and friends(Deniz & Ekin); we all had a delicious lunch – Turkish hospitality!

Other Jessup Friends like Inna Panteleeva took me out for a typical Kremlin breakfast inthe heart of Moscow. I felt like a Czar after that mouthwatering meal! Dean Andriy Me-leshevych, of the Kyiv-Mohyla Law School, which was a one-time winner of the Jessup National Rounds in Ukraine and a finalist at the International Rounds, also extended agenuine warm welcome true to the Jessup Spirit. In a nutshell, I found Jessup Friends wel-coming me in virtually every city and everywhere I went.

To mention the material I read on the plane during my journey, I was reminded of the factthat you should always know the people who you can count on and those you should countout. The book explained that psychologists’ have identified a sickness called "Relationalillness": that's when people you surround yourself with make you sick. The author coun-seled readers to build meaningful and productive relationships over time in order to main-tain a healthy social balance and also to maintain a working and walking progress that’supwardly mobile. True words, and I guess anyone can identify with them.

As a former participant of the Jessup Moot I have found relationships formed through Jes-

sup diverse, enduring and productive! Jessup provided a platform for me to interact withyoung professionals and lawyers alike from various backgrounds, cultures and viewpoints.Returning to memory lane, I first got involved with the Jessup as a moot participant in 2003during the Nigerian National Rounds. Nevertheless, I only had the opportunity to attend theInternational Rounds in Washington, D.C. as Nigeria’s National Rounds Administrator in2004, where I led the Nigerian winning team, the Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nige-ria, to represent Nigeria in the competition. Memorable experience, indeed, but I will not bore you by recounting the details here. For me, the entire process of coordinating the na-tional qualifying rounds and then attending the International Rounds saw me formingfriendships with professionals of like minds and collaborating with old friends.

Continued Pg. 17

The Jessup Connection: Cultivating Global Friendships with the

Jessup Experience By: Alex Umole

AFRICA


Francis Yalley:

International Regional

Editor—Africa



The Jessup Connection (Cont’d from page 16)

Relevant here is that I still keep in touch with a lot of these friends I met during that period,which has proven very useful. A lot of these friends send me updates of global events, in-ternational legal information and even client referrals! I practice as a lawyer now, and still

the experience remains a part of my heart and somehow a part of my pocket too. I believethe Jessup experience makes a participant truly international and acts as a platform to culti-vate global friendships and alliances.

Great minds over centuries have emphasized the value of alliances. I have been told, “greatmen believe life has to be an incessant process of repair and reconstruction, of discardingevil and developing goodness…. and that in the short and often unpredictable journey of life, if a man wants to travel far, he must have the ticket of good friends, a good conscienceand the luxury of remembering those blessings." I plan on taking that advice to heart; I rec-ommend it to you as well. Till we meet in person, I wish you everything of the best and the best of everything!

Volume 5, Issue 2

In Lima, Peru

By the Kremlin,

Moscow, Russia

In Istanbul, Turkey



CHINA

I still remember how excited I was at the first sight of an invitation letter fromILSA which lay on the table of the director of my law school. Although I had noidea about what the Jessup International Law Moot Court was, I could not wait tofind out. At the time, I was an undergraduate student and only postgraduates werequalified to participate on my school’s team.

Two years later, I was admitted to the Renmin University School of Law as a post-graduate student, majoring in international law, and my tutor was Professor WenqiZhu, who founded and organized the Chinese National Rounds of Jessup. On con-sidering my application for Jessup, Professor Zhu questioned whether I could man-

age the time as I was translating a book at the same time. My response was that Jes-sup is an irresistible chance for me and I did not want to let it go again.

Professor Zhu decided to give me a shot in the end, and there began four months of preparation and debating, which was an experience of both great pain and happi-ness. It was the first time I had done such a great amount of legal research, the firsttime I had written an English memo, and the first time I had stood before the mootcourt of the International Court of Justice. Most importantly, it was the first time Ifelt like a lawyer. I had table tennis training when I was a little girl and I found theconfrontation between judges and attorneys is quite similar. The oral debate ses-sions were really a feast of challenging questions and quick-witted answers.

What I learned from Jessup which has had a great impact on my way of thinkingwas not during the competition, but after it. Every member of the team devoted alltheir time to carrying out the job as perfectly as we could. However, we did not ad-vance to Washington. At the farewell dinner, one of the judges whose name I can-not recall came to me and said words that I will never forget: “life is full of fun, sois Jessup.”

Yes. We all should enjoy the fun of Jessup. The title of best oralist or the result of the competition should not determine our enjoyment of Jessup; the joy should befrom taking part in the competition itself, the brainstorming discussions with teammembers, the sleepless nights of research and writing, and the connection betweenyou and judges.

Just have fun!By Xian Gu


“[Jessup] was the

first time I had done

such a great amount

of legal research, the

first time I had

written an English

memo, and the first

time I had stood

before the moot court

of the International

Court of Justice. Most

importantly, it was

the first time I felt like

a lawyer.”

Dr. Leng Xing-Yu:

International

Regional Editor—

China



US REGIONAL ROUND INFORMATION

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition

2009 U.S. Super Regional Competition Schedule

FEBRUARY 12-15, 2009Chicago / New York City / Houston

Preliminary Rounds: Feb. 13-14Semi-final & Final Rounds: Feb. 15

Midwest Super RegionalChicago-Kent College of Law

Chicago, IllinoisContact: Ashley Walker [email protected]

Northeast Super Regional

Shearman & Sterling LLP New York, New York

Contact: Jeffrey Brooks [email protected]

Southwest Super RegionalUniversity of Houston Law Center

Houston, TexasContact: Antonio Riva Palacio Lavin [email protected]

FEBRUARY 19-22, 2009Washington, D.C. / Miami

Preliminary Rounds: Feb. 20-21Semi-final & Final Rounds: Feb. 22

Mid-Atlantic Super RegionalThe George Washington University Law School

Washington, District of ColumbiaContact: Rachel Olander [email protected]

Southeast Super RegionalUniversity of Miami School of Law

Coral Gables, FloridaContact: Jeffrey Rendin [email protected]

FEBRUARY 26-MARCH 1, 2009Portland

Preliminary Rounds: Feb. 27-28Semi-final & Final Rounds: Mar. 1

Pacific Super RegionalLewis & Clark Law School

Portland, OregonContact: Asif Sayani [email protected]

Volume 5, Issue 2















The Russian National Roundshave come a long way in onlyseven years. In 2002, whenWhite & Case Moscow startedthe Russian Rounds, only 14teams competed, but in 2008, 44teams participated, making it thelargest national competition inthe world. The 2009 RussianRounds may beat last year’s record. Maria Issaeva, the Russian National Administrator,hopes that over 50 teams will compete, which is very fitting for the Jessup’s 50th year.

What makes the Russian rounds unique and so popular?

One aspect that has always made the Russian Rounds unique is Russia’s tremendous size. In2002, the team from Khakassiya, in southern Siberia, had to travel 4,218 kilometers to Mos-cow, which took 73 hours by train, just to participate. Now teams from every corner of Rus-sia, from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad, make the journey, hoping to continue on to Washing-ton, D.C.

The distance to Moscow does not deter teams once the spiritof Jessup takes hold. Bitterly losing in the quarterfinals in2007, the team from Khabarovsk State Academy of Econom-ics and Law, in the Far East, came back to become the Rus-sian National Runner-Up Team in 2008. The team decided tofly to Moscow both times—spending 145 hours on a train before the competition is not the best way to prepare.

One reason that the Jessup has become so popular across Russia is that it fills a void in Rus-sian legal education. Russian law students spend most of their time listening to lectures

about theory and the Civil Code, but do not always geta chance to put that theory into practice. The Jessup provides a venue for students to apply theory to a par-ticular case, think outside of their classes, and stretchtheir legal knowledge. Russian legal education alsodoes not greatly emphasize legal research and writing,so the Jessup provides a valuable challenge. Before

writing the Jessup memorials, many students havenever done research on such a large scale, nor written such a detailed legal argument. Doingthe necessary research to be successful in the competition is sometimes very difficult be-cause many participants do not have access to a wide range of materials, especially in Eng-lish, at local libraries. Experienced coaches are also lacking, which adds to the challenge.Even with these difficulties, students rise to the occasion and benefit from the experience.When Maria joined White & Case, after having competed in the Jessup in her fifth and finalyear of studies, she was surprised by how prepared she was to write legal documents.

Maria and her 2002 team from St. Petersburg State, however, were lucky because of their coach. Maria learned about moot courts only in her fourth year of law school from

Continued Pg. 21

From the Russian Rounds with Love

By Maria Issaeva and Betsy Engebretson

Commonwealth of Independent States


“In 2008, 44 teams

participated

making [the

Russian Rounds]

the largest national

competition in the

world.”

Sergey Alekhin:


Editor—CIS

The Commonwealth of

Independent States



Volume 5, Issue 2

a visiting professor from the Civic Educational Project (CEP), a special educational organization for Eastern Europethat existed until 2004. That professor, Magali Veneau, came to St. Petersburg for two years to teach international andEuropean law - and coached the mooting teams she formed. Unfortunately, CEP ceased to exist soon after Magali left

St. Petersburg, but even in the years of CEP’s existence, no one could afford to send qualified teachers to every Rus-sian law school since there are hundreds of them. So, St. Petersburg State was very fortunate.

