|
The 2008-2009 Susan J. Ferrell
Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition
January 30-31 & February 1, 2009
hosted by: St. Thomas University School of Law
Miami, Florida
Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition
The Susan J. Ferrell Moot Court Competition, now in its 4th year, is a competition revolving around a simulated court proceeding, in which teams representing both sides of the argument prepare written pleadings with respect to a fictional problem of international human rights law and policy, and present their arguments in an oral argument before the International Court of Justice.
We welcome you to this most exciting academic exercise!
Ferrell 2008-2009 Deadline Schedule
June 2008 Registration Opens.
19 September 2008 Ferrell 2008-2009 Problem Released.
30 September 2008 DEADLINE for Registration.
20 October 2008 DEADLINE for Submission of Questions
concerning Official Rules & Problem.
Requests must be sent by email.
14 January 2009 DEADLINE for Submission of Memorials.
Memorials must be mailed to:
St. Thomas University School of Law,
Ferrell Competition Coordinator, c/o Prof. Roza Pati
LL.M./ J.S.D. Program in Intercultural Human Rights
16401 NW 37th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33054
In accordance with the Official Rules,
it is the responsibility of teams to know
the submission requirements.
30-31 January 2009 Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition Preliminary Rounds.
1 February 2009 Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition Final Rounds.
Ferrell 2008-2009 Competition Schedule
Venue:
St. Thomas University School of Law
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
Phone: 305.628.6546
Fax: 305 474 2413
Friday, January 30
6:30 pm – 7:30 pm Orientation. Welcome Reception.
Location: TBA
Saturday, January 31
8:00 am – 9:00 am Continental Breakfast
Location: Breezeway
8:00 am – 8:30 am Coaches Meeting
Room: TBA
9:00 am – 10:30 am Preliminary Round 1 (# matches)
Room: TBA
11:00 am – 12:30 pm Preliminary Round 2 (# matches)
Room: TBA
12:30 pm – 2:00 pm Lunch
Location: TBA
2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Preliminary Round 3 (# matches)
Room: TBA
4:00 pm – 5:30 pm Preliminary Round 4 (# matches)
Room: TBA
6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Awards Reception
Location: TBA
Sunday, March 1
10:00 am – 11:30 am Final Round
Room: TBA
12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Awards Banquet
Location: TBA
Ferrell 2008-2009 Problem
2008-2009 Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition
The Case Concerning the People of Baroko
Panga v. Ringa
1. The State of Panga is a democracy with a parliamentary form of government. It is situated in the eastern region of the continent of Manicius; so are the States of Ringa and Gola. Gola is located to the west of Ringa, while Panga is located to its east. Panga is the dominant economic and military power in the region.
2. Historically, the continent of Manicius had been under colonial domination from powerful states on the continent of Tramano. One of the colonizing states, Binda, started a war against the other powers in Tramano in order to dominate the continent and the world. In 1918, Binda was defeated. The victorious states, including the State of Tango, decided to seize and take over her colonial possessions through a Peace Treaty entered into in Vanili, the capital of Tango (the “Peace of Vanili”). At that time, the territory of Ringa was one of Binda’s prized possessions on the continent of Manicius. The Peace of Vanili handed Ringa over to Tango. Tango also owned Gola, a territory to the west of Ringa. Tango administered Ringa as an autonomous colony.
3. As time passed, and under increasing pressure from the colonies and internal constituencies, the victorious powers realized that their hold on the continent of Manicius was not only tenuous, but morally wrong. They convened a conference, in 1945, which developed the historic “Manicius Plan of Action.” In this policy document, they decided to unconditionally grant independence to all their colonial possessions if the inhabitants of these territories chose that option by referendum under United Nations supervision. This process was to be completed by January 1, 1960. In properly administered referenda, both the populations of Ringa and Gola decided, by over 90% of their vote, to become independent. Tango scheduled December 31, 1959 as the date of withdrawal of her administration from both Gola and Ringa – thus demarcating the last day, year and decade of colonial rule. Ringa and Gola became independent the next day.
4. Ringa’s independence was marred by a simmering controversy over the destiny of the people of Baroko. Originally, the tribes of the Baroko and the Yoke formed part of the same clan, the Chomba clan. Both were living east of the Malingo River, on the territory of Gola, and shared the same culture, religion and customs. A chieftaincy dispute forced the disgruntled Baroko faction to cross to the other side of the Malingo River, on Ringa territory, where they have now settled for more than 400 years. Their new settlement provided fertile land conducive for their subsistence activities of raising and herding cattle and goats. They, however, continued visiting with their kith and kin on the other side of the river, leading to cordial interpersonal relations and intermarriage. On a daily basis, members of both tribes criss-cross the Malingo River to visit their families and relatives. This was the socio-cultural setting the colonial powers met. The colonial administrative apparatus was embraced by the Yoke, but bluntly denounced by the elite of Baroko. Tango proceeded to set up colonial institutions in Yoke. Binda, however, during its time of colonial rule, while establishing colonial structures within the rest of Ringa territory, respected Baroko self-rule and did not set up its own administrative structures in the territory of the Baroko. The Tango colonial administration that replaced Binda’s after the Peace of Vanili, also did not interfere with the Baroko scheme of self-government and their way of life. The Baroko people have been led, since time immemorial, by the Supreme Baroko Authority, headed by a Chief and other traditionally selected leaders.
