You are on page 1of 44

WINTER 2008

INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION


Volume 5, Issue 2

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


ILSA Is Pleased to Announce:
Judge Registration is Now Open! For Regional and National Rounds information see pages 12-15; For the International Rounds Volunteer Judge Application Form go to http:// www.ilsa.org/judges/ Debut of the FOJ Online Community: http://www.ilsa.org/ foj/fojoomla/ Release of the White & Case Jessup Guide
Message from the ILSA Executive Director

Seasons greetings to Friends of the Jessup around the world. We have many 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 Jessup Competition is turning out to be another successful year in terms of participation. At last count, 550 teams from 82 different countries are registered. While most of us were resting over the holiday season, thousands of studious Jessup participants were hunkering down, locking themselves in libraries and planting themselves in front of their computer 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 find a schedule of National Rounds listing the dates, locations, and administrators of our qualifying tournaments around the globe. If you would like to volunteer to judge at any of these competitions, 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 at www.FOJ.org, the FOJ Online Community is a place where FOJs can stay connected to the Jessup Competition and to each other. The site includes the latest news on the competition, a calendar of Jessup events, the current and past issues of the FOJ Newsletter, a list of volunteer 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 International Rounds. 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

Inside this issue:


How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team The 8 Commandments of a Jessup Administrator Bailiff Coordinator Jennifer Englander Regional Interest Articles Country In Profile: Qatar FOJ In Profile: Anneliese Fleckenstein Interview with Ronald Bettauer 60th Anniversary of UDHR Contest Info FOJ Happenings Back Page Fun 5 8 10 16 34 36 38 40 42 43 44

The Jessup Effect: A Bailiffs Perspective


By David Rauzino
As a milestone 50th anniversary Jessup approaches, it has given me an opportunity to reflect upon my experience with the competition. The Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition has been a big part of my life, and during the time I have been involved with it, I have witnessed many changes. In my early days, this competition was small enough that most of the competitors and judges would get to know one another by weeks 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 for the weeklong event. The number of judges alone, in recent competitions, probably exceeds the 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 had only two paid employees)! They keep it going year-round, and the rest of this huge workload is shared among a large, and closely-knit group of volunteers including me.
Continued Pg. 3

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 2
International Law Students Association 25 East Jackson Blvd. #518 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: 312-362-5025 Fax: 312-362-5073 Email: ilsa@ilsa.org
Executive Director Jessup Competition Coordinator ILSA Programs Coordinator Jessup Outreach Coordinator
Board of Directors Chairman Leila Sadat Caroline Cowen Jill Schmieder Hereau Ashley Walker Amity Boye

FOJ Newsletter Editorial Board


Executive Editors Mara A. SmithEditor-in-Chief Amity BoyeSenior Editor Elizabeth BlackFinal Layout Caroline CowenFinal Review Rusty DalferesFinal Review Nedim HogicSpecial Articles Soroush KafiabadiInitial Review David RoghairInitial Review Ashley WalkerFinal Review International Regional Editors Francis YalleyAfrica Dr. Leng Xing-YuChina Sergey AlekhinCIS Sophie WernertEurope Ricardo ChirinosLatin Americas Jared OrmsbySouth Pacific Jonathan ButterworthUK Production Assistant Editors Andrew Fuller NYU, CASPre-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.

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 California Western School of Law Open Society Justice Initiative Greenberg Traurig Parker, Bush & Lane Washington & Lee University School of Law DePaul University College of Law Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Boston College Law School
Pedro M. Muoz, Esq. Cynthia Lichtenstein Sandra L. Hodgkinson, Esq. Brian Havel Mark Drumbl Dagmar Butte, Esq. David Baron, Esq. Kelley Askin, Esq. William J. Aceves

The FOJ Newsletter accepts submissions for content from FOJs, coaches, judges, students, professors, librarians, and other legal professionals around the world. Material must be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or text (.txt) format to fojnews@ilsa.org. Artwork, photographs, and advertisements should be submitted as computer graphic files. The editors 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 ilsa@ilsa.org.

Interested in Subscribing to the FOJ Listserv?


Its 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 uses to automatically send updates and announcements to subscribers. We protect your email address; it will only be used by the ILSA Executive Office. The FOJ Newsletter and Listserv keeps you up to date and informed about everything that happens in the Jessup World!

Arias & Muoz


Ved Nanda

U. of Denver Sturm College of Law Case Western Reserve Univ. of Law Northwestern Univ. School of Law
Steven Schneebaum, Esq. Amb. David Scheffer Michael Scharf

Greenberg Traurig
Mark E. Wojcik

John Marshall Law School

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 3

Message from the Executive Director (Contd from page 1) Fairmont Hotel in Washington, D.C. On January 19, we will send an email to the FOJ Network 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 International Building and Trade Center. For more information on this event, please see the Savethe-Date announcement on page 33. Finally, please join me in congratulating Mara on compiling another wonderful issue of the FOJ 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 in the Jessup Competition, written by none other than our Bailiff Coordinator extraordinaire, Jenny Englander, and our Bailiff-for-Life, David Rauzino. This issue also includes thoughtful articles on coaching Jessup teams, administering national Jessup competitions, and authoring 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 these roles with distinction and success. Among these pages, you will also find articles that discuss the Jessup competition from the perspectives of FOJs in five different countries China, Bosnia, Qatar, Russia, and Venezuela. These articles are another great demonstration of the diversity represented by FOJs and the competition itself. I hope you will enjoy reading this issue as much as I have. Warm wishes for a happy and successful New Year! Amity R. Boye ILSA Executive Director Jessup Effect (Contd from page 1) Although my work, and the work of many of the other volunteers at the Jessup, may be considered above and beyond the call of sanity, I consider it to be much more rewarding than simply being a duty. I think we all feel committed to being part of and helping to organize something really special each year. Why, then, do I the non-lawyer return year after year? Even for someone outside the field of law, the Jessup is a unique experience. It is an intense week of interpersonal relationships, where one can meet more diverse and interesting people than in the whole of the year. The term Jessup family is often used - and it is very accurate. There exists a family-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 am really 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 a car accident, my mom invited me to help at ASILs annual meeting. She indicated there would be a conference and mock trial competition where law students from around the world get together and compete. Since ILSA and ASIL shared the same building at the time, and normally scheduled the Jessup and the annual meeting concurrently, I would help out, as needed, at the competition. I thought this week would be a one-time event, with me helping out my mother and the
Continued Pg. 4

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!

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 4

Jessup Effect (Contd from page 3)

others at ILSA and ASIL, and then returning home to resume my work and school. What I didnt expect was how much I would be called on to do at the Jessup because they were so in 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 my life. I got to know the ILSA staff and volunteers and, as a result, was included as a part of this family. For someone growing up, and (up to that point) living only in the Philadelphia area, this was pretty heady stuff. In short, that first Jessup inverted the way I looked at the world, and, in that sense, Ive never looked back. I am a different person today and much of that is attributable to the experiences, friendships, and the unique and broad international view that can only be found at this competition. I never imagined that I would ultimately remain here so long . Through the years, Ive done everything from scoring to selling t-shirts everything, except judging and grading memorials 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 aspect of these proceedings is very important. For myself, I get a very interesting perspective. I meet many of the teams and the judges. I also try to get a feel for the students in the trenches, who argue the cases and are usually extremely nervous (I know Id be!). I try to take the edge off of this nervousness by making the proceedings as easy for everyone as possible. There is another major facet of the Jessup that is often overlooked. One former ILSA Executive Director articulated it in this statement: In the future, world leaders will look at each 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 rewarding about this competition. Among the ultimate objectives of the Jessup Moot Court Competition is that of fostering open communication and goodwill among people of many nations 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 from opposing 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 feeling that the world could and will become a better place. Although much has changed over my years at the Jessup, many of its positive fundamental aspects remain unchanged. It always has, and always will, offer a unique sense of internationalism that exists in few other places. This ever-growing Jessup family remains tight and cohesive. 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 foster the spirit of debate and relevant arguments on the major issues in our complex geopolitical world, while considering the concerns of both sides. Seeing this process at work is very intriguing, 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 on the fence about attending this year, to come to Washington for the International Rounds this March. Jessup 2009 will be the 50th anniversary of this competition. Many long-lost friends and acquaintances will be reconnecting there. I urge you all to be part of this special event, not only for the reasons I have outlined, but because as an important anniversary, I guarantee it will be a truly memorable experience.