Although St. Petersburg was able to benefit from an experienced coach, many teams do not have that advantage. MostRussian teams are left on their own to prepare for the Competition or are assisted by a Russian professor who, at best,has attended the Russian Competition several times. With all due respect, it is very difficult for a Jessup team that iscoached by a person who has never taken part in a similar competition to win. Nonetheless, there have been examplesof success. The team from Moscow State Academy of Law for many years constantly made it to the advanced roundsof the Russian Competition with their coach, Alexey Kubyshkin, who has never mooted himself, but the team hadnever made it to the top four. Finally, in 2008, the team advanced to the top four and received the right to compete inD.C., which truly belonged to them.

In 2005, the Russian National Administration attempted to solve the coaching deficit by introducing the absentee

coaching program (this program was featured in an article in the previous FOJNL issue). The program has not beenentirely successful and problems still remain.

Even the most experienced coach cannot be successful without his or her team having access to the necessary legalinformation. In most Russian libraries, including those at Russian law schools, you can only find books in Russian, andthe first lesson you learn doing a moot court competition is that books in Russian are not enough to win. This situationis extremely frustrating because the participants have the desire to research, but simply do not have access to enoughresources. In some universities the situation has improved in recent years and more resources have been purchased.However, it seems that the echo of the last 70 years, when any access to “Western” information was banned, is still present. For example, no Russian law schools provide their students with free access to Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, or anyother similar legal databases. Yes, some law schools may have purchased some recently published books – but doesonly a handful of books make a good library?

Maria is now the Russian National Administrator and can give all Russian law schools information about moot courtcompetitions, but she cannot provide each school with a qualified coach who is familiar with the concept of a mootcourt nor with a good international law library. There is still a long way to go.

Luckily some progress in this area has been made thanks to ILSA, and Jessupers aroundthe world, including in Russia, now receive greater access to legal publications. In re-cent years, all Jessup teams have received passwords for online legal databases, such asWestlaw and Lexis-Nexis. While in other parts of the world, such as the United States,the UK, or Europe, students already have free year-round access to those databases fromuniversity libraries, eligible teams only receive ILSA distributed research passwordsupon payment of the Jessup registration fee, which is rarely done before October or even November.

Another reason for the Jessup’s popularity in Russia is that it is a fair competition. From the out-set, the White & Case Moscow office took the competition into its own hands and committed it-self to organizing it at the highest possible level. The Russian Rounds of the Jessup are not“acquired” by one university as sometimes happens with other moot court competitions in Russia.If a team loses, it is of course painful, but it is not because someone arbitrarily decided for themnot to move ahead. We hope that this fairness also inspires teams to come back again and againand helps the Jessup’s popularity spread across the country.

The difficulties along the way only add to the passion of the Russian Jessupers. Teams not onlycome back year after year, but some have achieved significant success at the National and Inter-national Rounds. Russian Jessup alums are active in the legal sphere in Russia and around the

Continued Pg. 22

From the Russian Rounds with Love (Cont’d from page 20)



From the Russian Rounds with Love (Cont’d from page 21)

world. This year, two former Jessup competitors, Sergey Usoskin (2004-2005 competitor

and 2006-2008 coach) and Diana Taratukhina (2007 competitor), are on the team of legaladvisors representing Russia in its first dispute before the International Court of Justice.

Russian Jessupers not only have successful legal careers, but also choose to give back to theJessup as judges, coaches, and administrators. Evgeniya Rubinina, a World Bank lawyer,MGIMO 2005 Jessup alumna, and alumna of Oxford and Harvard Universities, annuallyrefers wonderful judges for the Russian Competition. Maria Issaeva, a 2002 Jessup alumna,served as a lawyer at the European Court of Human Rights until 2007 and then came back toRussia to, among other things, become the Russian Jessup Administrator, which she be-lieves is one of the most important activities in her professional career. Russian Jessupersunderstand the value of the Competition. They care, they give, and they love public interna-tional law.

Despite the hardships and challenges, the emerging Jessup community in Russia optimisti-cally looks ahead to the future and is prepared to continue surprising the world – but that is atopic for another article.

Russian Rounds Pictures: Page 20-221. Russian Competition Final Round 2008: Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics andLaw vs. St Petersburg State University 2. The 2008 Russian Winners: St. Petersburg StateUniversity shaking hands with Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law 3. Rus-sian Jessup Booklet and participants 4. 2008 Judges’ Board and National Administrator 5.2008 Best Oralist of Russian Competition: Inna Shtraykher pleading (Higher School of Eco-nomics -Nizhny Novgorod Branch) 6. In the Judges Room 2008 (from left to right): KirillBelogubets (judge), Maria Issaeva (NA), Alexey Konovalov (judge) 7. Judges (from right toleft): Denis Vaskov, John Place, Polina Tulupova.

Commonwealth of Independent States

Our Jessup Adventure! By Sanja Sehovic

It seemed almost unbelievable when I received the news that I was going to be one of thefive students who was going to represent our Faculty of Law, University of Tuzla, at theJessup 2008 Competition. At that moment we knew nothing about Jessup. Coming from acountry like Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was clear to my teammates and me that if we trulywanted to participate, we would have to make it on our own. In our country, everything,including the educational system, is still in chaos. Even though it has been thirteen years

since the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, little progress has been achieved. Theeducational system does not support ideas like the Jessup Competition at all. We knew thatwe could only get moral support and nothing else.

My teammates and I, although all excellent students, were confronted with a seemingly un-solvable puzzle: the Jessup Compromis. For that assignment we were total amateurs. Bosniaand Herzegovina participated in Jessup only once before in 2004, and we did not have anycoaching program for the Competition. There was nobody at that time to guide us.

We started working every day, all day long, for seven months in order to deeply investigatethe respective topics of the Compromis. Gathering information from the Internet, which

Continued Pg. 23


Sanja Sehovic: Faculty of

Law, University of Tuzla

graduate,;postgraduate

student in Criminal Law.



Our Jessup Adventure! (Cont’d from page 22)

was our only source, we traipsed from totally irrelevant sources such as newspaper articles, conventions, declarations,treaties, etc., that were not applicable at all to the case. But we were determined to solve the Jessup problem.

It all seemed like a waste of time, because we had nobody to tell us if we were on the right track, until we received thecontact information of a person who was a judge at the Jessup Competition, our remote coach Ms. Mara Smith. She dideverything that was in her power to help us and I can tell for sure that it was not an easy job for her! Although we gath-ered some basic information through ILSA’s website, it was important that our remote coach gave us concrete instruc-tions on how to write memorials, how to cite legal sources, how to prepare our speeches, etc. There are probably manyteams for whom a remote coach is the only help they have. We tried to gather as much information as we could, buteven so we were not able to prepare ourselves without professional support. Our part of the task was to ask precisequestions. Our remote coach introduced us, step by step, to everything that was relevant, providing us with commonlyasked questions and legal sources where we could find the right answers, and helping us figure out persuasive argu-ments, among other things.

Another thing that we were not familiar with was arguing our case before judges, which sounded frightening. For thisreason, it is recommended that remote coaches clarify that there are several types of questions asked by judges at the

International Rounds, and that they are not all intended to confuse students. At such stressful moments as at the Interna-tional Rounds, every question seems like the most difficult one. Students should know that some questions are there justto clarify the agent’s stance, some are there just to inform judges about something they are not familiar with, and yes,some are there to confuse students.

For my team it was important that somebody teach us how to address the judges and how to behave in front of them.Since remote coaches are usually also judges, they are the most reliable ones who can tell us some little secrets – like if you smile in front of judges you seem more relaxed, which is an advantage. What remote coaches should do is to en-courage students not to be afraid, especially those students with language barriers. At the moment when fear is com- bined with stress and anxiety, even one word can cause total blackout. Coaches should be the ones to tell students that itis all right to be a little nervous, and that there are no hopeless situations.

Lucky for us, we had a remote coach who was always more than willing to help us. It is true that the whole process can be a little bit frustrating due to communication limitations and time differences, as in our case. You cannot get your an-swer immediately when you need it, but remote coaches are people who voluntarily decide to help us, and we should all be grateful to them.

How we did at the International Rounds is now totally irrelevant, because we had the unique privilege to participate inthe most prestigious International Law Moot Court Competition and we are proud of it. We had a chance to see Wash-ington, D.C. We had the best opportunity to meet leading international law experts and to open our minds to new ideasand experiences. What is most important: we became friends with hundreds of students from all around the world whoshare our passion for international law. The Jessup Competition changed our lives for the better, and that is the biggestvictory of them all!