5. The elites of Baroko perceived the Yoke as assimilating the colonial power’s values and institutions and thus as traitors who were embracing an alien way of life that had the potential to destroy the Chomba tradition. This perception increased the tensions between both tribes and eroded their traditional cordial relations. Ordinary people continued to visit their relatives, but the chiefs no longer held the annual common meetings they used to hold prior to colonization. In 1954, Professor Frans Boggel, a renowned scholar in Tramano, published a comprehensive study entitled The Transparent Curtain of Culture on the Gola/Ringa Border Stretch. It revealed that, although the colonial masters had long divided the natives into Gola and Ringa respectively, the people still shared much in common. He wrote:
Although a political line sought to tear the Chomba people apart, the bonds of culture have been too strong to be broken and the decision by Tango to administer Ringa as a part of Gola, is a timely political repair of a cultural damage. What I have found along this border is a divided people who have somehow refused to be divided. The fact remains, however, that the natives to the east of the Malingo River maintain a higher level of originality than those to the west. The eastern natives have remained indigenous peoples but those to the west have fully embraced foreign systems.
Boggel carried out his study during the colonial era. Colonization thus produced two distinct communities: an assimilated tribe (Yoke) and an indigenous society that represented a unique cultural island along the coastal border. The Government of Tango realized this and, as a precondition to granting independence to Ringa, Ringa was made to promise to respect the will of the Baroko people and their freedom from all outside interferences as Tango herself had done. Therefore, on January 1, 1960, in a treaty signed by representatives of Ringa, Tango, Panga and Baroko, all four parties acknowledged the autonomous status of the Baroko people. Ringa pledged not to interfere with the way the Baroko government dealt with activities on their land and regarding their people. Tango and Panga “recognized and guaranteed” the autonomy of Baroko; “in the event of a breach” of this treaty, each of these two guarantor powers “reserve[d] the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the treaty.” At the same time, Ringa enshrined the autonomous status of Baroko in its constitution. Things went on cordially for the next ten years after independence.
6. In 1974, representatives of Ringa and Gola met secretly to deliberate on solving the debt crisis of Ringa that was the topic of discussion at the Regional Economic Summit of Manicius states. At that summit, Gola, which had had a similar economic burden, was hailed for the record success in repaying all her debts and for making huge contributions to solve development efforts on the continent. Leonardo Perezo, Gola’s Economic and Finance minister was elected as the President of the Finance Management Committee. When officials of both states met after the summit, a tête-à-tête discussion ensued between the two diplomats in which the ambassador from Gola made it known to his counterpart from Ringa that the secret behind their economic progress were the huge oil deposits that were being exploited in Yoke territory, and that similar deposits had been found in Baroko, a territory which shared similar geological features. Mr. Perezo stated that he had visited the Chief of Baroko accompanied by the Chief of the Yoke and a few scientists in a supposed reconciliation meeting. The real purpose of this meeting, however, was to carry out feasibility studies. These studies revealed that there existed more oil deposits in Baroko than in the entire territory of Gola. Ringa and Gola concluded a secret treaty to cooperate in exploiting the rich oil and mineral deposits in Baroko, and Ringa promised to take steps to assimilate the “culturally sensitive” people of Baroko.
