ILSA Newsletter

Fall 2008 INTERNATION LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Volume 5, Issue 1

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Message from the ILSA Executive Director Dear Friends of the Jessup,

Announcing: The Release of the 2009 Compromis The 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Competition The 2009 Shearman & Sterling International Rounds: 22-28 March 2009 Washington DC For more information visit the ILSA website: www.ilsa.org/jessup/

Inside this issue: Jessup Judges Weigh In

6

History of Jessup 8 New ILSA Staff

10

Current Events

13

International 14 Regional Interest Remote Coaching 31 Special Interest

33

Interview with James Nafziger

34

FOJs on the Move

35

Contest Info

36

Back Page Fun

38

Welcome to the first electronically distributed issue of the FOJ Newsletter! Starting with this issue, the FOJ Newsletter will no longer be sent by regular mail. Instead, it will be posted on the ILSA website in an effort to reach more Friends of the Jessup, all while saving a few trees and dollars. As we make this transition, I would like to thank our subscribers for their patience and loyalty through the years.

As many of you already know, the 2009 Jessup Season will mark the 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Competition. A proper observation of this important occasion entails that we recognize and celebrate the contributions of those who have made the Jessup what it is today. With that goal in mind, I would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to every Friend of the Jessup for their generous support of the Competition throughout the years. This anniversary season is not only a tribute to the Competition itself, it is a tribute to all of you.

In particular, I would like to recognize Carol Kalinoski who was one of last year’s Pam Young award winners and this issue’s Jessup Effect author. Of course, one cannot recognize Carol without also recognizing her wonderfully eccentric partner-in-crime, Jack Norton. Jack and Carol exemplify the spirit of the competition. Together, they have travelled continents and hosted fellow judges (and teams) in their own homes. Carol and Jack understand that the Jessup is more than just a competition. They understand that the Jessup is about building relationships that transcend borders. They also appreciate that the core purpose of the Jessup is to teach and learn, not to win first place. During the Jessup season, Carol can often be found blissfully engaged in a discussion with other FOJs, debating the current year’s Compromis and sharing techniques for judging. The sparkle in her eye, which is ever present during these sessions, reflects that she is as excited as any student to be studying important issues of international law.

Continued Pg. 3

The Jessup Effect on My Life

By Carol Kalinoski As I have said to law students participating in the Jessup moot court for the first time, the Jessup competition has magic to change one’s life. The Jessup moot court has changed mine. I have enjoyed this experience!

How It Started My first involvement with the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition occurred during early 1991 when I received a letter from the American Society of International Law (ASIL) inviting me to become a “judge” in Philadelphia for the Mid-Atlantic Regional of the Jessup. The ASIL recruitment letter both fascinated and thrilled me. I eagerly accepted the invitation, and the rest is history.

Continued Pg. 3

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 2 International Law Students Assoc i25 East Jackson Blvd. #518 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: 312-362-5025 Fax: 312-362-5073 Email: ilsa@ilsa.org ——————— Amity Boye Executive Director Ashley Walker Jessup Competition Coordinator Jill Schmieder Hereau ILSA Program Coordinator Caroline Cowen Jessup Outreach Coordinator ———— Board of Directors Chairman Leila Sadat Washington University in Saint Louis School of Law Student President Shelby Kammeyer Vermont Law School Student Vice President Megan Sheffer U. of Denver Sturm College of Law Student Chief Comm. Officer Pedro Martini Univ. Federal de Minas Gerais ———— William J. Aceves California Western School of Law Kelley Askin, Esq. Open Society Justice Initiative David Baron, Esq. Greenberg Traurig Dagmar Butte, Esq. Parker, Bush & Lane Mark Drumbl Washington & Lee University School of Law Brian Havel DePaul University College of Law Sandra L. Hodgkinson, Esq. Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cynthia Lichtenstein Boston College Law School Pedro M. Muñoz, Esq. Arias & Muñoz Ved Nanda U. of Denver Sturm College of Law Michael Scharf Case Western Reserve Univ. of Law Amb. David Scheffer Northwestern Univ. School of Law Steven Schneebaum, Esq. Greenberg Traurig Mark E. Wojcik John Marshall Law School

FOJ Newsletter Editorial Board Executive Editors

International Regional Editors

Mara A. Smith—Editor in Chief Francis Yalley—Africa Amity Boye—Senior Editor

Dr. Leng Xing-Yu—China

Elizabeth Black—Final Layout

Sergey Alekhin—CIS

Caroline Cowen—Final Review

Sophie Wernert—Europe

Rusty Dalferes—Final Review

Ricardo Chirinos—Latin Americas

Nedim Hogic—Special Articles

Jared Ormsby—South Pacific

David Roghair—Initial Review

Jonathan Butterworth—UK

Production Assistant Editors Andrew Fuller NYU, CAS/Pre-Law Rebecca Grabski Kent State, Pre-Law Jude T. A. Smith Case Western Reserve University School of Law Special Thanks to Denise Smith and Walter L. Young for their assistance.