Volume 5, Issue 2

2008 Bosnia Jessup Team

From Left to Right—Harun Hadzi-

hafizbegovic, Svjetlana Ivanovic,

Sanja Sehovic, Mirna Avdibegovic

and Elvir Mahmuzic



From Jessup to the Court By Alina Miron and Daniel Müller

EUROPE

Professor Alain Pellet, one of the regular counsel pleading before the International Court ofJustice, and – by the way – a former Jessup participant, has said in front of the honorable bench in the Great Hall of Justice:

“We are not in the Jessup competition – the Law Moot Court competition – or the Concours Rousseau, concerned with a fictitious trial before a ficti-tious court; ‘real’ States are pitted against one another before the Interna-tional Court on real problems arising in specific circumstances” (CR 1995/11, 10 February 1995, p. 11, para. 4).

There is no doubt that the International Court is not a mere moot court. It is indeed a “courtof law, called upon to resolve existing disputes between States,” ( Nuclear Tests (Australia

v. France), Judgment , I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 270-1, para. 55; Nuclear Test (New Zealandv. France), Judgment , ibid., p. 476, para. 58 and p. 466, para. 30) as laid down by the draft-ers of the Statute (Article 38, para. 1). Real disputes, submitted by real States. But is it sodifferent to participate in a real case as compared to participating (or to coaching) in theJessup?

The answer must obviously be yes. Nevertheless, the Jessup is not so different from “TheHague experience” and, unquestionably, it proves to be a fruitful preparation.

Indeed, as is the case in the Jessup competition, the preparation and the pleadings beforethe Court in The Hague is a team effort. Counsels are never alone before the Court. Theyonly assist the State (Article 42, para. 2, of the Statute of the Court) together with other counsel and with the official representative of the State concerned, the agent (Article 42, para. 1, of the Statute if the Court). Truth be told, at the Peace Palace, pleading is not onlyan exercise of legal argument—the part normally taken care of by the “legal” team—butinvolves more or less political aspects for which the agent is responsible. While Jessup participants are only responsible for their own legal knowledge and integrity – supervised by their coach, of course – a counsel and advocate before the Court is no more – and noless – then a “mercenary” committed to the “client,” a sovereign State. This results in end-less meetings and exchanges between the lawyers and the political authorities in order to build the overall strategy of the case and the pleadings. Counsel have to bear in mind thatin the end it is for the client – and its agent – to make the real decisions and to dispose of the case. Counsel’s work is not only to plead the law, but, first and foremost, it consists ofadvising and assisting the client throughout the entire procedure (and even once the judg-ment has been rendered). Both exercises require the ability to work in a more or less multi-

cultural team with all its advantages and disadvantages. In this regard, the Jessup is cer-tainly a great test and training experience.

The reality of the impact of a contentious case has further consequences for the preparationof pleadings in The Hague. Whereas a bean of improvisation is looked for and highly ap- preciated in the Jessup Moot Court, nothing is left to improvisation before the “real” Court.Every word which is spoken has been written down, often months before – at least for thefirst round of pleadings – in order to be checked and cross-checked not only by legal coun-sel and their assistants, but also by the Agent and the political authorities. This not the onlyreason, Contrary to the Jessup, where English is the predominant language used (as isFrench in the Concours Rousseau), the Court may be addressed, and quite often is

Continued Pg. 25


“As is the case

for the Jessup

competition, the

preparation and

the pleadings

before the Court

in The Hague is a

team effort.”

Sophie Wernert:


Editor—Europe



addressed, in both English and French. It is common practice to assist the highly-qualified interpreters and to submitthe text of the pleadings beforehand. These constraints make pleading before the Court mainly an exercise of reading.Furthermore, it is quite unusual for the Court – or, more correctly, its President – to interrupt the pleadings unless it is

to ask counsel to speak more slowly for the interpreters. Contrary to a Jessup Moot Court round, where it is the task of the panel to “test” the legal knowledge and skills of the participants, to ask a maximum of questions more or less re-lated to the case and to put into question the legal strategy chosen, the Court’s task is to listen, stoically, to the argu-ments. This underlines quite prominently the difference between a Jessup competitor and a sovereign State! Even if aquestion is asked to a State party at the end of the first or second round of the pleadings, it is always free not to addressit directly but to respond in writing some weeks later. This gives counsel much less reason to feel stagefright, even if it remains impressive to wait in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace for the famous “La Cour …” announcingthe solemn entry of the members of the Court.

Despite these, and other differences, it is the magic of the Jessup Moot Court Competition that makes it look real andlets the participants forget, at least at the time of their pleadings, that it is only a game. And even if, unfortunately, pleading before the Court is still today a job reserved for the “invisible bar” – a quite closed group of international law professors and practitioners—the Jessup is a helpful training and, above all, a great human experience.

Alina Miron is Temporary Lecturer and Research Assistant at the University Paris Ouest-La Défense/ Nanterre andResearcher at the Center for International Law of Nanterre (CEDIN). She served as adviser for the government of theRussian Federation before the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) and twicecoached the Jessup team from the University Paris Ouest-La Défense/ Nanterre.

Daniel Müller is a Researcher at the Center for International Law of Nanterre (CEDIN). He served as counsel and ad-vocate for the government of Romania in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v.Ukraine) and as adviser in several other cases before the International Court of Justice. He coached a Jessup team of the University Paris Ouest-La Défense/ Nanterre and was Jessup National Administrator in France.

From Jessup to the Court (Cont’d from page 24)

Volume 5, Issue 2

Alina Miron (far right) and

Daniel Müller (behind Alina

Miron) and their 2006 Univer-

sity Paris Ouest-La Défense/

Nanterre Jessup team

Left to Right: ICJ Judges Guillaume, Judge

Bedjaoui (former ICJ President), and Judge

WeeramantryParticipant arguing in the final rounds

at the Peace Palace, The Hague



As we all know, the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competi-tion is the world’s largest moot court competition and gathers law stu-dents from all over the world. This year the competition arrives at its50th anniversary, which we all celebrate with great joy and enthusiasm.This, however, is not the only anniversary to celebrate this year, sincethis will also be the 20 th consecutive year of Venezuela’s participation inthe Jessup, which makes us all very happy and proud of the great effortthat Venezuelan students have made throughout these years, despite the lack of resources inour law schools and the natural language barrier. Venezuela had participated in some iso-lated occasions in the 70s but its more formal participation began in 1988-89 and has notstopped since.

Venezuela’s Jessup track-record

Over the years, Venezuela’s performance in the Jessup has been outstanding and somethingto be proud of:

In 1997, Venezuela became the first truly non-native speaking team, and Latin Americanteam, to win the Competition. As a consequence of this victory, the Philip C. Jessup Foun-dation in Venezuela was created. That year, the written submissions of the Venezuelan teamobtained honorable mention for the 9th place. Moreover, one of the team members, MariaTeresa Arcaya, obtained the Best Oralist award in the Championship Round.

In 1999, the Venezuelan team advanced to the semifinals, reaching third place.

In 2000, our team was the First Runner Up in the Final World Cup. The written submis-sions of that team received honorable mention for the 8th place.

In 2001, once again the Venezuelan team was the First Runner Up in the Final World Cup.It was the first time in the history of the competition that a student (Luisa Lepervanche,member of the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello Team), participating for the second timein the competition, made it to the championship round (and the Final Video!) twice in arow.

In 2003, Venezuela made it again to the semifinals. That year, Venezuela achieved the first place in the competition, winning the Richard R. Baxter award for Best Applicant memo-rial.

In 2004, after ranking first in the preliminary rounds, Venezuela got to the 9th place in the

oral rounds and obtained all of the awards for the written submissions including the AlonaEvans World Champion Memorial, the Hardy C. Dillard award, and the Richard R. Baxter award for Best Applicant. That year, Federica Paddeu obtained a scholarship from the In-ternational Law Institute for being the best oralist of the team that received the WorldChampion Memorial Award.

In 2005, Venezuela obtained fifth place in the oral rounds after being defeated by the worldchampion that year (Australia). For the third time, the Venezuelan team was awarded theRichard R. Baxter award for Best Applicant memorial and it also won third place for theAlona Evans award. That year, Ricardo Chirinos was the first Venezuelan (and, probably,the first Latin-American) competitor to be ranked as one of the Top-five oralists of the

Continued Pg. 27

Latin AmericasVenezuela Also Celebrates This Jessup Season

By Elisabeth Eljuri, Venezuelan National Administrator


“In 1997,

Venezuela became

the first truly non-

native speaking

team, and Latin

American team, to

win the

Competition.”

Ricardo Chirinos:


Editor—Latin Americas



Venezuela Also Celebrates This Jessup Season (Cont’d from pg. 26)

Competition.

In 2006, Venezuela once again advanced to the Championship round, receiving the First

Runner-Up title. The memorials also were recognized with the Alona Evans Award for ranking among the top ten memorials of the International Rounds, and Federica Paddeuobtained an honorable mention for being a top ten oralist.

In 2007, Venezuela advanced from the preliminary rounds obtaining 11th place in the over-all ranking of the Competition. The memorials achieved the 4th place in the Dillard Awardand ranked among the top ten memorials of the International Rounds, winning the AlonaEvans Award.

Last year, in 2008, the Venezuelan Team advanced to the Octo-Final Rounds after ranking4th in the Preliminary Rounds of the Competition and obtained 6 th place in the Hardy C. Dil-lard Award.