7. Ringa proceeded to insert an article into its Constitution which stated that the members of the Baroko people were henceforth to be considered “as citizens of Ringa with all due rights and privileges.” The autonomous status clause for Baroko in the Ringan Constitution was repealed. The president authorized the creation of administrative departments of the central government in Baroko “as a measure to civilize the people of Baroko that will also enable Ringa to emerge from its protracted debt crisis.” Meanwhile, a group calling itself the “Movement for the Cultural Integrity of Baroko” (MCIB) carried out a secret investigation. According to their findings, which they made public, vast amounts of gold and oil reserves had been discovered in the Baroko area. According to a Ringa government plan, members of the Baroko elite who opposed the integration efforts were to be eliminated; in an effort to check the demographic growth of Baroko, medical personnel were ordered to carry out an extensive vaccination campaign intended to cause sterility among Baroko youths; and the Baroko language was to be replaced by the national language of Ringa as the language of instruction in public schools. The MCIB stated in a strongly worded memo in the Baroko language that “[w]e will do all we can in our power to resist the colonization of Baroko by Ringa!” Following the MCIB declaration, the Minister of Interior of Ringa was dismissed and charged with high treason for “leaking top state secrets to ignorant natives who are threatening the interests and territorial integrity of Ringa when these secrets were made known to them.” This implicit confirmation of the MCIB findings by the Ringan government provoked the Supreme Baroko Authority to pass a resolution declaring that Baroko was no longer a part of Ringa, and that it considered itself independent. A copy of this document was handed to the ambassador of Tango in Ringa. Alarmed by the withdrawal of Barokan autonomy, fearing the ethnicide of Baroko and mindful of its responsibilities under the 1960 treaty, the Tangan government recognized Baroko as an independent state. Ringa rejected the Supreme Baroko Authority’s resolution outright, moved its troops to Baroko, and declared a state of emergency.
8. The MCIB launched a campaign of civil disobedience, and the Supreme Baroko Authority declared its “unflinching support for the MCIB.” Hundreds of Barokans were arrested and taken to the capital of Ringa in hopes that the movement would surrender. As the campaign intensified and more and more people were arrested, common prisoners were released to create space for the imprisonment of the Barokans. As the jails proved to be insufficient to accommodate all detainees, the government converted military camps into detention centers. Persons considered to be leaders of the MCIB were tied up and placed in solitary confinement in cells without light. Government officials, concerned about the next action of the independence movement, interrogated these “high-level targets” about their future plans. To enhance their cooperation, each of these detainees was exposed continuously to the repetitive playing, at high volume, of two rap anthems: Eminem’s “White America” and Saliva’s “Click Click Boom.” One of the captives went on a hunger strike; the guards force-fed him to keep him alive. Some prisoners were kept in stress positions for 24 hours a day. As a consequence, several Barokans died in detention; others simply disappeared. A good number of Barokans escaped into nearby Panga.
9. The United Nations decided to intervene in the deteriorating situation. The Human Rights Council appointed a country rapporteur who visited Ringa. He reported that the people of Baroko were indigenous persons and deserved protection from the actions of the government of Ringa. He also presented a disturbing picture of the recent developments as described above. Upon receiving his report, the President of the UN Security Council convened an extraordinary session to consider how to respond to this crisis.
10. Human Rights Shield International (HRSI), an NGO in Panga, had received several complaints from Baroko people, many of whom were seeking refugee status in Panga. It compiled a comprehensive report on the human rights situation in Ringa occasioned by the Baroko crisis. Mr. Carlos Durango, Executive Director of HRSI, decided to fly to Maramas, the capital of Ringa, on a tourist visa in order to present this report in a widely publicized press conference and to appeal to the government of Ringa for relief. Immediately upon concluding his remarks, he was arrested by the Ringan authorities and put on the next plane returning to Panga. In a press release, Ringa’s Minister of Public Information declared that Mr. Durango had been expelled from Ringa because of his engaging in political activity undermining the government in violation of his status as an alien. He was prohibited from ever again setting foot in Ringa.
11. The Pangan government grew ever more alarmed over the situation in Ringa which, in its view, seriously threatened the stability of the region. Its Ambassador to Ringa submitted diplomatic notes to the Ringan government protesting the withdrawal of Barokan autonomy and the treatment of the Barokan people as well as of Mr. Durango. The Ringan Minister of Foreign Affairs rejected these communications as “intolerable intervention into the domestic affairs” of his country. At the same time, the Supreme Baroko Authority asked for “all civilized nations’ support against the outrageous attack visited on us by Ringa.” It particularly implored Panga as the local guarantor power to come to its rescue. As the number of Barokans crossing into and seeking refuge in Panga now had grown to over five-hundred persons per day, the Pangan Cabinet decided to respond: It formally recognized the State of Baroko and threatened a full-scale invasion of Ringa if Ringa did not restore Baroko’s status quo ante. To underscore its determination, using a laser-guided missile, it blew up the command and control center of the Ringan armed forces.
12. On September 22, 2008, Panga’s Ambassador to the Netherlands filed an application with the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, alleging that Ringa violated international law by the withdrawal of Baroko’s autonomy, the outrageous treatment of the Baroko people, and the expulsion of Mr. Durango. In particular, Panga alleged violations of the January 1, 1960 treaty between Tango, Ringa, Panga and Baroko; the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and customary international law. The application was duly served upon Ringa. The State of Ringa responded by stating that the International Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction, as the case was presently considered by the UN Security Council; that it was inadmissible as it involved a political question as essential as the territorial and political integrity of the state; that Panga could not represent the people of Baroko; and that, as a sovereign state, Ringa could deny entry to any foreigner on any reason it considered appropriate. Ringa also filed a counter-claim to the effect that Panga’s actions constituted a blatant aggression and violation of her sovereignty and territorial integrity contrary to article 2 of the UN Charter.