Ashley Walker—Final Review

The FOJ Newsletter keeps you informed about everything happening in the Jessup World.

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 opinions 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?

It’s Easy!

Visit: http://www.ilsa.org/dada/mail.cgi/list/ foj_july_2008/ and subscribe your email address Members of the FOJ Listserv receive email announcements of upcoming information such as: the release of each FOJ Newsletter and opportunities to judge memorials and oral rounds for National and International levels of the competition.

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 3 Message from the Executive Director (Cont’d from Pg. 1) This is the Spirit of the Jessup! ILSA is incredibly grateful for the boundless energy and years of experience that Carol and Jack bring to the Competition. We hope that the Competition will benefit from their infectious enthusiasm for many more years to come.

Importantly, I would also like to recognize the hard work of the editors-in-chief of the FOJ Newsletter – Elizabeth Black (outgoing) and Mara Smith (incoming). A huge thanks to Elizabeth for starting the FOJ Newsletter three years ago and providing us with many issues full of warm and thoughtful stories about FOJs and the Jessup. As Elizabeth moves on to fill other important Jessup roles, we welcome Mara to the helm and look forward to working with her to develop the Newsletter and expand its audience. Mara is off to an excellent start with this first installment of the fifth volume. As you will notice, the pages are filled with diverse and interesting content. I am particularly pleased to see how many regions of the world are represented in the issue. We are proud of Mara’s efforts to seek out Jessup-related stories from all over the world.

There are three general themes to this issue – history, courts, and Jessup roles. The first theme focuses on the history of the competition. Sprinkled throughout this issue, you will find pictures from the Jessup’s past, as well as interesting tidbits about the world as it existed when the Jessup Competition was in its infant years. The second theme focuses on courts and legal institutions around the world, as reflected in an article about the Union for the Mediterranean and an article about the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia. The third theme focuses on the different roles and perspectives of individuals connected to the Jessup Competition. We have articles about judging and coaching, and articles written by recent participants and organizers of national rounds. There is also an introduction to ILSA’s newest staff members—Jessup Competition Coordinator Ashley Walker and Jessup Outreach Coordinator Caroline Cowen. This issue provides a wonderful overview of the many different ways a volunteer can be involved with and benefit from the Jessup Competition.

In closing, I would like to invite each and every one of you to take part in the 50th Anniversary of the Jessup. We will stay in touch with you via email updates during the season to let you know about anniversary events, including the big celebration in Washington, D.C. during the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds. You can also stay upto-date by visiting our website at www.ilsa.org.

Thank you for everything you do to support the Jessup!

Yours Sincerely, Amity R. Boye ILSA Executive Director

The Jessup Effect on My Life (Cont’d from Pg. 1) At that time, I did not know much about the Jessup, because I had begun my law studies at Temple University Law Center (Philadelphia) in my late thirties, after almost sixteen years as a bank officer in international trade finance.

During law school, I did not have time to participate in extracurricular activities as I commuted two hours each way between law school and my home in Rutherford, New Jersey, and I was trying to manage my banking career. I also had not personally attended a moot court competition. Because I did not want to fall flat on my face during my first oral argument, I studied the relevant law for my scheduled panels at the Mid-Atlantic Regional. I also wanted to look the part, so I rented a black robe from a costume company and used a white lace cravat such as the ones worn by the World Court judges. In Philadelphia, I was the only one who was robed, and I did not know that judges at the Jessup International Rounds wore robes.