Among the ultimate objectives of the Jessup Moot Court Competition is that of fostering open communication and goodwill among people of many nations and diverse backgrounds.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 5

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 Jessup year. 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 International Rounds, advancing minimally to the Semi-Final Rounds. The coaches were asked to provide information about themselves and their experience with the Jessup Competition and to complete the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. How and when do you approach team selection? When do you begin Jessup "season"? How do you advise a team to approach a problem? Any "secret" coaching techniques? I.e: things that work well for your teams, specific styles you encourage, etc. 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 and teams about techniques and strategies that have worked for other coaches. Heres what the coaches had to say:

Robert Beckman - I have been coaching Jessup teams in Singapore since 1978. This has given

me the opportunity to work with some of the best students our law school has produced. Our Jessup 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 academics. It has been a delight to work with such talent and sometimes to make a small contribution to 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 fall semester called International Legal Process in which she teaches advanced skills in drafting memorials and presenting oral arguments. The class size is 24-28 students. All of the moot team coaches are judges in the final oral arguments in the 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 international 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 contribute more 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. Depending on your experience, you can also give general guidance on how to research issues of international law, how to draft persuasive arguments, and how to present oral arguments. Coaches should never attempt to research the law or learn the details of the applicable law. They should understand that if the students are good, they will very quickly know much more about the facts and the law than the coach.
Continued Pg. 6

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 6

How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team (Contd from page 5)

had the 5th place Memorials, and I was ranked 5th place oralist. This gave me a false sense of competence, 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 Jessup including 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 practicing 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 in which 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 prepare a 20 minute oral argument based on one issue in either a past or present Jessup problem. The briefs and oral arguments usually occur approximately 8-10 weeks into the semester and the students are evaluated by 3 former Jessup competitors and me. We rank each student, giving slightly more weight (roughly 55%) to the oral argument. We also look at several intangibles in relation to the top scorers, such as whether they work well with others, have a positive attitude, seem compatible with the returning team members, etc. We usually have a full 5 member team, although our approach 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 Compromis, and we then meet to discuss the fact pattern in general and determine preliminarily what facts are critical to which 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 and truly answer the question asked, and 2) focus on the law and use the facts to illuminate the law rather than presenting the two in a disconnected fashion. Obviously, speaking style is important, and we spend significant time ensuring that the students have a smooth presentational style free from verbal tics, but we find that at least at the International Rounds, it is much more important to have a consistent theory of the case that carries through all four QPs and a thorough 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 encourage students to write down every question they receive in practice and not be satisfied until they have hunted down an answer. I would also encourage the coach constantly to find ways to bond the team, since success is entirely dependent on how well the group works together. Finally, I would recommend that the coach provide gentle but firm feedback if a student 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 the 20-22 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.

Dagmar Butte - I competed at the International Rounds with Lewis & Clark in 1990, where we

Ricardo Chirinos I participated in Jessup as a competitor in 2004 and 2005 as part of the team representing Universidad Catlica Andrs Bello (Venezuela), and have been coaching this same team since 2006. I volunteer with the Venezuelan Jessup Foundation in order to make the Jessup Competition known in Venezuela and encourage the participation of other law schools in the country. More recently, I was appointed as International Regional Editor of the FOJNL for Latin America. I am an associate with Macleod Dixon in Caracas, Venezeula.
Question 1: Our academic year starts in October and ends in July. Normally we organize the selection 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 the Continued Pg. 7 Compromis.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 7

How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team (Contd from page 6)

Question 3: Normally Jessup problems are very complex and involve very technical questions that cannot be properly approached without well-conducted research coupled with logic and common sense. These are the tools that I think are essential for Jessup. Question 4: Cant reveal any of my secrets or my team members will kill me. However, I can share two very important suggestions I always give them. First, I always encourage them to watch the videos of previous competitions since it helps a lot (especially for new team members) to switch to Jessup Mode. In addition, both while writing the memorials 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 become coaches. Having the experience of participating in Jessup, coaches are able to identify the mistakes they committed while they participated and create new ways of doing things that normally help the team work in a more efficient manner. 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 minds work hard to help the teams solve complex legal problems, to contribute to our society in a very meaningful way, and to share 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 Stephen at the ICTY at The Hague in 1996-1998, during its first two trials of Tadic and Erdemovic. I completed the BCL and MPhil at Oxford focusing on private and public international law. Before coming to the bar, I also worked as a Management Consultant with McKinseys and the Boston Consulting Group. Outside of practice, I teach part-time at the University of Sydney in Transnational Commercial Litigation and Public International Law.

Question 1: We competitively select students. We shortlist about 20-25 applicants. Each applicant will have 5 days to read a past memorial and be grilled for 10 minutes or so by judges in a mock four-person moot just like in Jessup. This is not to test style so much as to see how quickly the applicant can digest and synthesize a lot of new and complex material. 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 a subject 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) to Jessup. 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 to win each side of the argument. Then, set about proving/disproving each proposition by research and constantly testing and reviewing your working hypotheses. Dont 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 synthesize 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 and weighing the proof being presented. You dont give them an answer, but you do challenge any weaknesses in the arguments so the students improve the arguments and their thinking. Never stop asking why? Encourage team members to challenge each other, but respectfully and with the humility of realizing today you may be right, but tomorrow you may well be wrong. Question 5: A coach needs to find a very difficult balance between encouragement and criticism, and between teaching the students and treating them as equals as adults and lawyers to encourage them to become just that. At the same time, you need to remember that they are young adults, or young in the law, and their main aim is to learn. Also, a happy
Continued Pg. 8

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 8

How to Coach a Successful Jessup Team (Contd from page 7)

team is a successful team. The competition is long and arduous, and only by mutual support and respect can the team last 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 through an "audition" (they are given a problem to argue in front of a bench of judges). I understand that they are then selected on the merits of both their application (academic and other criteria) and how they fared in the audition. The decision is made over the course of the summer. As the coach, I do not 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 respondents) and choose their issues. I strongly recommend that they research and write their respective issues from the position 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 strongly recommend against the team assigning a particular issue to a team member to research both sides. I find that this stifles creativity and, given that the Jessup problems are so complex and controversial, I find that the result is that the student comes out understanding very well how both sides are weak, without being able to focus and argue how either one is strong! Finally, I urge students to consider, when choosing their sides and issues, taking a position that they find initially less intuitively appealing. My experience is that if they start out a sceptic and, in the end, can come up with an argument that they 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 improving your 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 encourage them 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 just to 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 failure so much more of a risk), but it also makes the experience (win or lose) so much more enriching and meaningful for the

The Eight Commandments of a Jessup Administrator


By Sophie Wernert, Jessup National Administrator, France
The personal decision to administer a Jessup competition may be stirred by very diverse motivations. Ultimately, it usually comes down to reproducing a positive experience from our years as competitors, promoting international law, and understanding the challenges behind (and supplementing) legal education. Different competitions mean different experiences. The following are solely impressions from my five years as Jessup national administrator for France. 1. Strive for quality and excellence The quality of judging is a reward for students and a positive label for a national competition. A high-level national competition is also more enjoyable for judges and in the long run, once the loss is digested, for teams as well!
Continued Pg. 9

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 9

The Eight Commandments of a Jessup Administrator (Contd from page 8)

In the past five years, the level of the French competition has significantly improved, primarily thanks to Jessup-experienced judges from abroad. Also, and this is very specific to the 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 students, has helped to spread a wealth of experience and know-how between teams, and contributed to mutually enriching their skills. 2. Be familiar with the Official Rules As primary enforcer of the Rules, administrators are accountable for ensuring fair conditions of competition and monitoring the development of the Jessup season. The Official Rules 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 the Rules whenever corresponding with teams. 3. Remember that you were once a competitor Having a competitors 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 educate students as to what is expected from them in the competition, especially with regards to advocacy skills and how they are an essential part of presenting legal arguments, as opposed to a superficial, unnecessary artifact. Jessup, as any other moot court, is not a chess competition with a logical result pending certain actions. Judging legal arguments leaves room for subjectivity. That parameter has to be explained and accepted by teams. 4. Create opportunities for teams to learn and interact Jessup is as much a learning experience as a vocational training opportunity. The chance for students, through side activities or networking events, to meet and interact with professionals (whether competition judges, sponsors, or special guests) and discuss career management and opportunities is another privileged means of rewarding teams for their hard work. 5. Show appreciation to volunteers for their commitment Judges, bailiffs, coaches, and other volunteers give up their free time. They should be treated 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 teams The 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 advancing to 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 over The ability to hear grievances is fundamental. To a certain extent, the sentiment, whether justified or not, that a teams abilities have not been fully acknowledged, may taint the reputation of the whole competition for a number of years. 8. Be the soul of the competition and the glue keeping it together Teams generally encounter a series of identified problems throughout the Jessup season: team-building, academic/coaching support, financing, travel issues, etc. Administrators are not social workers; however, mediation between team members may be necessary to keep a team together, especially those not benefiting from a strong moot court program.