13. At all relevant times, Panga and Ringa have been members of the United Nations and parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. They have accepted, without reservation, the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction according to Article 36(2) of its Statute. Both states have also ratified the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
14. The Applicant, the State of Panga, requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:
(a) The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.
(b) The case is admissible.
(c) Ringa’s abolition of Barokan autonomy violated the 1960 Treaty between Ringa, Tango, Panga and Baroko as well as other standards of international law.
(d) The treatment of the Barokan people violates essential standards of human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.
(e) Baroko’s declaration of independence and Panga’s recognition of Baroko as an independent state are consistent with international law.
(f) The expulsion of Mr. Durango violates international law.
(g) The military actions taken by Panga were justified under international law.
15. The Respondent, the State of Ringa, requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:
(a) The International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.
(b) This case is inadmissible.
(c) Baroko is part of Ringa, and Ringa’s abolition of Baroko’s autonomy was legal under international law and necessary to ensure the economic survival of the nation.
(d) The treatment of Barokans was legal under international law or at least justified to address an internal emergency.
(e) Baroko had no right to secede; Panga violated international law by recognizing it as a state.
(f) The expulsion of Mr. Durango was an exercise of Ringa’s territorial sovereignty in full accord with international law.
(g) By threatening Ringa’s invasion and destroying its vital military infrastructures, Panga committed acts of aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter and other international law.
Ferrell 2008-2009 Official Rules
1. Eligibility
All accredited law schools in the United States and abroad are eligible to participate in the Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights Moot Court Competition. Every Team must be sponsored by a faculty member or a recognized organization within each school (Moot Court, International Moot Court, International Law Society, etc.) to insure ease of communication. Potential participants shall use a registration form which will specify the registration fee in United States currency; the deadline for receipt of the form is specified in the Competition Schedule of the Competition’s website. Once completed and mailed to the Competition Coordinator, accompanied by the entrance fee, the registration form shall serve as the participant’s notice of intent.
2. Teams
A. Each School will be permitted to send one Team to participate in the Competition.
B. Each Team is required to have between two (2) and five (5) members. To qualify, a student must be enrolled in a J.D. or an LL.M. program, or their equivalents, in the institution to which team he or she will be a member. Students in fields other than law are not eligible to compete. Each Team must have a faculty advisor, who may accompany them to the Competition, along with a team coach.
C. Outside Assistance to Teams - Any Team which receives inappropriate outside assistance will be disqualified from the Competition. All research, writing and editing must be solely the product of Team members. However, faculty members and other Team advisors may provide advice to a Team. Such advice must be limited to: (1) general discussions of the issues; (2) suggestions as to research sources; (3) consultations regarding oral advocacy technique; (4) the location of legal sources; (5) general legal research methods; (6) general commentary on argument organization and structure, the flow of arguments, and format; and (7) advice during Competition elimination rounds as to pleading option or similar strategy.
3. Memorials
3.1 General Procedures
Each participating Team is required to submit two Memorials, one for the Applicant, one for the Respondent.
3.2 Format of Memorials
A. The body of each Memorial is limited to twenty (20) pages in Times New Roman (12 point) font double-spaced; footnotes and headings may be single-spaced.
B. The body of the Memorial includes:
1. Summary of Argument, including Jurisdiction.
2. Argument, including Footnotes.
3. Conclusion.
C. The body of the Memorial excludes:
1. Cover Pages.
2. Table of Contents.
3. Table of Authorities.
4. Questions Presented.
5. Statement of Facts.
D. No annexes or appendices may be attached to the Memorials. The Competition Coordinator has the discretion to provide maps for all teams if he or she feels that maps are a necessary and integral part of the argument. The bench memo will include all applicable treaties necessary for the judges to render proper decisions.
E. The Statement of Facts shall not exceed five (5) pages.
F. All citations are to be done in footnote form and placed at the bottom of the page on which the reference is found. Footnotes are included within the twenty (20) page limit, and must be printed in the same font type and size as the rest of the Memorial. Footnotes are to be used for citation and reference purposes only. No discursive footnotes are allowed.
G. All Memorials are to be type-written and double-spaced on 8 ½” by 11” paper with 1” margins. Times New Roman (12 point) font is required. Headnotes, footnotes, and quotations within the body of the argument may be single-spaced. Microsoft’s Word (IBM Compatible) is the preferred word processing format.
H. Each Memorial is to be reproduced by a Xerox-type copier. No printing or offset is permitted. White is the only acceptable color paper on which Memorials may be copied.