How is the Jessup Competition Possible in Venezuela? The success of Venezuelan teams in the Jessup Competition is owed to the great dedicationof the students that participate every year, but also to the work of the Philip C. JessupFoundation, created by former Jessup Venezuelan participants to organize Venezuelan par-ticipation and to raise the necessary funds for Venezuela to continue participating.

The Foundation is administered by previous participants in the Jessup Competition and islead by Elisabeth Eljuri, who is also the National Administrator of the Competition inVenezuela. A library was created through the Foundation with the legal works needed to prepare for the competition, which is updated with great effort every year and currently hasover 500 volumes on public international law. The Jessup Library is housed at the Caracasoffice of Macleod Dixon, which has kindly provided a special section of its own library for this purpose.

Ex-Jessupers who have participated in the Competition in the past have personally taken onthe preparation of the Venezuelan teams, training and helping the students during the entire preparation for the Competition. This has been key for Venezuelan teams to achieve excel-lent performances, to overcome the natural barrier of the language that Venezuelans (asnon-native speakers) face, as well as the lack of updated bibliographic material in our country in the topics covered in the cases argued every year.

Only four Venezuelan law schools have participated in the Jessup Competition to date(UCAB, UCV, Universidad de Carabobo, and UNIMET), many times in different years, but the main goal of the Foundation is to have as many schools as possible participating.This year, we are glad to announce that, a new school, Universidad Monteávila, will be

participating for the first time, and we hope that this will encourage other law schools to participate as well in the upcoming years so that they can also benefit from this excellentand highly challenging academic experience.

How can you help the Philip C. Jessup Foundation? Contributions to the Foundation may be made by anyone interested in helping the JessupCompetition continue to grow in our country and to expand our limited literature in thefield of public international law in order to provide Venezuelan students with the opportu-nity to compete on equal footing with the most powerful law schools of the world. If youwish to make a donation or contribution to the Philip C. Jessup Foundation or require addi-tional information in this regard, please kindly contact the Venezuelan National Adminis-trator, Elisabeth Eljuri at [email protected].

Volume 5, Issue 2

“The main goal

of the Venezuelan

Philip C. Jessup

Foundation is to

have as many

schools as

possible

participating.”





In 2006 we witnessed the problem in the Case Concerning the Elysian Fields. On the onehand, Acastus decided to grant the indigenous Elysians citizenship and guarantee them aseat in the parliament, as well as seeking to extend their protection through domestic courtsand the International Court of Justice. On the other hand, Rubria had not allowed them tovote, destroyed their lands for mineral extraction, and forced them to work on the pipeline atgunpoint (State Responsibility issues aside) with sorghum as payment. In reality, the situa-tion is rarely as black and white as this; however, the question remains as to where on thespectrum of indigenous rights New Zealand will place itself.

British colonial government began in New Zealand following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (the "Treaty") between the British government and Māori, the indigenous peopleof Aotearoa (New Zealand), on 6 February 1840. Since that time the New Zealand Courts

have grappled with the issue of the precise nature of the relationship between Māori and the New Zealand Government.

In 2007 the New Zealand Court of Appeal in New Zealand M āori Council & Ors v AttorneyGeneral [2007] NZCA 269 (the " FOMA case") looked at the issue of whether there was afiduciary relationship between the New Zealand Government (the "Crown") and Māori.Perhaps surprisingly, the New Zealand Court of Appeal did not follow the High Court deci-sion on this issue and considered that there was no fiduciary duty between the Crown andMāori. The Supreme Court granted the Māori parties leave to appeal and the case was dueto be heard this year. However, in November 2008 the appeal to the Supreme Court waswithdrawn by consent of the parties. Accordingly, the issue of whether or not there are fidu-ciary obligations owed to Māori by the Crown, either generally or in specific circumstances,has not been ruled upon by New Zealand's highest Court.

Prior to this case being heard by the New Zealand Court of Appeal it had been expected thatthe Court of Appeal might acknowledge that fiduciary obligations were owed by the Crownto Māori. In the 1980s and early 1990s, then President of the Court, Sir Robin Cooke, hadmade obiter dicta comments that such a duty was likely to be recognised. Commentatorshad considered the judgments of the United States Supreme Court in Seminole Nation vUnited States (1942) 316 US 286 and of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Guerin 13DLR (4th) 321, to be of persuasive value. The judgment in the Guerin decision had beenseen to be particularly relevant and obiter dicta remarks had been endorsed as relevant bythe New Zealand Court of Appeal. President Cooke stated in Te Rūnanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General [1990] 2 NZLR 641:

“The judgments in Guerin …. seem likely to be found of major guidancewhen such matters come finally to be decided in New Zealand..”

However, in the judgment of New Zealand M āori Council and Ors v Attorney-General [2007] NZCA 269 given last year, the Court of Appeal appeared to reverse its course andstated:

“If [the High Court] is saying that the Crown has a fiduciary duty in a pri-vate law sense that is enforceable against the Crown in equity, we respectfully disagree.”

Continued Pg. 29

Supreme Court Case on Fiduciary Duty to Māori Withdrawn

By Jared Ormsby

South Pacific - New Zealand and Australia


“Since [February

1840] the New

Zealand Courts

have grappled

with the issue of

the precise nature

of the

relationshipbetween M āori

and the New

Zealand

Government.”

Jared Ormsby:


Editor—South Pacific



The Court distinguished the Canadian approach on the basis of a different statutory and con-stitutional context, adopting a different view to that of President Cooke in Te Rūnanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General .

As matters currently stand, the existence of a fiduciary duty between the Crown and Māorihas not been recognised by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has been denied thechance to have its say on the issue at the moment, but is expected to consider it at its nextopportunity. We have to wait and see whether, in the end, New Zealand law will follow thatin North America, or continue on the path now set by the Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court Case on Fiduciary Duty to Māori Withdrawn (Cont’d from page 28)

Volume 5, Issue 2

Christine Brown; 1998

ILSA President, Tokyo

- Discussing the 1998

Jessup Problem.

Pam Young ,2nd fromright; Paul Karlson far

right

Steven Schneebaum;

Kate Green; Student

Officer Isis Bous;Elizabeth Black; Neil

Michael Peil

Elizabeht Black present-

ing Keith Norton with an

oralist Award.

C ALLING ALL JUDGES Jessup

National

Rounds

Judge registration has opened!

To Judge Memorials and Oral Rounds in a particular country

or region, please email the corresponding Administrator

identified within pages 12 – 15 of the Newsletter.

To judge U.S. Memorials or Oral Rounds at the U.S. Super

Regionals, please contact the corresponding U.S. Super Re-

gional Administrators identified on page 19 of the Newsletter.

Judge Registration for the Shearman & Sterling International

Rounds in Washington, D.C., is now open. All members of the

Friends of the Jessup listserve will receive an email announce-

ment regarding judge registration at the International

Rounds. You will be invited to indicate your date & time avail-

ability to judge Oral Rounds, and your interest in judging Me-

morials, in the online Volunteer Judge Application form on the

ILSA website at: http://www.ilsa.org/judges/.







United KingdomUK Legal Aid Reforms

By Jonathan Butterworth

The ILSA mission statement to “contribute to legal education, to foster mutual understand-ing, and to promote social responsibility of students and lawyers” is synonomous with no-tions of justice and fair play. After all, which Jessup moot court passes without the infa-mous question: “Does the applicant/respondent state have clean hands?”

The United Kingdom, however, is in the midst of reforming its legal aid system to producehighly inequitable results. The long path of reform stretches from the The Legal Aid Act1988, to the Access to Justice Act 1999, and reaches its present state in the Carter Reforms2005.

In “Legal Aid Reform The Way Ahead” (2006) the government describes the policy as amarket-based system that best values competition, and is based on quality, capacity and price. The report states that in October 2008 the Legal Services Commission (LSC) will

introduce its Single Graduated Fee scheme, which will combine fees for both litigators andadvocates and begin to introduce competitive tendering. The LSC will introduce a panel of Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) providers for criminal work. In 2007 roughly 400 defen-dants were funded by legal aid in 100 “very high-cost” trials with the cost reaching £100million. One government minister defined the aim of the reforms as: “ensuring the long-term sustainability and future of legal aid. We want to get the best value for money so thatwe can help as many people as possible within the resources available.”

The practical effect of the legal aid reforms is somewhat different from the laudable goalsof the government. Legal aid provision has been drastically cut: more than 80% of UK in-dividuals had access to legal aid in 1987 (about 44 million people), but now only 41 per-cent do (24.6 million people). The budget in 1990 totalled £1.4 billion; 18 years later in2008 it has only increased to £2 billion annually. This does not keep pace with inflation. Asa result, public service lawyers have not had a pay rise for nearly two decades.

The single graduated fee scheme in practice results in a minimum of £91 per hour for a QC(Queen’s Counsel), a fifth of the rate of pay of a commercial QC. And a day in court for public service legal aid now ranges from £285 to £476 for a top QC. This is half the feethat practitioners receive if they choose to go private.