Administrators are accountable for ensuring fair conditions of competition and monitoring the development of the Jessup season.

Jessica Ball (Irish Team 1984) here in Paris, 1987, as the Jessup Administrator from Paris II and Friend of the Jessup

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 10

International Rounds Bailiff CoordinatorJennifer Englander


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 was assured it was an easy job and, most importantly, that LOTS of bailiffs were needed. So, I signed up. Bailiff orientation was a little intimidating there was a lot to learn, and I worried I would mispronounce a judges name, bungle the case name, lose track of the time, or, heaven forbid, 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 it would be a lot better to sit behind a table telling people where to go than to worry about counting the time, conflicted judges, and fainting oralists. I mean, there could be no pressure 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 coordinator did. I quickly learned. That year, the competition schedule was running about ten matches 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 the role of the bailiff. My standard bailiff coordinator stump speech is as follows: The bailiff manages the round from start to finish. Pre-match preparation includes ensuring the room is prepared with clean glasses, fresh water, pencils, paper, and, not unimportantly, the right 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 is working properly, and does anything else required to make everything run smoothly. Postround, the bailiff conducts crowd control and collects scoresheets from the judges to turn in for recording, which is complicated when they forget to make sure the judges sign the scoresheets before returning to the black hole of the judges room. Since 2004 my stump speech has been greatly enhanced by Shearman & Sterling and my subsequent ability to tell 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 no Jessup round. That year at the Omni Shoreham we needed to fill 150 bailiff spots. This does not mean we needed 150 individuals, thankfully. Because of dedicated volunteers such as Dave Rauzino, who traditionally bailiffs in all 15 preliminary rounds and all runoff rounds, the number of individuals who actually have to be convinced to bailiff is somewhere between a handful and a heck of a lot. The twist that year was that I had to recruit about 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 the first 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, as described above, and ultimately returns to the judges room to escort the judges to the round. 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, including (most commonly) a shortage of bailiffs. Managing which bailiffs and judges are coming and going, who is available to bailiff which match, all while trying to convince tired and over-worked volunteers to bailiff just one more round and train last-minute
Continued Pg. 11

Jennifer Englander Bailiff Coordinator

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.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 11

International Rounds Bailiff Coordinator (Contd 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 still travel to Washington D.C. to volunteer as bailiffs. It is an incredible opportunity for them to watch other oralists, learn from the judges, and partake in all that the Jessup has to offer. Memorably, one of the Kenyan Jessup teams and longtime 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 to Jessup (and law) helped complete the bailiff schedule that year. In subsequent years bailiffs have been recruited in advance 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 interested in international law, international relations, moot court, debate, or generally having a good time. Many FOJs have been instrumental in introducing their students, law clerks, and associates to the joys of volunteering at the Jessup International Rounds, in turn adding to the bailiff staff. To all of those FOJs, thank you. The competition cannot go on without 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, they do return time and time again to bailiff, judge, and partake in the week as a Friend of the Jessup. I encourage all of you to inspire a new wave of FOJs by getting your students, associates, law clerks, and Jessup team members involved as volunteers at the Jessup International Rounds. We can always use more bailiffs!

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 in mind, 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 with the 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 and their 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 the writing 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 Quang Trinh. Based on their many years of experience as Jessup competitors, coaches and judges, these individuals provided invaluable advice and recommendations. The White & Case Jessup Guide is an ongoing project that will be regularly updated with new chapters and features, so we invite you to visit our website regularly. If you have any questions or recommendations, please contact Mark Luz (mluz@whitecase.com) or Elizabeth Black (eblack@whitecase.com).

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 12

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 13

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 14

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 15

The 2008 Shearman & Sterling Final Round DVD: The Case Concerning Criminal Proceedings between Adova and Rotania is available for purchase at http:// www.ilsa.org/merch/dvd.php. The video allows students to observe the general procedure and staging of oral rounds, the types of questions asked by judges, and the speaking style of world champions. The ILSA website also has DVDs from 2004 to 2007 and other ILSA merchandise available for purchase. If you have any questions or would like to submit an order, please contact Caroline Cowen at ccowen@ilsa.org.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 16

AFRICA
The Jessup Connection: Cultivating Global Friendships with the Jessup Experience
By: Alex Umole
My trip to Istanbul was an awesome one. October 2008 saw me on a plane to lovely Istanbul 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 I read later. But I must say that my trip was made more successful by virtue of my relationship 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 to Kiev, 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 rough edges 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 enable me to see some tourist sites and kill any possible boredom after my official events. It worked! Former Jessup participants and friends responded, even those Jessupers I didnt even know personally this is the Jessup connection. I was referred from one friend of the Jessup to another and each one welcomed me very warmly in the Jessup tradition into their cities. On this note, I must not fail to mention the lovely Begum Meram (Istanbul University), 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 in the heart of Moscow. I felt like a Czar after that mouthwatering meal! Dean Andriy Meleshevych, 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 a genuine warm welcome true to the Jessup Spirit. In a nutshell, I found Jessup Friends welcoming 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 fact that you should always know the people who you can count on and those you should count out. The book explained that psychologists have identified a sickness called "Relational illness": that's when people you surround yourself with make you sick. The author counseled readers to build meaningful and productive relationships over time in order to maintain a healthy social balance and also to maintain a working and walking progress thats upwardly 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 Jessup diverse, enduring and productive! Jessup provided a platform for me to interact with young 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 2003 during the Nigerian National Rounds. Nevertheless, I only had the opportunity to attend the International Rounds in Washington, D.C. as Nigerias National Rounds Administrator in 2004, where I led the Nigerian winning team, the Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria, 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 national qualifying rounds and then attending the International Rounds saw me forming friendships with professionals of like minds and collaborating with old friends.
Continued Pg. 17

Francis Yalley: International Regional EditorAfrica

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 17

The Jessup Connection (Contd 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, international 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 believe the Jessup experience makes a participant truly international and acts as a platform to cultivate global friendships and alliances. Great minds over centuries have emphasized the value of alliances. I have been told, great men believe life has to be an incessant process of repair and reconstruction, of discarding evil 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 conscience and the luxury of remembering those blessings." I plan on taking that advice to heart; I recommend it to you as well. Till we meet in person, I wish you everything of the best and the best of everything!
In Lima, Peru

By the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia

In Istanbul, Turkey

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 18

CHINA
Just have fun!
By Xian Gu I still remember how excited I was at the first sight of an invitation letter from ILSA which lay on the table of the director of my law school. Although I had no idea about what the Jessup International Law Moot Court was, I could not wait to find out. At the time, I was an undergraduate student and only postgraduates were qualified to participate on my schools team. Two years later, I was admitted to the Renmin University School of Law as a postgraduate student, majoring in international law, and my tutor was Professor Wenqi Zhu, who founded and organized the Chinese National Rounds of Jessup. On considering my application for Jessup, Professor Zhu questioned whether I could manage the time as I was translating a book at the same time. My response was that Jessup 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 happiness. It 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. I had table tennis training when I was a little girl and I found the confrontation between judges and attorneys is quite similar. The oral debate sessions 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 thinking was not during the competition, but after it. Every member of the team devoted all their time to carrying out the job as perfectly as we could. However, we did not advance to Washington. At the farewell dinner, one of the judges whose name I cannot recall came to me and said words that I will never forget: life is full of fun, so is 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 be from taking part in the competition itself, the brainstorming discussions with team members, the sleepless nights of research and writing, and the connection between you and judges.