I. All Memorials are to follow the sample title pages as a model, including the copies – no alterations that would set one Memorial apart from another will be permitted. Each Applicant’s cover page shall be red, and each Respondent’s cover page shall be blue.
J. All Memorials are to be bound.
K. Each Team’s Memorial will be identified by a number that will be designated by the Competition Coordinator upon registration. The name of the participating school and the names of any of its representing team members are not to appear on any part of the Memorial. This number system insures anonymity throughout the grading process. To insure that there will be no problems with identification at the time of submission of the Memorials, each team shall include a written letter listing the identification number, the school, the Team members, and the type of computer and word processing program that the Team used to prepare its Memorials. This letter shall be placed in a sealed envelope and returned to the Competition Coordinator in the same packet sent to the Competition Coordinator containing the Team’s Memorial.
3.3 Mailing of Memorials
A. Copies of the Memorials are required to be mailed to St. Thomas University School of Law, Ferrell Competition Coordinator, c/o Roza Pati, Graduate Program in Intercultural Human Rights, 16401 NW 37th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33054. All Memorials must be postmarked by January 14th, 2009. Each Team should send 4 copies of each Memorial to the Competition Coordinator, as well as a copy on computer disk in case additional copies are needed. Copies must have the same format, including the cover page.
B. Memorials are to be mailed through the use of an express courier or express mail service to achieve a maximum delivery of two (2) days.
C. Memorials must be postmarked at the end of the writing period. Memorials postmarked after this date will not be accepted, and the Team will not be permitted to participate in the Competition. There will be no refund of the registration fee in the event this situation occurs.
D. No written materials outside of the Memorials will be accepted.
E. No Team may revise, substitute, add, delete, or in any other manner alter its Memorial after the deadline for submission. However, if a revision is made on a non-substantive part of the Memorial (the substantive part of the Memorial constitutes the argument section) or, for example, if pages are inadvertently left out, the Memorial will be accepted. A discretionary penalty may be imposed by the Competition Coordinator after assessing the facts.
3.4 Penalties
A. Penalty points will be given to Memorials and Teams not following the required format. The penalties are as follows:
1. One (1) point shall be deducted for every page over the twenty (20) page limit.
2. One-half (1/2) point shall be deducted for any other format error, including, but not limited to, the following:
Margins.
Type sets.
Footnotes.
Cover pages.
Identification number.
(Not including the letter with the Memorials.)
3. Where a format error would affect the total number of pages, the Competition Coordinator shall review the computer disks of the participants, and shall deduct the points accordingly as listed above.
4. Oral Argument
4.1 General Procedures
Each Oral Round of each Tournament shall consist of ninety (90) minutes of oral pleadings. Applicant and Respondent shall each be allotted forty-five (45) minutes. Two (2) members from each Team shall make oral presentations during the round. Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each Team shall indicate to the bailiff how it wishes to allocate its 45 minutes among (a) its first oralist, (b) its second oralist, and (c) rebuttal (for Applicant) or surrebuttal (for Respondent). No single oralist shall plead more than twenty-five (25) minutes, including rebuttal or surrebuttal. Time allocated for but not used by one oralist may not be used by another oralist, or in the rebuttal or surrebuttal. Any Team member may act as an oralist during any round of the Competition.
Judges may, at their discretion, extend total Team oral argument time beyond the forty-five (45) minute allocation, up to an additional ten (10) minutes per Team. Oralists asked to further expand upon arguments may, in this instance, appear for more than the twenty-five (25) minute individual limit. In the spirit of the Competition, and in the interest of allowing each Team an equal amount of time to present its argument, judges are strongly admonished to allow each Team a similar amount of time for oral argument, consistent with these Rules.
4.2 Pleadings
The order of the pleadings in each Round at all levels of the Competition shall be:
Applicant 1 à Applicant 2 à Respondent 1 à Respondent 2 à
Rebuttal (Applicant 1 or 2) à Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).
4.2.1 Rebuttal and Surrebuttal
Each Team may reserve up to ten (10) minutes for rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a courtesy to the judges, Teams should announce whether they intend to reserve time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral argument, and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce will not waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although the Team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal must be one of the two Team members who argued during the Team’s main argument, the Team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible Team members will deliver rebuttal or surrebuttal.
4.2.2 Scope of Pleadings
A Team’s oral pleadings are not in any way limited to the scope of the Team’s Memorial. The scope of the Applicant’s rebuttal is limited to responding to the Respondent’s primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent’s surrebuttal is limited to responding to the Applicant’s rebuttal. If the Applicant waives rebuttal, there shall be no surrebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although judges are admonished to enforce the limits on the scope of rebuttal and surrebuttal, and may take a violation of this Rule into account in evaluating an oralist’s performance, there is no discretionary or non-discretionary penalty for exceeding scope of rebuttal or surrebuttal.