As a result of these pay cuts, dozens of major criminal trials, including rape and murder cases, are at risk of being thrown out as defendants are unable to obtain qualified barristersdue to the low pay. Out of a possible total of 2,300, only three QCs and roughly one hun-dred barristers have agreed to form the new panel of lawyers established by the Carter re-forms to handle long trials.

This grim reality raises the question of whether the reforms are compatible with the UK’sinternational human rights obligations. These include obligations under Article 47, EUCharter of Fundamental Rights, whereby “legal aid shall be made available to those wholack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to jus-tice.” Fair Trial rights under Article 6(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) require that, “everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following mini-mum rights: ...

(c) To defend himself in person or through legal assistance … or, if he hasnot sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the

Continued Pg. 31


“It is questionable

whether the UK’s

market based

reforms meet the

criteria of

effectiveness given

the greatly reduced

funding of the

service and fifty

percent reduction in

clients served.”

Jonathan Butterworth:


Editor—UK



UK Legal Aid Reforms (Cont’d from page 30)

Fact mirrors fiction. Alicanto accuses Ravisia of committing sexual offences in its territory and furthermore demandsdisclosure of the Ravisian secret evidence in the pseudo-reality of the 2008/2009 Jessup Moot Compromis. Meanwhile,in the grim reality of the UK legal system, the Brown government combines the two as it is grappling with disclosure of background information on sex offenders.

As of Monday, 15 September 2008, four constabularies in England will operate a sex-offender disclosure scheme de-signed to prevent predatory paedophiles from taking advantage of vulnerable children and provide greater protection.The pilot schemes will last provisionally for one year. Often referred to as Sarah's law, this is the UK's equivalent of theUS's "Megan’s Law." Both the efficacy and human rights compatibility of this scheme are hotly disputed amongstmembers of the UK legal community.

In essence, they allow a concerned parent, carer, or guardian to receive background information on an individual in con-tact with a child where this individual is deemed to pose a risk. Anyone is able to make such a request to the police, al-though the information may only be disclosed to the parent, carer, or guardian of that child and must not be passed on toany other person. Should a parent in receipt of the information disclose this to another concerned parent, civil and even

criminal sanctions could result.

There is to be a general presumption of disclosure where information is found, although the criteria as to what is rele-vant information and at what level the history of the individual becomes a risk to a child is unclear. The decision to dis-close such information is taken by a panel composed of the police, the probation officers and prison services, and thedecision to make a disclosure must be ‘necessary and proportionate’ to protecting the child in question.

However, human rights practitioners point out that it does not necessarily follow that decreased rights for the offender will actually improve child safety. Under these new schemes, an individual with other past convictions such as domesticabuse may have his/her details disclosed. The concern is that the parent or carer receiving this information may feelobliged to pass this on to other parents, and that vigilante acts may then follow.

Continued Pg. 32

interests of justice so require.” This strongly supports the obligations under Article 14(3)(d) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

These obligations confer a legal right to “effective participation” as laid down by the ECHR in the McLibel case of Steel and Morris v UK (15 Feb 2005). In Airey v Ireland (1980), the court stated that the right under Article 6(1) must be “practical and effective not theoretic and illusory,” this includes no undue delay of trial and access to justice. Thesituation is given added complexity as the “interests of justice” in the ECHR and ICCPR requires definition. Relevantfactors to be taken into account include the complexity of case, the seriousness of the offense, and the ability of the de-fendant to participate (Quaranta v. Switzerland ECHR (1991)).

It is questionable whether the UK’s market based reforms meet the criteria of effectiveness, given the greatly reducedfunding of the service and fifty percent reduction in clients served. Furthermore, a contextual application of the abovefactors to many recent criminal cases suggests that the minimum wage of £91 per hour will not be adequate to attractexpert QCs. If the criminal law system is to be fair and just, it requires expert barristers to prosecute and defend to avoidmiscarriages of justice. Admittedly, the system in the 1980’s was in need of reform to abolish taxpayers funding mil-lionaire QCs, but the fee must be sufficient to ensure that the top QCs still want, and can afford, to protect the fair trial

rights of all accused. Currently the UK system appears to be failing to do so, and criminal justice in the UK is sufferingas a result. It is submitted the UK does not have “clean hands.”

UK Scheme to Disclose Background Information on Sex OffendersBy Sarah Walker, UCL LLM

Volume 5, Issue 2



The “right to know” policy encourages the social exclusion and victimisation of the offender (who may not have committed sex offender acts in the past) as the worst of the worst, andcan often provoke violent results. There is no such comparable right in relation to those con-

victed of murder or grievous bodily harm later released into the community.

The schemes ignore the benefit of community engagement for the rehabilitation of an of-fender, and instead prevent the offender from beginning anew. Their past crimes are not al-lowed to remain in the past.

Furthermore, whilst the decision of the panel is based on the human rights structure of proportionality and necessity, once the information has been disclosed and released into the public domain, it seems unlikely that attempts to keep that information with the parent or carer concerned will succeed. There is a risk of potential infringements of the right to pri-vacy and potentially the right to life in the event of vigilante reprisals against a sex offender.As such, it is likely that the legal profession will soon be analysing the police and prison panels’ assessment of necessity and proportionality to determine the compatibility of their

decisions with human rights.

In short, the schemes forget that people are individuals to be treated with respect and poten-tially encourage a mob-like mentality with provisions that may not actually improve child protection (a 2000 NSPC report suggests that 90% of sex offenders are actually alreadyknown to victims, and there is no guarantee that the parent involved will feel able to contactthe police; predatory paedophiles target the parent as well as the child), yet certainly limit anoffender’s chances of leading a normal life once his or her prison sentence has been dis-charged.

Jessup participants and Judges (left)

Steven Schneebaum and (center)

Stephen Schwebel.

1959 Trivia: Who Knew?*Compiled by Rebecca Grabski

1.) What was the world Population in 1959?• 2.997 billion

2.) Who won the Nobel Peace Prize in this year?• Philip John Noel-Baker (UK), Member of Parliament and a lifelong

ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.

3.) What widely controversial novel was released in this year by Englishman D. H. Law-rence?

• Lady Chatterley's Lover

4.) Which American architect was widely considered to be the greatest and died this year?• Frank Lloyd Wright

5.) What was established in 1959 as a counterpart to the Common Market andincluded such countries as Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal?

• The EFTA or "European Free Trade Association"

UK Sex Offenders (Cont’d from page 31)


“There is a risk of

potential

infringements of

the right to

privacy and

potentially the

right to life in the

event of vigilante

reprisals against a

sex offender.”

Sarah Walker UCL

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0829098.html










Volume 5, Issue 2

http://www.ilsa.org/foj/fojoomla/

http://www.ilsa.org/foj/fojoomla/



In introduction, a short history of Qatar: In 1872 the Ottoman Turks occupied Qatar, the

occupation continuing until the beginning of World War I, when the British recognizedSheikh Abdullah bin Jassim Al-Thani as the Ruler of the country. The Al- Thani family hadlived in Qatar for 200 years, and have ruled Qatar since the mid-nineteenth century. The1916 treaty between the United Kingdom and Sheikh Abdullah was similar to those enteredinto by the British with other Gulf principalities. Under it, the ruler agreed not to dispose of any of his territory except to the UK and not to enter into relationships with any other for-eign government without British consent. In return, the British promised to protect Qatar from all aggression by sea and to lend their good offices in case of a land attack.

High-quality oil was discovered in 1940 at Dukhan (the first onshore field), on the westernside of the Qatari peninsula. Exploitation was delayed by World War II, and oil exports didnot begin until 1949. During the 1950s and 1960s gradually increasing oil reserves brought prosperity, rapid immigration, substantial social progress, and the beginnings of Qatar’s

modern history. When the UK announced a policy in 1968 (reaffirmed in March 1971) of ending the treaty relationships with the Gulf sheikdoms, the rulers of the Seven Sheikdomsrepresenting the current United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar explored the idea of aunion or federation, but Qatar and Bahrain decided against joining. Qatar sought independ-ence as a separate entity and became the fully independent State of Qatar on September 3,1971.

Qatar, with a constitutional monarchy government and pronounced (Kahter) occupies asmall peninsula that extends into the Persian Gulf from the east side of the Arabian Penin-sula. Saudi Arabia is to the west and the United Arab Emirates to the south. Qatar is thehome of Al Jazeera, the immensely popular and controversial Arabic satellite television net-work. Qatar introduced its first constitution on June 9, 2005. It guarantees freedom of ex- pression, assembly, and religion, and calls for a 45-seat parliament. Thirty of the seats will be filled in democratic elections; the emir will appoint the remaining seats. (History basedon my two visits to the US Library of Congress in 1998 & 2008, see Archive - 1990 State of Qatar, and some unpublished Arabic resources in Doha, Qatar.)

In 2008 Qatar participated in Jessup for the first time, and it was a most exhilarating educa-tional experience! The Jessup provided our law students with the advantage of getting in-volved in simulated sessions in which students utilize and enhance their analytical thinkingand problem solving skills. In essence, our law students lived and breathed what they would be doing in real-time legal practice. This program is unique to us because the law schoolhere is, compared to others, relatively young (new). We have no local moot court competi-tions yet. We have only started internships recently. Qatar is not a common law system, soits students are not case law oriented, so having them compete in Jessup is a wonderful op-

portunity.