Dr. Leng Xing-Yu: International Regional Editor China

[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.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 19

US REGIONAL ROUND INFORMATION


Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2009 U.S. Super Regional Competition Schedule FEBRUARY 12-15, 2009 Chicago / New York City / Houston
Preliminary Rounds: Feb. 13-14 Semi-final & Final Rounds: Feb. 15

Midwest Super Regional Chicago-Kent College of Law Chicago, Illinois Contact: Ashley Walker awalker@ilsa.org Northeast Super Regional Shearman & Sterling LLP New York, New York Contact: Jeffrey Brooks jbrooks@ilsa.org Southwest Super Regional University of Houston Law Center Houston, Texas Contact: Antonio Riva Palacio Lavin arivapa@ilsa.org

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


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

Mid-Atlantic Super Regional The George Washington University Law School Washington, District of Columbia Contact: Rachel Olander rolander@ilsa.org Southeast Super Regional University of Miami School of Law Coral Gables, Florida Contact: Jeffrey Rendin viceroy.rendin@gmail.com

FEBRUARY 26-MARCH 1, 2009 Portland


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

Pacific Super Regional Lewis & Clark Law School Portland, Oregon Contact: Asif Sayani asayani@ilsa.org

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 20

Commonwealth of Independent States


From the Russian Rounds with Love
By Maria Issaeva and Betsy Engebretson
The Russian National Rounds have come a long way in only seven years. In 2002, when White & Case Moscow started the Russian Rounds, only 14 teams competed, but in 2008, 44 teams participated, making it the largest national competition in the world. The 2009 Russian Rounds may beat last years record. Maria Issaeva, the Russian National Administrator, hopes that over 50 teams will compete, which is very fitting for the Jessups 50th year. What makes the Russian rounds unique and so popular? One aspect that has always made the Russian Rounds unique is Russias tremendous size. In 2002, the team from Khakassiya, in southern Siberia, had to travel 4,218 kilometers to Moscow, which took 73 hours by train, just to participate. Now teams from every corner of Russia, from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad, make the journey, hoping to continue on to Washington, D.C. The distance to Moscow does not deter teams once the spirit of Jessup takes hold. Bitterly losing in the quarterfinals in 2007, the team from Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law, in the Far East, came back to become the Russian National Runner-Up Team in 2008. The team decided to fly to Moscow both timesspending 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 Russian legal education. Russian law students spend most of their time listening to lectures about theory and the Civil Code, but do not always get a chance to put that theory into practice. The Jessup provides a venue for students to apply theory to a particular case, think outside of their classes, and stretch their legal knowledge. Russian legal education also does not greatly emphasize legal research and writing, so the Jessup provides a valuable challenge. Before writing the Jessup memorials, many students have never done research on such a large scale, nor written such a detailed legal argument. Doing the necessary research to be successful in the competition is sometimes very difficult because many participants do not have access to a wide range of materials, especially in English, 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 final year 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

Sergey Alekhin: International Regional EditorCIS

In 2008, 44 teams participated making [the Russian Rounds] the largest national competition in the world.

The Commonwealth of Independent States

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 21

From the Russian Rounds with Love (Contd from page 20)

a visiting professor from the Civic Educational Project (CEP), a special educational organization for Eastern Europe that existed until 2004. That professor, Magali Veneau, came to St. Petersburg for two years to teach international and European 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 CEPs existence, no one could afford to send qualified teachers to every Russian 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. Most Russian 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 is coached by a person who has never taken part in a similar competition to win. Nonetheless, there have been examples of success. The team from Moscow State Academy of Law for many years constantly made it to the advanced rounds of the Russian Competition with their coach, Alexey Kubyshkin, who has never mooted himself, but the team had never made it to the top four. Finally, in 2008, the team advanced to the top four and received the right to compete in D.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 been entirely successful and problems still remain. Even the most experienced coach cannot be successful without his or her team having access to the necessary legal information. In most Russian libraries, including those at Russian law schools, you can only find books in Russian, and the first lesson you learn doing a moot court competition is that books in Russian are not enough to win. This situation is extremely frustrating because the participants have the desire to research, but simply do not have access to enough resources. 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 any other similar legal databases. Yes, some law schools may have purchased some recently published books but does only 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 court competitions, but she cannot provide each school with a qualified coach who is familiar with the concept of a moot court 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 around the world, including in Russia, now receive greater access to legal publications. In recent years, all Jessup teams have received passwords for online legal databases, such as Westlaw 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 from university libraries, eligible teams only receive ILSA distributed research passwords upon payment of the Jessup registration fee, which is rarely done before October or even November. Another reason for the Jessups popularity in Russia is that it is a fair competition. From the outset, the White & Case Moscow office took the competition into its own hands and committed itself 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 them not to move ahead. We hope that this fairness also inspires teams to come back again and again and helps the Jessups popularity spread across the country. The difficulties along the way only add to the passion of the Russian Jessupers. Teams not only come back year after year, but some have achieved significant success at the National and International Rounds. Russian Jessup alums are active in the legal sphere in Russia and around the Continued Pg. 22

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 22

Commonwealth of Independent States


From the Russian Rounds with Love (Contd 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 legal advisors 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 the Jessup as judges, coaches, and administrators. Evgeniya Rubinina, a World Bank lawyer, MGIMO 2005 Jessup alumna, and alumna of Oxford and Harvard Universities, annually refers 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 to Russia to, among other things, become the Russian Jessup Administrator, which she believes is one of the most important activities in her professional career. Russian Jessupers understand the value of the Competition. They care, they give, and they love public international law. Despite the hardships and challenges, the emerging Jessup community in Russia optimistically looks ahead to the future and is prepared to continue surprising the world but that is a topic for another article. Russian Rounds Pictures: Page 20-22 1. Russian Competition Final Round 2008: Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law vs. St Petersburg State University 2. The 2008 Russian Winners: St. Petersburg State University shaking hands with Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law 3. Russian Jessup Booklet and participants 4. 2008 Judges Board and National Administrator 5. 2008 Best Oralist of Russian Competition: Inna Shtraykher pleading (Higher School of Economics -Nizhny Novgorod Branch) 6. In the Judges Room 2008 (from left to right): Kirill Belogubets (judge), Maria Issaeva (NA), Alexey Konovalov (judge) 7. Judges (from right to left): Denis Vaskov, John Place, Polina Tulupova.

Our Jessup Adventure!

By Sanja Sehovic

It seemed almost unbelievable when I received the news that I was going to be one of the five students who was going to represent our Faculty of Law, University of Tuzla, at the Jessup 2008 Competition. At that moment we knew nothing about Jessup. Coming from a country like Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was clear to my teammates and me that if we truly wanted 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. The educational system does not support ideas like the Jessup Competition at all. We knew that we could only get moral support and nothing else. My teammates and I, although all excellent students, were confronted with a seemingly unsolvable puzzle: the Jessup Compromis. For that assignment we were total amateurs. Bosnia and Herzegovina participated in Jessup only once before in 2004, and we did not have any coaching 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 investigate the 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.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 23

Our Jessup Adventure! (Contd 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 the contact information of a person who was a judge at the Jessup Competition, our remote coach Ms. Mara Smith. She did everything 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 gathered some basic information through ILSAs website, it was important that our remote coach gave us concrete instructions on how to write memorials, how to cite legal sources, how to prepare our speeches, etc. There are probably many teams for whom a remote coach is the only help they have. We tried to gather as much information as we could, but even so we were not able to prepare ourselves without professional support. Our part of the task was to ask precise questions. Our remote coach introduced us, step by step, to everything that was relevant, providing us with commonly asked questions and legal sources where we could find the right answers, and helping us figure out persuasive arguments, among other things. Another thing that we were not familiar with was arguing our case before judges, which sounded frightening. For this reason, 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 International Rounds, every question seems like the most difficult one. Students should know that some questions are there just to clarify the agents 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 encourage students not to be afraid, especially those students with language barriers. At the moment when fear is combined with stress and anxiety, even one word can cause total blackout. Coaches should be the ones to tell students that it is 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 answer 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 in the most prestigious International Law Moot Court Competition and we are proud of it. We had a chance to see Washington, D.C. We had the best opportunity to meet leading international law experts and to open our minds to new ideas and experiences. What is most important: we became friends with hundreds of students from all around the world who share our passion for international law. The Jessup Competition changed our lives for the better, and that is the biggest victory of them all!