Since my first appearance on the Jessup bench in Philadelphia, I have participated in Jessup moots every year since, not only in various regional competitions, both in the U.S. and abroad, but also in the eagerly awaited International Rounds. As I became more comfortable with the competition and my role as judge, I began to “ride the circuit” by Continued Pg. 4

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 4 The Jessup Effect on My Life (Cont’d from Pg. 1) volunteering to judge oral rounds in the United Kingdom beginning in 1999 in Glasgow, and in the first Russian national competition in Moscow in 2002. The first weekend in February 2002 found me in London for the U.K. regional, after which I traveled to Moscow the next weekend for the First Russian National, and then on to Beijing for the first Chinese National competition!

1982 National University of Singapore Oralist.

“I have wonderful legal discussions and debates long into the night … at the ‘Kalinosky Institute for Distressed Jurists of Good Character.’”

1976—Hardy C. Dillard (standing).

Increased Demand for Experienced Judges and Arbitrators As international moot court competitions grew worldwide, and their importance to legal education became recognized, the demand for experienced Jessup judges increased throughout the late 1990’s. In 1997, I was recruited by a fellow Jessup judge to participate in the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, held each spring in Vienna, Austria. During my first year with the Vis arbitration moot in 1998, a total of 48 teams competed, this year there were 203 teams competing in Vienna, with 52 teams competing in the recently-constituted Vis Moot (East) in Hong Kong (same problem, same rules).

In 1998, our own famous Jack Norton from Scotland was invited by the Telders European International Moot Court Competition to participate as a judge due to an increase in the number of teams registering to compete in The Hague and due to the retirements of several seasoned Telders judges. He encouraged me to submit my resume to the Telders organizers, and I too was invited to judge. The Telders is a public international law competition based on the Jessup moot structure, but with registration restricted only to European law schools and with no regionals or nationals to winnow down the numbers advancing to the final rounds. Another intriguing feature is that all teams in the Telders moot argue in various courtrooms at the Peace Palace in The Hague, with the final bench comprised of judges from the International Court of Justice sitting in its real courtroom. This refined environment is quite awesome and impressive for the students!

For several years while I participated in these moots, I dreamt of finding someone to help bring the Jessup moot to China. One year at the Telders, I sat on the bench with Professor Wenqi Zhu who had been assigned by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the Office of the Prosecution for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. After the panel concluded, I turned to Professor Zhu and said, “We must bring the Jessup moot to China.” He agreed. Thereafter, for several years while he was in The Hague and we mooted in the Telders, we would plan what was needed to bring the Jessup moot to China. In 2002, we succeeded.

My Dream of the China National Competition When Professor Zhu returned to China, he became a professor of international law at Renmin University in Beijing. He quickly obtained the support from his law faculty to host the first Chinese National Moot held during the third week of February 2002. At that first moot, there were just nine Chinese teams participating, but the students worked very hard on the case and were enthusiastic participants. Central China Television (CCTV) carried nationwide reports of the moot during the competition with much coverage in the Chinese press. This year twenty-nine teams participated in the sixth China National Competition at Renmin University, with four teams traveling to Washington to compete in the International Rounds. The enthusiasm of the Chinese law students and their law schools for Jessup continues to grow as they recognize that enhanced English language and advocacy skills can open up opportunities to advanced legal studies and the practice of law according to evolving international standards. We all look forward to the seventh China National scheduled for February 2009 at Xiamen University School of Law, and I have recruited several “international” judges for the next China moot.

Continued Pg. 5

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 5 The Jessup Effect on My Life (Cont’d from Pg. 1) Self-Appointed Jessup Ambassador As I travel the world on international business, I make it a point to locate law professors at local law schools in the countries where I am working who are interested in international moot competitions. We explore what assistance is needed to develop their teams to compete in the Jessup. At times I can offer assistance through Jessup colleagues associated with foreign bar associations in the form of contributions of law books and practice round judges. Sometimes I am asked to speak to law students at those law schools about the Jessup Competition itself, what it takes to be a successful “mootie,” and how to be a good mooting teammate. I also recruit Jessup judges from the legal departments of foreign companies with which I am doing business, because I believe these foreign lawyers should be involved in the development of this project in their countries. Corporate sponsorship of the moot is something I also encourage. Moreover, high-ranking Jessup student participants are recognized as highly-qualified candidates for international legal jobs and are securing internships at international law firms.

Time Keeps On Slipping Into The Future…

The Jessup Moot Court Competition, as well as my involvement in other moots (thanks to Jessup!), has introduced me to many interesting and dedicated legal professionals and law students around the world. My work with Jessup in China has introduced me to several Chinese law students whom I have mentored as they progressed with their legal careers, and I expect this work to continue into the future.