Personally, I feel honored to have coached the first Qatar University (QU) Law College Jes-sup Team in 2008 – a solid group of students who will surely utilize this experience whenthey embark into the practice of law. Although the Jessup has many positive qualities, theone that stands out the most is the Jessup’s team-oriented phenomenon. The teamwork thatthe Jessup promotes displays to law students and faculty the art of teamwork in legal prac-tice. Our law students surely witnessed that the way to reach a positive outcome (especiallyin extremely complicated cases) is to come together and utilize the intrinsic value each teammember offers. On the same note, and once in Washington DC, the Jessup provided our stu-dents the opportunity to interact and learn from world-renowned academic professionals,

Continued Pg. 35

Country in Profile: QatarBy Talal Al-Emadi


“Although the

Jessup has many

positive qualities,

the one that stands

out the most is the

Jessup’s team-

oriented

phenomenon.”

Talal Al-Emadi is a

lecturer in law at the

University of Qatar;

D.Phil. candidate at the

University of Oxford

Qatar 2008 Team:

Go National Dress Ball



judges, lawyers, and students from other law schools.

Being able to have law students participate in an event that allows them to “think like

lawyers” is beneficial and phenomenal for students’ developmental skills. Via Jessup,students are also able to develop their skills in legal writing, research, and building solidarguments and strategies. I would not be exaggerating in saying that a law school with-out moot courts, such as the Jessup, is like a science school without labs. I really feltthat that there really weren't a lot of “challenges” in starting Jessup at QU, but that is because sources of help were available. However, it requires someone to know whatJessup is, to start things. I only knew about Jessup because of my Harvard LLM days.

If I must point out one challenge, then I think students need to be trained more heavily by investing in the same participants to do Jessup twice. First timers always face challenges. All in all, Jessup is an ab-solute must for every law student and all law schools as it prepares them for a career as future legal professionals. Ican’t thank Qatar University enough and the International Law Students Association (ILSA) for allowing us to be partof Jessup 2008. After we returned to Qatar, I interviewed the participants and here is what they said:

QU Law 3rd year student and 2008 Jessup Team Member, Ahmed Al-Saad, said:“To me Jessup was an unforgettable experience. It changed my view on public international law so as to look at it frommany different angles I never thought of before. If I am to decide, I would say that participating in moot courts should be compulsory in every law school! I liked the way Jessup was managed and supervised here at our Law College, but I believe we could have done better if there were a way of giving us more free time. Adjusting between Jessup and our studies load was the main challenge, but very much worth it.”

QU Law 3rd year student and 2008 Jessup Observer, Yaser Al-Malik, said:“Jessup is an excellent experiment for law in general and especially for public international law. The beauty of Jessup isthat it helps in gathering law students from countless and different countries, which creates an effective exchange of lawconcepts and cultures. The oral arguments before judges and professors help in building confidence that each lawgraduate needs when he/she faces the real world after graduation. Every law student must consider himself lucky to participate in Jessup, and I can’t wait for my next year to really participate, rather than just observing.”

QU International Affairs student and 2008 Jessup Team Member, Lena Abouelea, said:“Jessup experience was the most unique and unforgettable experience I ever had so far. On the academic level, I reallynever knew that the public international law (PIL) could be that applicable and effective in settling and providing solu-tions in international conflicts. Jessup provided rich experience for studying such complicated cases covering manyimportant aspects of PIL, cases that are so similar to what the world is facing nowadays. I am not a law student, but Ican tell that Jessup is the best experience ever for any law college student; he/she would never feel the importance andthe effective role of their law studies unless he/she goes through such a comprehensive real-world experience: facing judges, courts, submissions, and lawyers! On a personal level, Jessup got me to understand other cultures and acceptthem more than I used to do. The Jessup experience taught me how the world’s nations may vary in many issues, butthey can be gathered in the same place having the same goals. It is worth saying that the Jessup experience has changed

my academic plans and encouraged me to start planning for my Master’s Degree in PIL. My thanks go to our Coach:Talal Al-Emadi, for being the spirit of Jessup all the way, and from whom we learned how to face difficulties and obsta-

cles to gain a successful experience in such a huge international event. Manythanks to Dr Abdulla Al-Mislumani for his support, time, and efforts he pro-vided during months of local training, and to Dr Hanan Malaeb for being asupportive chaperone whenever the girls needed her. I am so happy that we,QU students, did it in 2008 and will always be there to help future QUteams!”

Country in Profile: Qatar (Cont’d from page 34)

Volume 5, Issue 2

QU Jessup 2008 CertificatesDay (Dean Hassan, Talal, Dr

Hanan & Students Ahmed &

Lena Abouelea.

Qatar and Lithunaia and

Jessup teams and judges after

an oral round.



I was born in Venezuela of a Canadian/American mother and a German father; my world-view was always quite international. Not surprisingly, my interest for the Jessup was the

first shy approach to what later became my passion. It was because of Jessup, and the cir-cumstances that surrounded my experience, that I became fascinated with public interna-tional law, all it has achieved, and all the potential it has to accomplish.

My first experience was anything but normal. Just two months into our study, Venezuelaunderwent huge political and social disturbances. People decided to boycott the economyand took to the streets because they were enraged and tired of the way the government wasrunning its policies. By 2002 strikes and marches had become quite common in our day-to-day life. It was the only way the general population could express its profound discontentwith the utter disrespect and abuse of power the government had towards the country, the people, and its democracy. Venezuela’s national strike started out as a one day strike whichwas then extended daily until it was finally declared indefinite. There was a series of eventsthat led to this national discontent, including a number of laws that were passed by an ena-

bling clause, the intermission of the government in the educational system, as well as in the private and public sectors, and firing of oil industry executives to be replaced by the hand picked government loyalists. One of the biggest events that led to the 2002-2003 boycottwas the strike that occurred in April 2002 when, after a couple of days of strike in the mainoil industry PDVSA, thousands of people gathered on one of the highways of Caracas towalk to the Central Park.

En route, the leaders decided to take the march to the presidential palace instead. Thismarch was comprised of men, women, and children who, carrying flags and whistles, weremarching to ask the president to resign. The events that unraveled during this march wereunprecedented. Supporters of the government shot at the crowd, and police forces threwtear gas into the crowd as well. At the end of the day the death toll was approximately 19 people. The president was then ousted only to be reinstalled a couple of days later to rulewith a fist of steel. People not loyal to the government started being fired in every sector,and the mood in the country was grimmer than ever. A few months later, the opposition inthe private and oil sectors decided to boycott the economy in order to pressure the presidentto stop pursuing his socialist policies or step down as president. This resulted in almost allcommerce in Venezuela shutting down, which meant, among other things, sparse gasolineto fill the cars up and only basic food supplies. Our team stopped for a few days, but withno sign of the social unrest coming to a halt, we decided to resume our studying. Therewere strikes at least once a week, and the lines to fill cars up were days long. Every night ata fixed time the whole country would engage in the so called “caserolazos” where wewould bang pots and pans with spoons as a sign of complaint. Sometimes so many streetswere blocked that we couldn’t get from one point to another, so we had to stay at home andwork as best we could from there. Many events occurred during the strike, and every day

there was news of more abuses committed by the government and its officials. The president fired almost 16.000 workers from the oil industry, replacing them with people,some qualified but most unqualified, who were loyal to the government; military personnel beat defenseless women and men on the streets. But the most vivid event that occurred wasa clash between government forces and a crowd of civilians gathered at the famous PlazaAltamira in Caracas, where 3 civilians died and more than 20 were injured. The peoplewere gathered there to hear military officers in opposition speak against the governmentand they were ambushed by military forces loyal to the president.

As a result of all these events and the situation that the country was in, many people left,including my family, which added to an already unsettling situation. Finally, after three

Continued Pg. 37


FOJ in Profile: Anneliese Fleckenstein

“[Jessup]

distracted me from

the grim

circumstances

[surrounding me at

the time] and in theend the focus that I

maintained paid off

by boosting my

confidence and

depth of knowledge

in one of the most

interesting topics in

law: international

law.”

Anneliese Fleckenstein



FOJ in Profile: Anneliese Fleckenstein (Cont’d from page 36)

months, those events began to calm down, and the country once more started functioning. In spite of this situation, Iwas immersed in a world of intense research and analysis on subjects that ranged from human trafficking to war

crimes, crimes against humanity, state responsibility, and universal jurisdiction, among many other topics, some of which applied to the situation through which we lived.

An obvious result of my hectic journey through Jessup was the improvement of my analytical skills. Jessup trained mein a concise way of writing, a style completely opposite from the writing style I had learned in Venezuela: you have anissue, the accompanying rule, and you apply it to the facts. This was an important lesson. But for me, this experiencemeant more. It distracted me from the grim circumstances, and in the end the focus that I maintained paid off by boost-ing my confidence and depth of knowledge in one of the most interesting topics in law: international law.