2008 Bosnia Jessup Team From Left to RightHarun Hadzihafizbegovic, Svjetlana Ivanovic, Sanja Sehovic, Mirna Avdibegovic and Elvir Mahmuzic

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 24

EUROPE
From Jessup to the Court
By Alina Miron and Daniel Mller
Professor Alain Pellet, one of the regular counsel pleading before the International Court of Justice, 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 fictitious court; real States are pitted against one another before the International 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 court of 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 Zealand v. France), Judgment, ibid., p. 476, para. 58 and p. 466, para. 30) as laid down by the drafters of the Statute (Article 38, para. 1). Real disputes, submitted by real States. But is it so different to participate in a real case as compared to participating (or to coaching) in the Jessup? The answer must obviously be yes. Nevertheless, the Jessup is not so different from The Hague experience and, unquestionably, it proves to be a fruitful preparation. Indeed, as is the case in the Jessup competition, the preparation and the pleadings before the Court in The Hague is a team effort. Counsels are never alone before the Court. They only 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 only an exercise of legal argumentthe part normally taken care of by the legal teambut involves 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 no less then a mercenary committed to the client, a sovereign State. This results in endless 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 that in the end it is for the client and its agent to make the real decisions and to dispose of the case. Counsels work is not only to plead the law, but, first and foremost, it consists of advising and assisting the client throughout the entire procedure (and even once the judgment has been rendered). Both exercises require the ability to work in a more or less multicultural team with all its advantages and disadvantages. In this regard, the Jessup is certainly a great test and training experience. The reality of the impact of a contentious case has further consequences for the preparation of pleadings in The Hague. Whereas a bean of improvisation is looked for and highly appreciated 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 the first round of pleadings in order to be checked and cross-checked not only by legal counsel and their assistants, but also by the Agent and the political authorities. This not the only reason, Contrary to the Jessup, where English is the predominant language used (as is French in the Concours Rousseau), the Court may be addressed, and quite often is
Continued Pg. 25

Sophie Wernert: International Regional EditorEurope

As is the case for the Jessup competition, the preparation and the pleadings before the Court in The Hague is a team effort.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 25

From Jessup to the Court (Contd from page 24)

addressed, in both English and French. It is common practice to assist the highly-qualified interpreters and to submit the 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 related to the case and to put into question the legal strategy chosen, the Courts task is to listen, stoically, to the arguments. This underlines quite prominently the difference between a Jessup competitor and a sovereign State! Even if a question is asked to a State party at the end of the first or second round of the pleadings, it is always free not to address it 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 announcing the 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 and lets 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 practitionersthe 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 Dfense/ Nanterre and Researcher at the Center for International Law of Nanterre (CEDIN). She served as adviser for the government of the Russian 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 twice coached the Jessup team from the University Paris Ouest-La Dfense/ Nanterre.
Alina Miron (far right) and Daniel Mller (behind Alina Miron) and their 2006 University Paris Ouest-La Dfense/ Nanterre Jessup team

Daniel Mller is a Researcher at the Center for International Law of Nanterre (CEDIN). He served as counsel and advocate 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 Dfense/ Nanterre and was Jessup National Administrator in France.

Participant arguing in the final rounds at the Peace Palace, The Hague

Left to Right: ICJ Judges Guillaume, Judge Bedjaoui (former ICJ President), and Judge Weeramantry

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 26

Latin Americas
Venezuela Also Celebrates This Jessup Season
By Elisabeth Eljuri, Venezuelan National Administrator
As we all know, the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition is the worlds largest moot court competition and gathers law students from all over the world. This year the competition arrives at its 50th anniversary, which we all celebrate with great joy and enthusiasm. This, however, is not the only anniversary to celebrate this year, since this will also be the 20th consecutive year of Venezuelas participation in the Jessup, which makes us all very happy and proud of the great effort that Venezuelan students have made throughout these years, despite the lack of resources in our law schools and the natural language barrier. Venezuela had participated in some isolated occasions in the 70s but its more formal participation began in 1988-89 and has not stopped since. Venezuelas Jessup track-record Over the years, Venezuelas performance in the Jessup has been outstanding and something to be proud of: In 1997, Venezuela became the first truly non-native speaking team, and Latin American team, to win the Competition. As a consequence of this victory, the Philip C. Jessup Foundation in Venezuela was created. That year, the written submissions of the Venezuelan team obtained honorable mention for the 9th place. Moreover, one of the team members, Maria Teresa 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 submissions 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 Catlica Andrs Bello Team), participating for the second time in the competition, made it to the championship round (and the Final Video!) twice in a row. 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 memorial. 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 Alona Evans 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 International Law Institute for being the best oralist of the team that received the World Champion Memorial Award. In 2005, Venezuela obtained fifth place in the oral rounds after being defeated by the world champion that year (Australia). For the third time, the Venezuelan team was awarded the Richard R. Baxter award for Best Applicant memorial and it also won third place for the Alona 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

Ricardo Chirinos: International Regional EditorLatin Americas

In 1997, Venezuela became the first truly nonnative speaking team, and Latin American team, to win the Competition.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 27

Venezuela Also Celebrates This Jessup Season (Contd 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 Paddeu obtained an honorable mention for being a top ten oralist. In 2007, Venezuela advanced from the preliminary rounds obtaining 11th place in the overall ranking of the Competition. The memorials achieved the 4th place in the Dillard Award and ranked among the top ten memorials of the International Rounds, winning the Alona Evans Award. Last year, in 2008, the Venezuelan Team advanced to the Octo-Final Rounds after ranking 4th in the Preliminary Rounds of the Competition and obtained 6th place in the Hardy C. Dillard Award. How is the Jessup Competition Possible in Venezuela? The success of Venezuelan teams in the Jessup Competition is owed to the great dedication of the students that participate every year, but also to the work of the Philip C. Jessup Foundation, created by former Jessup Venezuelan participants to organize Venezuelan participation and to raise the necessary funds for Venezuela to continue participating. The Foundation is administered by previous participants in the Jessup Competition and is lead by Elisabeth Eljuri, who is also the National Administrator of the Competition in Venezuela. 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 has over 500 volumes on public international law. The Jessup Library is housed at the Caracas office 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 on the 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 excellent performances, to overcome the natural barrier of the language that Venezuelans (as non-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 Montevila, 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 excellent and 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 Jessup Competition continue to grow in our country and to expand our limited literature in the field of public international law in order to provide Venezuelan students with the opportunity to compete on equal footing with the most powerful law schools of the world. If you wish to make a donation or contribution to the Philip C. Jessup Foundation or require additional information in this regard, please kindly contact the Venezuelan National Administrator, Elisabeth Eljuri at elisabeth.eljuri@macleoddixon.com.