4.3 Spectators
All Preliminary Rounds shall be open to the public. Teams may agree in advance, and upon consultation with the Competition Coordinator, to limit the number of spectators in a room during Preliminary Rounds. Non-affiliated persons, including friends and relatives of Team members, may attend any Oral Round. Presence of coaches, advisors, or other spectators affiliated with the Team are permitted in the courtroom during an Oral Round involving the Team, as long as it is in conformity with the provisions of these Rules.
4.4 Scouting
No Team member or person directly affiliated with any Team may attend any Preliminary Round other than those in which his or her Team is competing, except as waived by the Competition Coordinator in the interests of the Competition. Violation of this Rule should be brought to the attention of the Competition Coordinator immediately, without disturbing the Oral Round in progress, or immediately after the Oral Round has finished.
There are two types of scouting, both of which are prohibited.
“Direct Scouting” occurs when a Team attends a Preliminary Round involving one or more Teams against which it will compete in a future Preliminary Round.
“Indirect Scouting” occurs when a Team attends a Preliminary Round involving two Teams against which it is not scheduled to compete in the Preliminary Rounds.
Any Team which commits Direct Scouting shall forfeit all six Oral Round Points in the Preliminary Round (or Rounds) in which it competes against the Team (or Teams) which it scouted.
Any Team which commits Indirect Scouting shall forfeit one Preliminary Round. For example, if the Team won four Preliminary Rounds, its total number of wins shall be reduced to three, without other adjustment to its Total Raw Points or Total Round Points. (If a Team which commits Indirect Scouting wins no Preliminary Rounds, there shall be no such adjustment.)
5. Competition Scoring
5.1 Preliminary Rounds
Scoring of the Preliminary Rounds shall consist of two parts: (1) the scoring of the written Memorials; and (2) the scoring of the oral arguments.
Written Memorials Scoring: Each Team Memorial shall be submitted to three (3) Memorial judges. The Memorials shall be reviewed and scored by each judge on a scale of fifty (50) to one hundred (100) points.
Oral Arguments Scoring: Each Oral Round will be scored by a panel of three (3) judges. Each judge shall score each oralist on a scale of fifty (50) to one hundred (100) points.
Three (3) judge panels shall be used to score Memorials and oral arguments.
5.2 Calculation of Scoring Points
Two (2) categories of points shall be awarded to Teams in each stage of the Competition: Raw Score and Round Points. The calculation of Raw Scores shall be subject to the deduction of Penalty Points.
5.2.1 Memorial Raw Scores
The calculation of the Total Memorial Raw Score for each Team per Oral Round is determined by adding together the three (3) Memorial judges’ scores for the side the Team argued in that respective Oral Round. The Total Competition Memorial Raw Score is determined by adding all six (6) scores for the Applicant and Respondent Memorials combined. This total score shall be used for purposes of Best Memorial Awards.
5.2.2 Oral Raw Scores
The calculation of the Total Oral Raw Score for each Team per Round shall be determined by adding the scores of the three (3) judges for each oralist. There will be therefore a total of six scores per Team (2 oralists) per round.
5.2.3 Total Raw Scores
The Total Raw Score for each Round shall be the sum of the Team’s Total Memorial Raw Scores for that round and the Team’s Total Oral Raw Score for that round. The Total Competition Raw Score is determined by adding the Total Raw Scores from each of the four rounds.
5.3 Round Points
5.3.1 Memorial Round Points
A total of three (3) Round Points may be awarded to Memorials in each Round. The individual Memorial judges’ scores for each Team participating in a round are compared to those of the opposing Team. The highest score given by a Memorial judge for each Team will be compared against the highest score given the opposing Team, then the next highest, and finally the lowest. For each comparison, the Team with the higher score will be awarded one (1) Round Point. If a judge rates the Teams equally, the point from that judge shall be split, each Team receiving one-half (.5) of a Judge’s Point.
5.3.2 Oral Round Points.
A total of six (6) Round Points may be awarded for oral argument scores in each Round. The score from each judge’s evaluation of the two oralists combined shall be compared to that judge’s score for the two oralists on the opposing Team. The higher scoring Team per judge per round shall be awarded two (2) Round Points. If a judge scores the Teams equally, the points from that judge are split, each Team receiving one (1) Round Point.
5.3.3 Total Round Points
The Total Round Points for each Round shall be the sum of a Team’s Memorial Round Points and Oral Round Points.
5.4 Determination of Winner of an Individual Round
The winner of the round will be determined by Round Points. The Team receiving the greatest number of the nine (9) available Round Points wins the round. In the event that Teams have an equal number of Round Points, the Team with the highest Total Raw Score shall be declared the winner of the Round.