Anneliese Fleckenstein currently works for the World Bank in Washington D.C.

Volume 5, Issue 2



I spoke with Ronald Bettauer, ABA International Law Section award recipient of the

“Outstanding Performance by an International Lawyer in Government,” about his experi-ence with Jessup, including his authorship of the1977 Nuclear Proliferation Problem. Here’s what he had to say:

How did you get involved with writing a problem for the Jessup Competition?I came to DC in 1969 and joined the State Department Legal Adviser’s Office. I becameinvolved in ASIL activities and got to know the people who were running the Society. Af-ter participating on a series of ASIL panels, someone asked me to write a Jessup problem.At the time, I was in the Oceans, Environment, and Science Section of the legal office – covering law of the sea, international environmental law, and scientific issues, includingnuclear proliferation issues, which were getting increased attention in the wake of the In-dian nuclear test. At that point, I had spent seven years in the legal office, and I was happyto do it.

Tell us about the problem you wrote…Writing the problem was fun; it was like working out a puzzle. The problem comprised: acover page, 4 ½ pages of factual set up materials plus agreement texts I prepared, in allabout 7 pages. The problem dealt with a country that hadn’t yet tested a nuclear device butwanted to start reprocessing imported nuclear materials that was subject to consent rightsunder a U.S. agreement for nuclear cooperation; there were questions about the nature of the consent rights, violation of the agreement, and possible breach of continued nuclear fuel supply commitments.

Where did you get your ideas for the overall theme of the problem and the names of the “players”?The impetus for the problem…it was within the topic area I was working on in the legaloffice of the State Department. One key underlying issue was the extent of U.S. consentrights. Non-proliferation legislation was pending on the Hill. We in the government con-sidered that withholding consent for reprocessing, even if “safeguards” arguably could beeffectively applied, was permissible under the agreement and that if a country proceededwithout consent it would be in breach. This obviously raised treaty law issues. These wereall the kinds of issues we would face when we developed the Nuclear Non-ProliferationAct of 1978. The old India nuclear cooperation agreement had some of the same languageon the consent to reprocessing as was included in the problem. The names of the parties tothe ICJ case in the problem were Pandora and Shangri-La. Pandora was an obvious choice, but Shangri-La actually started as a different name. I wanted to use the name The GrandDuchy of Fenwick, after the fictitious country in the Peter Sellers movie “The Mouse ThatRoared.” The movie was about a tiny country that makes waves. This name went through

all the drafts of the problem, but the decision was eventually made to use Shangri-La – anunspoiled country in mountainous region. I received the note from the ASIL group thatsaid that even though they agreed with me that Shangri-La was an overused name, they feltthat it was better to use it at that time.

Do you think it was a difficult problem for students to deal with?I think the problem was challenging. Students could access the information – they couldfind the agreements, treaty law authorities, ILC reports, the pending legislation, and soforth. They could also address what role domestic legislation played in an internationallaw case.

Continued Pg. 39

Interview with Ronald Bettauer former Jessup Compromis Author

By Mara A. Smith


“Writing the

problem was fun;

it was like

working out a

puzzle.”

Ronald Bettauer:

Author, 1977 Nuclear

Proliferation Problem.



Interview with Ronald Bettauer (Cont’d from page 38)

Do you think the problem is still timely today?The problem could easily be looked at today in relation to the situation with Iran. The facts are somewhat different, butat bottom there are similar issues concerning secret nuclear activities and violations of safeguards requirements – at the

macro level, the problem concerned how the international community would deal with a nuclear proliferation threat,whether a country had a right to develop an indigenous reprocessing facility and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, whether there is a breach if additional fuel isn’t supplied by other countries, etc. So yes, this is still a timely problem, both for students and in international law.

What is your opinion of the legislation in this area today?The Bush Administration agreement with India is a major reversal of course. The policy adopted in the aftermath of the 1974 Indian nuclear test in the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and in the Nuclear Supplies Guidelines was tocondition nuclear supply on “full scope” safeguards. Originally, nuclear “safeguards” (which refers primarily to in-spection and accounting measures by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear material andequipment is not diverted from peaceful purposes) were only required with respect to the material or equipment actu-ally supplied; the change was that there would now be no supply unless everything in the country was subject to safe-guards. The United States vigorously argued for this policy for many years. Now, the new Indian agreement aban-

dons the policy of only supplying if there are full scope safeguards. This policy is asserted to be an exception only for India, but of course Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea – no one talks about Israel – also might argue for similar treat-ment. There are many countries party to the NPT, and at each NPT review conference there are charges of discrimi-nation between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states; countries argue that the weapon states have notfulfilled their promises to provide complete access to the civilian nuclear fuel cycle and to make progress toward nu-clear disarmament. However, it is impossible to predict what the long-term impact of the change in policy will be onnon-proliferation. While I have concerns, the world has changed from 30 years ago, and we can only wait and see howthings play out with respect to the remaining States of potential proliferation concern.

What advice would you offer to students, lawyers and other professionals?My advice on the issue of arguing before the ICJ: Court judgments are the result of discussion and compromises be-tween the judges, and it is impossible to predict what arguments will win the day. It therefore seems important to runthrough the full range of colorable arguments that support one’s positions, in order to provide a handle that might appeal to the judges. Moreover, in deciding on how to argue to the Court, one has to consider the writing and views of the individual judges. In a competition like the Jessup it is difficult to take this sort of factor into account. Moreover,in the ICJ one doesn’t really expect spontaneous remarks by either party (arguments are all read out, and must be pro-vided in electronic format in advance) or spontaneous questioning (questions – which are not too frequent – are nor-mally asked at the end of both sides’ presentations, with the parties having time to prepare responses), which can bevery different from a Jessup competition setting.

Volume 5, Issue 2

Jessup participants enjoying some free time!

Before electronic means of organizing competition information, file boxes lined the

ILSA office walls...We’ve come a long way

since then!



Each year the Jessup Competition Basic Materials include the Universal Declaration of Hu-man Rights. While the Jessup Moot is celebrating its 50th Anniversary, the UDHR turned60 on December 10, 2008.

The UDHR has been called a living document. “It is the foundation of international humanrights law, the first universal statement on basic principles of inalienable human rights and acommon standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.” (http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/declaration.shtml). The UDHR began its journey to recognition in 1941when President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his Four Freedoms speech before the USCongress. President Roosevelt claimed four basic freedoms: freedom of speech and expres-

sion, freedom to worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. As World War IIended the need to codify human rights became a concern. Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of a“nuclear commission,” recommended the UN establish a Commission on Human Rights. 18delegates were originally selected, with Eleanor Roosevelt serving as the Chairperson.These 18 delegates began a long 3-year process to create a declaration that would embodyinnumerable recommendations from public and private groups that would, “encompass thehopes, beliefs and aspirations of people throughout the world.” (http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm). The framers of the UDHR recognized, “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny, and oppression,that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” (http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm). On December 10, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declarationof Human Rights without dissent. “Forty-eight nations voted for the Declaration, eight coun-tries abstained and two countries were absent….It was deemed ‘an historic act, destined toconsolidate world peace through the contribution of the United Nations toward the liberationof individuals from the unjustified oppression and constraint to which they are too oftensubjected’” (http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm).

On Human Rights Day 2007, the “United Nations Secretary General launched a year longUN system-wide advocacy campaign… [which] aims to increase knowledge and awarenessof human rights among the largest number of rights holders so that they can claim and enjoytheir rights….the initiative celebrates the Declaration and the promises that has made [the]document so enduring: ‘Dignity and justice for all of us.’” (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/60UDHRIntroduction.aspx). Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “On thisHuman Rights Day, it is my hope that we will all act on our collective responsibility to up-hold the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We can only honour the towering

vision of that inspiring document when its principles are fully applied everywhere, for eve-ryone.” (http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/index.shtml).

On December 10, 2008 the UN General Assembly awarded the 2008 United Nations Prizein the Field of Human Rights. The prize was established 40 years ago to “recognize‘outstanding achievement in the field of human rights.’” (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/UNHRPrize2008.aspx). This year’s recipients were Dorothy Stang(posthumously), Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (posthumously), Denis Mukwege, Caroline Go-mes, Ramsey Clark, Louise Arbour and Human Rights Watch.

December 9, 2008 also marked the 60th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention whichContinued Pg. 41


President and Chair of the

Commission on Human

Rights, Eleanor Roose-

velt, looking at the Uni-

versal Declaration of Hu-

man Rights in Spanish.Credit: UN Photo.

http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/declaration.shtml


http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm





http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/60UDHRIntroduction.aspx


http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/index.shtml

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/UNHRPrize2008.aspx






http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/index.shtml




















NOW ACCEPTING DEAK AWARD NOMINATIONS

The International Law Students Association, in conjunction with American Society of International Law, is currentlysoliciting nominations for the Deak Award for the 2008 calendar year. The Deak Award is a prize provided by OxfordUniversity Press for the best international law student article published in a student-edited law journal. The award hon-ors Francis Deak, a WWII veteran who wrote extensively on international law. The award is the student equivalent of the prize for the best article in the American Journal of International Law.