The main goal of the Venezuelan Philip C. Jessup Foundation is to have as many schools as possible participating.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 28

South Pacific - New Zealand and Australia


Supreme Court Case on Fiduciary Duty to Mori Withdrawn
By Jared Ormsby
In 2006 we witnessed the problem in the Case Concerning the Elysian Fields. On the one hand, Acastus decided to grant the indigenous Elysians citizenship and guarantee them a seat in the parliament, as well as seeking to extend their protection through domestic courts and the International Court of Justice. On the other hand, Rubria had not allowed them to vote, destroyed their lands for mineral extraction, and forced them to work on the pipeline at gunpoint (State Responsibility issues aside) with sorghum as payment. In reality, the situation is rarely as black and white as this; however, the question remains as to where on the spectrum 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 Mori, the indigenous people of 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 Mori and the New Zealand Government. In 2007 the New Zealand Court of Appeal in New Zealand Mori Council & Ors v Attorney General [2007] NZCA 269 (the "FOMA case") looked at the issue of whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the New Zealand Government (the "Crown") and Mori. Perhaps surprisingly, the New Zealand Court of Appeal did not follow the High Court decision on this issue and considered that there was no fiduciary duty between the Crown and Mori. The Supreme Court granted the Mori parties leave to appeal and the case was due to be heard this year. However, in November 2008 the appeal to the Supreme Court was withdrawn by consent of the parties. Accordingly, the issue of whether or not there are fiduciary obligations owed to Mori 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 that the Court of Appeal might acknowledge that fiduciary obligations were owed by the Crown to Mori. In the 1980s and early 1990s, then President of the Court, Sir Robin Cooke, had made obiter dicta comments that such a duty was likely to be recognised. Commentators had considered the judgments of the United States Supreme Court in Seminole Nation v United States (1942) 316 US 286 and of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Guerin 13 DLR (4th) 321, to be of persuasive value. The judgment in the Guerin decision had been seen to be particularly relevant and obiter dicta remarks had been endorsed as relevant by the New Zealand Court of Appeal. President Cooke stated in Te Rnanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General [1990] 2 NZLR 641: The judgments in Guerin . seem likely to be found of major guidance when such matters come finally to be decided in New Zealand.. However, in the judgment of New Zealand Mori Council and Ors v Attorney-General [2007] NZCA 269 given last year, the Court of Appeal appeared to reverse its course and stated: If [the High Court] is saying that the Crown has a fiduciary duty in a private law sense that is enforceable against the Crown in equity, we respectfully disagree.
Continued Pg. 29

Jared Ormsby: International Regional EditorSouth Pacific

Since [February 1840] the New Zealand Courts have grappled with the issue of the precise nature of the relationship between Mori and the New Zealand Government.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 29

Supreme Court Case on Fiduciary Duty to Mori Withdrawn (Contd from page 28)

The Court distinguished the Canadian approach on the basis of a different statutory and constitutional context, adopting a different view to that of President Cooke in Te Rnanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General. As matters currently stand, the existence of a fiduciary duty between the Crown and Mori has not been recognised by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has been denied the chance to have its say on the issue at the moment, but is expected to consider it at its next opportunity. We have to wait and see whether, in the end, New Zealand law will follow that in North America, or continue on the path now set by the Court of Appeal.

Christine Brown; 1998 ILSA President, Tokyo - Discussing the 1998 Jessup Problem.

JessupNationalRounds Judgeregistrationhasopened!
ToJudgeMemorialsandOralRoundsinaparticularcountry orregion,pleaseemailthecorrespondingAdministrator identifiedwithinpages1215oftheNewsletter. TojudgeU.S.MemorialsorOralRoundsattheU.S.Super Regionals,pleasecontactthecorrespondingU.S.SuperRe gionalAdministratorsidentifiedonpage19oftheNewsletter. JudgeRegistrationfortheShearman&SterlingInternational RoundsinWashington,D.C.,isnowopen.Allmembersofthe FriendsoftheJessuplistservewillreceiveanemailannounce mentregardingjudgeregistrationattheInternational Rounds.Youwillbeinvitedtoindicateyourdate&timeavail abilitytojudgeOralRounds,andyourinterestinjudgingMe ILSAwebsiteat:http://www.ilsa.org/judges/.

CALLINGALLJUDGES

Steven Schneebaum; Kate Green; Student Officer Isis Bous; Elizabeth Black; Neil Michael Peil

Pam Young ,2nd from right; Paul Karlson far right

Elizabeht Black presenting Keith Norton with an morials,intheonlineVolunteerJudgeApplicationformonthe oralist Award.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 30

United Kingdom
UK Legal Aid Reforms
By Jonathan Butterworth
The ILSA mission statement to contribute to legal education, to foster mutual understanding, and to promote social responsibility of students and lawyers is synonomous with notions of justice and fair play. After all, which Jessup moot court passes without the infamous question: Does the applicant/respondent state have clean hands? The United Kingdom, however, is in the midst of reforming its legal aid system to produce highly inequitable results. The long path of reform stretches from the The Legal Aid Act 1988, to the Access to Justice Act 1999, and reaches its present state in the Carter Reforms 2005. In Legal Aid Reform The Way Ahead (2006) the government describes the policy as a market-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 and advocates 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 defendants were funded by legal aid in 100 very high-cost trials with the cost reaching 100 million. One government minister defined the aim of the reforms as: ensuring the longterm sustainability and future of legal aid. We want to get the best value for money so that we 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 goals of the government. Legal aid provision has been drastically cut: more than 80% of UK individuals had access to legal aid in 1987 (about 44 million people), but now only 41 percent do (24.6 million people). The budget in 1990 totalled 1.4 billion; 18 years later in 2008 it has only increased to 2 billion annually. This does not keep pace with inflation. As a 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 (Queens 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 fee that 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 barristers due to the low pay. Out of a possible total of 2,300, only three QCs and roughly one hundred barristers have agreed to form the new panel of lawyers established by the Carter reforms to handle long trials. This grim reality raises the question of whether the reforms are compatible with the UKs international human rights obligations. These include obligations under Article 47, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, whereby legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. 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 minimum rights: ... (c) To defend himself in person or through legal assistance or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the
Continued Pg. 31

Jonathan Butterworth: International Regional EditorUK

It is questionable whether the UKs market based reforms meet the criteria of effectiveness given the greatly reduced funding of the service and fifty percent reduction in clients served.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 31

UK Legal Aid Reforms (Contd from page 30)

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. The situation is given added complexity as the interests of justice in the ECHR and ICCPR requires definition. Relevant factors to be taken into account include the complexity of case, the seriousness of the offense, and the ability of the defendant to participate (Quaranta v. Switzerland ECHR (1991)). It is questionable whether the UKs market based reforms meet the criteria of effectiveness, given the greatly reduced funding of the service and fifty percent reduction in clients served. Furthermore, a contextual application of the above factors to many recent criminal cases suggests that the minimum wage of 91 per hour will not be adequate to attract expert QCs. If the criminal law system is to be fair and just, it requires expert barristers to prosecute and defend to avoid miscarriages of justice. Admittedly, the system in the 1980s was in need of reform to abolish taxpayers funding millionaire 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 suffering as a result. It is submitted the UK does not have clean hands.

UK Scheme to Disclose Background Information on Sex Offenders


By Sarah Walker, UCL LLM
Fact mirrors fiction. Alicanto accuses Ravisia of committing sexual offences in its territory and furthermore demands disclosure 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 designed 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 the US's "Megans Law." Both the efficacy and human rights compatibility of this scheme are hotly disputed amongst members of the UK legal community. In essence, they allow a concerned parent, carer, or guardian to receive background information on an individual in contact with a child where this individual is deemed to pose a risk. Anyone is able to make such a request to the police, although the information may only be disclosed to the parent, carer, or guardian of that child and must not be passed on to any 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 relevant information and at what level the history of the individual becomes a risk to a child is unclear. The decision to disclose such information is taken by a panel composed of the police, the probation officers and prison services, and the decision 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 domestic abuse may have his/her details disclosed. The concern is that the parent or carer receiving this information may feel obliged to pass this on to other parents, and that vigilante acts may then follow.
Continued Pg. 32

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 32

UK Sex Offenders (Contd from page 31)

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, and can often provoke violent results. There is no such comparable right in relation to those convicted of murder or grievous bodily harm later released into the community. The schemes ignore the benefit of community engagement for the rehabilitation of an offender, and instead prevent the offender from beginning anew. Their past crimes are not allowed to remain in the past.
Sarah Walker UCL

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.

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 privacy 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 potentially 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 already known to victims, and there is no guarantee that the parent involved will feel able to contact the police; predatory paedophiles target the parent as well as the child), yet certainly limit an offenders chances of leading a normal life once his or her prison sentence has been discharged.