5.5 Win-loss Record
The overall win-loss record for the Preliminary Rounds shall govern Team rankings. A Team with a win-loss record of 4-0 (4 wins, 0 losses) will rank higher than a Team with a win-loss record of 3-1 (3 wins, 1 loss), which will rank higher than a Team with a win-loss record of 2-2, etc.
5.5.1 Total Competition Raw Scores
If two (2) Teams are tied after comparing win-loss records, the Total Competition Raw Score then controls and the Team having the highest Total Competition Raw Score from the Preliminary Rounds shall be ranked higher. The Total Competition Raw Scores are calculated by adding the Raw Scores from the Team’s four (4) Rounds. There are thirty-six hundred (3,600) possible raw score points.
After win-loss, the Total Competition Raw Score governs even when two (2) Teams that are tied with the same win-loss record faced each other during the Preliminary Rounds, or the Team with the higher Raw Score was not the winner of the Round where the two (2) Teams had faced each other.
5.6 Judges’ Comments
Judges are encouraged to provide direct feedback to Teams regarding their performance at the completion of the Oral Round. They shall not engage in any commentary which may reveal the content of the Bench Memorandum or announce the winner of the round.
5.7 Ranking of Oralists
Total Scores for each oralist in the Tournament shall be determined by adding the raw scores awarded to that oralist in each Preliminary Round in which the oralist argued (adjusted for any Penalties assessed against the oralist), and dividing this sum by the number of Preliminary Rounds in which the oralist argued.
Oralists shall be ranked from highest to lowest. Ties are permitted. If an oralist argued in only one (1) Preliminary Round, he or she is ineligible for ranking.
5.8 Ranking of Memorials
Total Memorial Scores for each Team shall be determined by adding the Total Raw Score of a Team’s Applicant Memorial and the Total Raw Score of the Respondent Memorial, six (6) total judges’ scores, for a possible total score of six hundred (600) points. Team Memorials shall be ranked from the highest Total Memorial Score to the lowest. Ties are permitted in the ranking of Memorials. Scores shall include Penalties.
More Information
2007-2008 Susan J. Ferrell Intercultural Human Rights
Moot Court Competition
THE ADONI CASE
Silana v. Nudasa
Talia, a region in the southeastern corner of the Colombon continent, was a multi-ethnic area with two predominant ethnic groups. The Nudasan, who were the majority ethnic group in the northern region of Talia, engaged primarily in sheep herding. The Silanan were the majority in the southern region of Talia and were historically wheat farmers.
For the duration of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, the Talia region was under the control of a major foreign colonial power, which remained in the region until 1948. It would have withdrawn from the area sooner, but the nitrate deposits discovered in the Anagab desert in the northwestern corner of Talia made the region a prized possession because of the importance of nitrate as a component of explosives. Not without difficulty, the colonial power managed to keep some degree of balance among the ethnic groups in Talia, even though the two predominant ethnic groups were culturally and economically very different and had a history of hostilities that dated back centuries.
By 1945, the colonial power had largely depleted the nitrate deposits and decided to revisit the advisability of its presence in Talia. In 1946, it declared its intention to withdraw from the region. That announcement set off a period of bloodshed between the two predominant rival ethnic groups, who were fighting over land. It became clear that before withdrawing from the region, the colonial power would have to negotiate a treaty between the two predominant ethnic groups. The parties to the negotiations ultimately agreed that the best course of action would be to divide the Talia region into two separate States. The Nudasan would control the north, while the Silanan would control the south. A six-month transition period was established during which any Nudasan in the southern region could opt to migrate northward, and any Silanan in the north could move south.
The ethnic minority group in Talia, the Adoni, had for centuries occupied an area squarely in the center of Talia. Their culture and language are distinct from the two major ethnic groups in the region. They regard their land not as real estate, but as the mother of all living things. The sun, the air, the water and the land are all sacred for the Adoni; they believe that everything they need in life comes from Mother Earth. According to Adoni oral history, human life, the land, their language and their traditional ways of life are all the work of the Creator.
Upon their independence, in 1948, Nudasa and Silana entered into a treaty regulating their mutual relations. It, inter alia, established a boundary line between the two countries -Nudasa to the north and Silana to the south- which inevitably traversed the Adoni’s ancestral territory.