FOJ Michael Waibel LL.M. '08 was awarded the Francis Deak Prize by the American Society of International Law for his paper entitled "Opening Pandora's Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration." The award was presented onApril 10, 2008 at the Society's annual general meeting in Washington, DC. Waibel recently received a doctor of lawsfrom the the University of Vienna. His paper argues that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

(ICSID) is ineffective when creditors take countries that have defaulted on their debt to arbitration. (http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/ils/michael-waibel-wins-prestigious-deak-prize.html)

Students, professors, practitioners or other individuals in the legal community may nominate students for the Deak Award. A student may even nominate his own article. The award rules state the nominee must have been a student atthe time the article was written, and the article must have been published in a student-edited journal during the awardyear (2008). All nominations satisfying these criterion will be considered by the awards committee, who will read eacharticle and choose the winning submission. The winner of the 2008 award will be announced at the 2009 ASIL AnnualMeeting in Washington, D.C., in March. All questions and nominations (include students name, school, graduationyear, article, and article citation) should be sent to Jill Schmieder Hereau at [email protected] by February 9, 2009.

Raphael Lemkin worked so tirelessly to be signed. “The ultimate responsibility for preventing genocide lies withstates. The UN has done a great deal to draw attention to this but what states should do, in my view, is to incorporatethese serious crimes in their national legislation, to set up human rights organizations, to have independent judiciaries,

to promote education and proper values so that individuals will be insulated from propaganda […] that encouragesthem to kill their neighbours,” she stresses. To commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Convention, the OHCHR isorganizing a seminar next January on the prevention of genocide. (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/GenocideConvention.aspx).

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated, “It is our duty to ensure that these rights are a living reality -- that they areknown, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights pro-tected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists -- and that it exists for them.” On December 10, sixtyyears from its signing, the UN and the world, “pay tribute to the extraordinary vision of the Declaration’s originaldrafters and to the many human rights defenders around the world who have struggled to make their vision a reality.The Declaration belongs to each and every one of us – read it, learn it, promote it and claim it as your own.” (http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Turns 60 (Cont’d from pg. 40)

2008 Human Rights Award RecipientsA group photo the recipients of the 2008 United Nations Prize in the Field of

Human Rights. From left to right: Joan Burke and David Stand on behalf of Sis-ter Dorothy Stang; Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, on behalf of Mohtarma Benazir

Bhutto; Denis Mukwege, Director and Chief surgeon at the Panzi Hospital in

Bukavu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Caroline Gomes, Co-founder

and Executive Director of Jamaicans for Justice; Ramsey Clark, former Attorney-General of the United States of America; and Kenneth Roth on behalf of Human

Rights Watch, and Louise Arbour, former United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights. Location:United Nations, New York Date: 10 December

2008 Photo # 234420 UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Volume 5, Issue 2


http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/GenocideConvention.aspx


http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/













In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Competition, the Friends of the Jessup Newsletter has established three contests designed to highlight favorite Jessup memories andfuture possibilities for the Competition.

THREE CONTESTS

• Best Jessup Competition Photo and Caption - The photo may be from a National, Regional or International Competition. The caption must be 30 words or less.

• Best Jessup Competition Story - The story may be from a National, Regional or International Competition, and must be 300 words or less.

• Jessup Impact Essay - The essay must comport with the topic and rules below, and must be between 1300 and 1500 words.

IMPACT ESSAY TOPIC

The year is 2059. The cover of the latest Time magazine shows the Jessup Cup and features two articles on "The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition: A Century in Review." The first article covers the issuesthat dominated the first 50 years of Jessup, 1959 to 2009. Write the second article, summarizing the issues that will feature prominently in Jessup Competitions from 2009 to 2059.

CONTEST RULES

1. Entries for all three contests should be submitted to [email protected] no later than 13 March, 2009.2. All submissions must display in the subject line of the email the name of the Contest (e.g. Photo Contest, Story

Contest or Impact Essay Contest).3. For the Photo Contest, the captions must identify any individuals in the photo by name, and include the year the

photo was taken.4. For all submissions, the body of the email must include:

• Your name;• The year(s) you participated in Jessup;• The school(s) and region(s) for which you competed, or other affiliation with the Jessup;• The level(s) of the Competition in which you participated (e.g. Regional, National, International);• Your physical home mailing address;• Your email address;• If you plan to attend the 50th Anniversary Celebration;• Participants may compete in all three Contests, however each participant may only enter one submission

per Contest.All contest submissions become the property of ILSA and the Jessup Competition. No entry submissions will be re-turned to entrant. By submitting content, entrant agrees to ILSA’s public use of materials.

WINNING SUBMISSIONS

Contest winners will be announced at the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds during the Final Jessup Party onSaturday, 28 March 2009 (winners need not be present to win). Each Contest will have a first place, second place, andthird place prize. The Impact Essay Contest will also include a Grand Prize Category. Prize content to be announced.

All winning entries will be published in the FOJ Newsletter. Entries will be displayed during the International RoundsCompetition week 22-28 March 2009.

Questions regarding contest submissions should be directed to Mara A. Smith at [email protected].


50th Anniversary Jessup Contests

The Jessup Cup





FOJ HAPPENINGSCatherine Newcombe and Untac Gunner in Instanbul. Catherine Newcombe man-ages the U.S. Department of Justice's technical assistance work in Eurasia (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine) in the

Criminal Division's Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance andTraining (OPDAT). OPDAT posts experienced federal prosecutors in US Embassiesthroughout the region to exchange best practices and work with their counterparts on

skills development and legislative reform with the goal of improving our collective ability to combat crime and corrup-tion, particularly transnational criminality. She stopped in Istanbul to see Untac Guner while en route to Bishkek, Kyr-gyzstan where she visited one of her justice sector assistance programs. Untac Guner has legal offices both in Istanbuland Chicago serving multinational clients, including banks and governmental organizations, in local and internationalmatters. The firm under his management is looking for litigators who have more than ten years experience in litigationand international arbitration, especially before the International Chamber of Commerce, in Europe.

Congratulations to Bill Burke-White, who was recently featured in Philadelphia Magazine as one of thesexiest singles in Philadelphia. Bill is currently on sabbatical from the University of Pennsylvania at theMax Planck Institute of Comparative and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany.

Carol Kalinoski and Russian FOJ Yaraslau Koryvoi discuss the firstFDI Moot Problem in Boston Massachusetts this past November. The For-eign Direct Investment Moot sponsored by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom aims to increase international investments, multi– and bi-lateral treaties and the procedures for resolving disputes between parties. At the one day conference and themoot competition several FOJs were on hand sharing their international interests.

Congratulations to Tom Levi, who is working in the Hague as an intern at the ICTY to Judge Pocar in theAppeals Chamber. He recently started working on the Milosevic judgment. Tom represented the Universityof New South Wales, Australia in 2008.

Will Patterson has recently moved to Santa Ana, Costa Rica to begin a new job as an associatewith Arias & Munoz. He will be co-coaching the University of Costa Rica's Jessup team. Will representedLewis & Clark Law School in 2007 and 2008 at the Jessup International Rounds.

As of 1 January 2009, Quang Trinh will have a new status at the firm of Mallesons Stephen Jaques: Hewill be a Senior Associate. He is part of the Dispute Resolution Group, specialising in Commercial Liti-gation and Insolvency

Justice Thomas Buergenthal and Jerome Shestack received the Gruber Founda-tion Award for their work with human rights and justice through law. Judge Thomas Buergenthal, achild of the Holocaust who became a world leader in the struggle for justice, he serves as theAmerican judge on the International Court of Justice; co-authored the first international human

rights law textbook in the United States; as judge and president of the Inter-American Court of Hu-man Rights, helped end the practice of disappearances in Honduras, and helped secure the govern-ment of Guatemala’s compliance with a Court order ending executions of human rights activists by

special tribunals. Jerome J. Shestack, former president of the American Bar Association who helped end the practice of disappearances in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil; helped marshal support to eliminate race and gender discrimination inthe United States. (From www.law.gwu.edu/News/newsstories/Pages/061208_BuergenthalGruberAward.aspx)

Congratulations to Suwit Joe Kongkiatkamon; he is an awardee of the 2009 Endeavour PostgraduateAward, a competitive merit-based scholarship by the Australian government. He will be doing his LLM ingeneral law at the Sydney School of Law. He leaves Thailand on 28th Jan 09. Suwit competed for Thailandin 2005 and 2006.

Volume 5, Issue 2



THANKS FOR READING! LET US KNOW WHAT Y OU THOUGHT:

[email protected]

Level: Intermediate

The object of thegame is to placeeach of the numbers1-9 once within arow, column, and3x3 box. You can-not repeat any numbers within the samerow, column, or 3x3 box. There is no use

of math at all!

Good Luck!

Answers on the FOJCommunity websitenewsletter page

1

2 6 1 4 9

9 6 8

3 1

8

2 4 6 3 9

4 3 6 2 1

Sudoku By Rebecca Grabski

Winter HolidaysCrossword

By Andrew Fuller

foj: friends of jessup!

Documents