1959 Trivia: Who Knew?


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

*Compiled by Rebecca Grabski

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. Lawrence? 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 and included such countries as Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal? The EFTA or "European Free Trade Association"
Jessup participants and Judges (left) Steven Schneebaum and (center) Stephen Schwebel.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 33

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 34

Country in Profile: Qatar


By Talal Al-Emadi
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 recognized Sheikh Abdullah bin Jassim Al-Thani as the Ruler of the country. The Al- Thani family had lived in Qatar for 200 years, and have ruled Qatar since the mid-nineteenth century. The 1916 treaty between the United Kingdom and Sheikh Abdullah was similar to those entered into 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 foreign 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 western side of the Qatari peninsula. Exploitation was delayed by World War II, and oil exports did not begin until 1949. During the 1950s and 1960s gradually increasing oil reserves brought prosperity, rapid immigration, substantial social progress, and the beginnings of Qatars 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 Sheikdoms representing the current United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar explored the idea of a union or federation, but Qatar and Bahrain decided against joining. Qatar sought independence 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 a small peninsula that extends into the Persian Gulf from the east side of the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi Arabia is to the west and the United Arab Emirates to the south. Qatar is the home of Al Jazeera, the immensely popular and controversial Arabic satellite television network. Qatar introduced its first constitution on June 9, 2005. It guarantees freedom of expression, 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 based on 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 educational experience! The Jessup provided our law students with the advantage of getting involved in simulated sessions in which students utilize and enhance their analytical thinking and 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 school here is, compared to others, relatively young (new). We have no local moot court competitions yet. We have only started internships recently. Qatar is not a common law system, so its students are not case law oriented, so having them compete in Jessup is a wonderful opportunity. Personally, I feel honored to have coached the first Qatar University (QU) Law College Jessup Team in 2008 a solid group of students who will surely utilize this experience when they embark into the practice of law. Although the Jessup has many positive qualities, the one that stands out the most is the Jessups team-oriented phenomenon. The teamwork that the Jessup promotes displays to law students and faculty the art of teamwork in legal practice. Our law students surely witnessed that the way to reach a positive outcome (especially in extremely complicated cases) is to come together and utilize the intrinsic value each team member offers. On the same note, and once in Washington DC, the Jessup provided our students the opportunity to interact and learn from world-renowned academic professionals,
Continued Pg. 35

Talal Al-Emadi is a lecturer in law at the University of Qatar; D.Phil. candidate at the University of Oxford

Although the Jessup has many positive qualities, the one that stands out the most is the Jessups teamoriented phenomenon.

Qatar 2008 Team: Go National Dress Ball

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 35

Country in Profile: Qatar (Contd from page 34)

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 solid arguments and strategies. I would not be exaggerating in saying that a law school without moot courts, such as the Jessup, is like a science school without labs. I really felt that that there really weren't a lot of challenges in starting Jessup at QU, but that is QU Jessup 2008 Certificates because sources of help were available. However, it requires someone to know what Day (Dean Hassan, Talal, Dr Jessup is, to start things. I only knew about Jessup because of my Harvard LLM days. Hanan & Students Ahmed & 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 absolute must for every law student and all law schools as it prepares them for a career as future legal professionals. I cant thank Qatar University enough and the International Law Students Association (ILSA) for allowing us to be part of 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 from many 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 is that it helps in gathering law students from countless and different countries, which creates an effective exchange of law concepts and cultures. The oral arguments before judges and professors help in building confidence that each law graduate needs when he/she faces the real world after graduation. Every law student must consider himself lucky to participate in Jessup, and I cant 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 really never knew that the public international law (PIL) could be that applicable and effective in settling and providing solutions in international conflicts. Jessup provided rich experience for studying such complicated cases covering many important aspects of PIL, cases that are so similar to what the world is facing nowadays. I am not a law student, but I can tell that Jessup is the best experience ever for any law college student; he/she would never feel the importance and the 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 accept them more than I used to do. The Jessup experience taught me how the worlds nations may vary in many issues, but they 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 Masters 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 obstacles to gain a successful experience in such a huge international event. Many thanks to Dr Abdulla Al-Mislumani for his support, time, and efforts he provided during months of local training, and to Dr Hanan Malaeb for being a supportive 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 QU teams!
Qatar and Lithunaia and Jessup teams and judges after an oral round. Lena Abouelea.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 36

FOJ in Profile: Anneliese Fleckenstein


I was born in Venezuela of a Canadian/American mother and a German father; my worldview 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 circumstances that surrounded my experience, that I became fascinated with public international 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, Venezuela underwent huge political and social disturbances. People decided to boycott the economy and took to the streets because they were enraged and tired of the way the government was running its policies. By 2002 strikes and marches had become quite common in our day-today life. It was the only way the general population could express its profound discontent with the utter disrespect and abuse of power the government had towards the country, the people, and its democracy. Venezuelas national strike started out as a one day strike which was then extended daily until it was finally declared indefinite. There was a series of events that led to this national discontent, including a number of laws that were passed by an enabling 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 boycott was the strike that occurred in April 2002 when, after a couple of days of strike in the main oil industry PDVSA, thousands of people gathered on one of the highways of Caracas to walk to the Central Park. En route, the leaders decided to take the march to the presidential palace instead. This march was comprised of men, women, and children who, carrying flags and whistles, were marching to ask the president to resign. The events that unraveled during this march were unprecedented. Supporters of the government shot at the crowd, and police forces threw tear 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 rule with 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 in the private and oil sectors decided to boycott the economy in order to pressure the president to stop pursuing his socialist policies or step down as president. This resulted in almost all commerce in Venezuela shutting down, which meant, among other things, sparse gasoline to fill the cars up and only basic food supplies. Our team stopped for a few days, but with no sign of the social unrest coming to a halt, we decided to resume our studying. There were strikes at least once a week, and the lines to fill cars up were days long. Every night at a fixed time the whole country would engage in the so called caserolazos where we would bang pots and pans with spoons as a sign of complaint. Sometimes so many streets were blocked that we couldnt get from one point to another, so we had to stay at home and work 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 was a clash between government forces and a crowd of civilians gathered at the famous Plaza Altamira in Caracas, where 3 civilians died and more than 20 were injured. The people were gathered there to hear military officers in opposition speak against the government and 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

Anneliese Fleckenstein

[Jessup] distracted me from the grim circumstances [surrounding me at the time] and in the end 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.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 37

FOJ in Profile: Anneliese Fleckenstein (Contd from page 36)

months, those events began to calm down, and the country once more started functioning. In spite of this situation, I was 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 me in a concise way of writing, a style completely opposite from the writing style I had learned in Venezuela: you have an issue, the accompanying rule, and you apply it to the facts. This was an important lesson. But for me, this experience meant more. It distracted me from the grim circumstances, and in the end 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 currently works for the World Bank in Washington D.C.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 38

Interview with Ronald Bettauer former Jessup Compromis Author


By Mara A. Smith
I spoke with Ronald Bettauer, ABA International Law Section award recipient of the Outstanding Performance by an International Lawyer in Government, about his experience with Jessup, including his authorship of the1977 Nuclear Proliferation Problem. Heres 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 Advisers Office. I became involved in ASIL activities and got to know the people who were running the Society. After 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, including nuclear proliferation issues, which were getting increased attention in the wake of the Indian nuclear test. At that point, I had spent seven years in the legal office, and I was happy to do it. Tell us about the problem you wrote Writing the problem was fun; it was like working out a puzzle. The problem comprised: a cover page, 4 pages of factual set up materials plus agreement texts I prepared, in all about 7 pages. The problem dealt with a country that hadnt yet tested a nuclear device but wanted to start reprocessing imported nuclear materials that was subject to consent rights under 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 problemit was within the topic area I was working on in the legal office of the State Department. One key underlying issue was the extent of U.S. consent rights. Non-proliferation legislation was pending on the Hill. We in the government considered that withholding consent for reprocessing, even if safeguards arguably could be effectively applied, was permissible under the agreement and that if a country proceeded without consent it would be in breach. This obviously raised treaty law issues. These were all the kinds of issues we would face when we developed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. The old India nuclear cooperation agreement had some of the same language on the consent to reprocessing as was included in the problem. The names of the parties to the 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 Grand Duchy of Fenwick, after the fictitious country in the Peter Sellers movie The Mouse That Roared. 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 an unspoiled country in mountainous region. I received the note from the ASIL group that said that even though they agreed with me that Shangri-La was an overused name, they felt that 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 could find the agreements, treaty law authorities, ILC reports, the pending legislation, and so forth. They could also address what role domestic legislation played in an international law case.
Continued Pg. 39

Ronald Bettauer: Author, 1977 Nuclear Proliferation Problem.