At the time the treaty was concluded and the two new States came into existence, the Adoni accounted for 15% of the population of Nudasa and 21% of the population of Silana. Because the land within their ancestral territory did not lend itself well to either farming or ranching, the Adoni engaged in cottage industry, such as weaving and carving. To protect the Adoni’s rights and preserve the integrity of their territory, the colonial power insisted that an entire chapter of the Silana/Nudasa treaty be devoted specifically to the Adoni. That section of the treaty spelled out the obligations of the two newly created States vis-à-vis the Adoni minority. The treaty provided that each country was to recognize the ancestral land of the Adoni and was not to entertain any private claims made upon that land. The treaty held that persons living within the territory of the Adoni were citizens of the country in which they lived: Adoni south of the border were citizens of Silana; those living north of the border were citizens of Nudasa. In the treaty, each State party undertook to respect the language of the Adoni and their way of life. The treaty provided that the Adoni were to be accorded full rights of citizenship in their respective countries and, to that end, every official document issued by the government of either country –the constitution, laws, birth certificates, marriage licenses, death certificates, property deeds, election-related documents, etc.- was to be translated into Adoni. Offices were to be set up on either side of the Silana/Nudasa border to assist the Adoni with government-related matters.
Another provision of the treaty stated that each country’s system of justice was to provide Adoni interpreting and translation services for any cases brought against or by the Adoni. The treaty also provided that for the sake of the Adoni’s safety and protection, neither of the States Parties to the treaty could establish any military presence within Adoni territory. The same social services provided to the general population were to be provided to the Adoni as well. To cater to the specific cultural needs of the Adoni, each country pledged to provide a bilingual education system within Adoni territory.
To keep the Adoni’s extended families intact, the Adoni were to be allowed to cross the Nudasan/Silanan border within their ancestral territory with relative ease. In fact, the first generation of Adoni children born after the demarcation of the border were granted lifetime visas at birth in order to visit family members living on the other side of the border.
The treaty further provided that either State could resort to arbitration to settle any dispute arising under the treaty with the other State regarding the Adoni or Adoni territory; if arbitration failed, either State could turn to the International Court of Justice. Both States became members of the United Nations in 1948 and, under the terms of Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, declared that they recognized as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes. Nudasa and Silana are also parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United Nations adopted in 1966 and which entered into force in 1976.
The years immediately following conclusion of the treaty were marked by the usual vicissitudes that attend the creation of new States. In the early years, tensions between the two countries ran high. However, Nudasa and Silana finally managed to find common ground when, twelve years after the conclusion of the treaty, a large neighboring country to the east began to pose a threat to both Nudasa and Silana. Both countries recognized that they had a common enemy on their eastern border and that their strength –and perhaps even their existence- hinged on partnership rather than mutual enmity.
The pace of development in the two countries for the first thirty years was basically the same because both had farm-based economies. However, this would change when, in 1978, vast oil reserves were discovered within Adoni territory on the Nudasan side of the border. The Nudasan government swiftly enacted legislation declaring that all underground resources were the property of the State, which meant that the Nudasan government owned and controlled the oil reserves within Adoni territory. However, in exchange for a cut of the profits, the government invited corporate transnationals into Adoni territory for the actual oil exploration and drilling. Hundreds of Adoni families were displaced in the process. Some of these displaced families moved south into Silana.
The discovery of petroleum reserves in Nudasa injected enormous vigor into its economy, which was then able to diversify into other areas. The tax revenues from oil enabled the government to build up the educational system at all levels nationwide, including the bilingual education system within the Adoni’s ancestral territory. It was able to build infrastructure, equip its armed forces with more modern weaponry, and so on. Attracted by Nudasa’s petroleum reserves, other countries cultivated a stronger relationship with Nudasa than they had in the past.
The Adoni on the Nudasan side of the border benefited as well. They were enlisted into the construction work done to build up the oil industry’s infrastructure. Indeed, the infrastructure built within their territory to accommodate the oil industry had the effect of transforming the Adoni’s own base of wealth. Nudasa appreciated the strategic advantages to be gained from building up infrastructure within the region occupied by the Adoni and the necessity of training and educating the Adoni to that end. In the process, the Adoni became more and more assimilated and integrated into Nudasan society. Indeed, members of the Adoni ethnic group rose to positions of authority in the Nudasan government, and from there worked to ensure that the economic and social interests of the Adoni were protected.
In the meantime, the Adoni on the other side of the border were not faring as well. No oil or any other significant natural resource had been discovered within Silanan territory. The country continued to be a farm-based economy, exporting commodities and importing processed goods. As the economy weakened, Silana did not have the means to properly honor its obligations vis-à-vis the Adoni as spelled out in the 1948 Silana/Nudasa Treaty. Bilingual education within Adoni territory was one of the first areas to suffer, as the bilingual schools were closed. The Silanan system of justice no longer provided Adoni interpretation and translation services. The effect in practice was that the Adoni rarely turned to the courts to claim their rights and were at a decided disadvantage in cases brought against them. The Silanan government also stopped printing official documents in the language of the Adoni, which made it difficult for them to register births, get marriage licenses, pass on property and participa |