Writing the problem was fun; it was like working out a puzzle.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 39

Interview with Ronald Bettauer (Contd 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, but at 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 isnt 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 to condition nuclear supply on full scope safeguards. Originally, nuclear safeguards (which refers primarily to inspection and accounting measures by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear material and equipment is not diverted from peaceful purposes) were only required with respect to the material or equipment actually supplied; the change was that there would now be no supply unless everything in the country was subject to safeguards. The United States vigorously argued for this policy for many years. Now, the new Indian agreement abandons 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 treatment. There are many countries party to the NPT, and at each NPT review conference there are charges of discrimination between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states; countries argue that the weapon states have not fulfilled their promises to provide complete access to the civilian nuclear fuel cycle and to make progress toward nuclear disarmament. However, it is impossible to predict what the long-term impact of the change in policy will be on non-proliferation. While I have concerns, the world has changed from 30 years ago, and we can only wait and see how things 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 between the judges, and it is impossible to predict what arguments will win the day. It therefore seems important to run through the full range of colorable arguments that support ones 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 doesnt really expect spontaneous remarks by either party (arguments are all read out, and must be provided in electronic format in advance) or spontaneous questioning (questions which are not too frequent are normally asked at the end of both sides presentations, with the parties having time to prepare responses), which can be very different from a Jessup competition setting.

Before electronic means of organizing competition information, file boxes lined the ILSA office walls...Weve come a long way since then!

Jessup participants enjoying some free time!

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 40

Each year the Jessup Competition Basic Materials include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While the Jessup Moot is celebrating its 50th Anniversary, the UDHR turned 60 on December 10, 2008. The UDHR has been called a living document. It is the foundation of international human rights law, the first universal statement on basic principles of inalienable human rights and a common 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 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his Four Freedoms speech before the US Congress. President Roosevelt claimed four basic freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. As World War II ended 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. 18 delegates 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 embody innumerable recommendations from public and private groups that would, encompass the hopes, 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 Declaration of Human Rights without dissent. Forty-eight nations voted for the Declaration, eight countries abstained and two countries were absent.It was deemed an historic act, destined to consolidate world peace through the contribution of the United Nations toward the liberation of individuals from the unjustified oppression and constraint to which they are too often subjected (http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm). On Human Rights Day 2007, the United Nations Secretary General launched a year long UN system-wide advocacy campaign [which] aims to increase knowledge and awareness of human rights among the largest number of rights holders so that they can claim and enjoy their 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 this Human Rights Day, it is my hope that we will all act on our collective responsibility to uphold 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 everyone. (http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/index.shtml). On December 10, 2008 the UN General Assembly awarded the 2008 United Nations Prize in 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 years recipients were Dorothy Stang (posthumously), Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (posthumously), Denis Mukwege, Caroline Gomes, Ramsey Clark, Louise Arbour and Human Rights Watch. December 9, 2008 also marked the 60th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention which
Continued Pg. 41

President and Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt, looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Spanish. Credit: UN Photo.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 41

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Turns 60 (Contd from pg. 40)

Raphael Lemkin worked so tirelessly to be signed. The ultimate responsibility for preventing genocide lies with states. The UN has done a great deal to draw attention to this but what states should do, in my view, is to incorporate these 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 encourages them to kill their neighbours, she stresses. To commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Convention, the OHCHR is organizing 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 are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists -- and that it exists for them. On December 10, sixty years from its signing, the UN and the world, pay tribute to the extraordinary vision of the Declarations original drafters 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/).
2008 Human Rights Award Recipients A 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 Sister 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 AttorneyGeneral 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

NOW ACCEPTING DEAK AWARD NOMINATIONS


The International Law Students Association, in conjunction with American Society of International Law, is currently soliciting nominations for the Deak Award for the 2008 calendar year. The Deak Award is a prize provided by Oxford University Press for the best international law student article published in a student-edited law journal. The award honors 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 on April 10, 2008 at the Society's annual general meeting in Washington, DC. Waibel recently received a doctor of laws from 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 at the time the article was written, and the article must have been published in a student-edited journal during the award year (2008). All nominations satisfying these criterion will be considered by the awards committee, who will read each article and choose the winning submission. The winner of the 2008 award will be announced at the 2009 ASIL Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., in March. All questions and nominations (include students name, school, graduation year, article, and article citation) should be sent to Jill Schmieder Hereau at jshereau@ilsa.org by February 9, 2009.

Friends of Jessup Newsletter


Page 42

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 and future possibilities for the Competition. THREE CONTESTS

50th Anniversary Jessup 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 Jessup Cup

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 issues that 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 fojnews@ilsa.org 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 returned to entrant. By submitting content, entrant agrees to ILSAs public use of materials. WINNING SUBMISSIONS Contest winners will be announced at the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds during the Final Jessup Party on Saturday, 28 March 2009 (winners need not be present to win). Each Contest will have a first place, second place, and third 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 Rounds Competition week 22-28 March 2009. Questions regarding contest submissions should be directed to Mara A. Smith at fojnews@ilsa.org.

Volume 5, Issue 2
Page 43

FOJ HAPPENINGS
Catherine Newcombe and Untac Gunner in Instanbul. Catherine Newcombe manages 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 and Training (OPDAT). OPDAT posts experienced federal prosecutors in US Embassies throughout 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 corruption, particularly transnational criminality. She stopped in Istanbul to see Untac Guner while en route to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan where she visited one of her justice sector assistance programs. Untac Guner has legal offices both in Istanbul and Chicago serving multinational clients, including banks and governmental organizations, in local and international matters. The firm under his management is looking for litigators who have more than ten years experience in litigation and 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 the sexiest singles in Philadelphia. Bill is currently on sabbatical from the University of Pennsylvania at the Max Planck Institute of Comparative and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany. Carol Kalinoski and Russian FOJ Yaraslau Koryvoi discuss the first FDI Moot Problem in Boston Massachusetts this past November. The Foreign 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 the moot 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 the Appeals Chamber. He recently started working on the Milosevic judgment. Tom represented the University of New South Wales, Australia in 2008. Will Patterson has recently moved to Santa Ana, Costa Rica to begin a new job as an associate with Arias & Munoz. He will be co-coaching the University of Costa Rica's Jessup team. Will represented Lewis & 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: He will be a Senior Associate. He is part of the Dispute Resolution Group, specialising in Commercial Litigation and Insolvency Justice Thomas Buergenthal and Jerome Shestack received the Gruber Foundation Award for their work with human rights and justice through law. Judge Thomas Buergenthal, a child of the Holocaust who became a world leader in the struggle for justice, he serves as the American 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 Human Rights, helped end the practice of disappearances in Honduras, and helped secure the government of Guatemalas 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 in the 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 Postgraduate Award, a competitive merit-based scholarship by the Australian government. He will be doing his LLM in general law at the Sydney School of Law. He leaves Thailand on 28th Jan 09. Suwit competed for Thailand in 2005 and 2006.

THANKS FOR READING! LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT: FOJNEWS@ILSA.ORG

Winter Holidays Crossword


By Andrew Fuller

Sudoku
Level: Intermediate The object of the game is to place each of the numbers 1-9 once within a row, column, and 3x3 box. You cannot repeat any numbers within the same row, column, or 3x3 box. There is no use of math at all! Good Luck! Answers on the FOJ Community website newsletter page www.ilsa.org/foj/ fojoomla

By Rebecca Grabski

2 9 8

6 3 2 4

1 6 1 4 6 7 6 3 2

1 4

9 8

9 1 3 4