Participating in Jessup has taught me much about different areas of public international law that I would not have had the opportunity to deal with in my practice. Each year, I consider the Compromis as the beginning of a long seminar on the legal issues presented in the case, and eagerly look forward to discussing its various legal arguments with fellow Jessup judges.

During the week of the International Rounds, I host several Jessup judges who travel from abroad to participate in the Competition. Over food and beer, the visiting Jessup judges and I have wonderful legal discussions and debates long into the night, during which new arguments evolve that we try out on the oralists the following day. One year, a Jessup guest in my home presented me with a plaque that reads, “Kalinosky Institute for Distressed Jurists of Good Character.” Some of my repeat guests know that reservations need to be made well in advance due to limited bed space at the Institute.

Finally, on an extremely personal level, I have found that mooting provides expertise in chairing and organizing a meeting. For almost eight years, I chaired the interagency Operating Committee on Export Policy at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and I believe that my mooting experience has provided me with the discipline to make an efficient use of time in stating a position, while allowing time for focused questions. This expertise is also useful in my international consulting practice.

But, everything changes and, like this article, must eventually come to an end….

I will be pleased to discuss my past, current, and future roles with the Jessup moot, and will welcome other “distressed jurists of good character” to the “Kalinosky Institute” where we can all enjoy (hopefully!) a robust discussion and debate of international legal issues. I can be reached by e-mail at <kalinoski2003@yahoo.com>. I am currently focusing my energy on national competitions in: China, Africa, and the Middle East to shape the next 50 years of Jessup mooting and assist students in enjoying the experience.

West, Prisse, Lorenza 1994 Jessup Cup National University of Singapore

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 6

JESSUP ROLES

Judges Weigh In The Circle of Life in the Jessup Moot Court

By Rebecca Grabski

Cautiously watching the stopwatch. Seamlessly switching the time cards. Displaying cards at the ideal height. Held in the air for just the precise amount of time. Perfectly panned across the room so all eyes can see. You are the keeper of the time. All rounds depend on you. Both teams focus on your time cards. You cannot flinch, you cannot sneeze, you have to be ready…

Such a flawless bailiff routine provides the competitors at the Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition with the necessary tools to present a perfect argument, advance to the next round, and ultimately win the coveted first place title. This is what I have provided during both of my volunteer visits to Washington D.C. during the final International Rounds of this highly esteemed competition. I was this crucial element – I was the bailiff.

Rebecca Grabski is a senior political science major at Kent State University. She has been involved with Jessup since 2005 and looks forward to being a future Jessup judge!

During each of the competitions I have been involved in, I have watched, and bailiffed the most remarkable of teams. After each round, I cannot help but think of the day I will finally be a competitor myself, and when someone will bailiff for me… or why not reach for the gold, go full circle, and become a judge after that? What a valuable experience that would be!

As an Undergraduate Senior at Kent State University, through my involvement with not only bailiffing, but also aiding in the practice rounds of a competing team, I have grown very fond of and actually yearn to be a substantive part of this moot court competition. I wish to be a part of a team and prove myself to the world when I enter law school, and the Jessup Competition will enable me to achieve all of this and more. The Jessup Competition not only provides individuals with extensive legal knowledge but it also provides the chance to be a part of something which everyone can be proud of. Whether you come out on top, as runner-up, or even if your team does not place at all, you are still a part of something great—a part of an event so special simply competing is an achievement. Those who advance to the International Rounds have already proven themselves brilliant students able to maintain logic and reason in the face of tremendous pressures!

Moreover, based upon my own experience and conversations with competition judges, it seems that to be a judge in the Jessup requires unbelievable commitment and legal accomplishment. For one who aspires to be a judge, I can only imagine the amount of knowledge and information you can gain through participation, not to mention all of the great people you would meet in the process! Furthermore, networking, comparing legal views, developing friendships, and access to valuable resources are all valid reasons for me and others interested in judging to pursue the chance of a lifetime. Finally, as someone who has become interested so early in my legal career, I can only wait and see what the future holds for me in terms of the Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition!

Experiences of a New Judge

By Soroush Kafiabadi

To judge or not to judge As a previous competitor and coach, I have been truly hit by the “Jessup bug,” and this year, decided to try my hand at judging. Having applied to become a judge, I started to think about my ‘judging persona’ and the questions to ask to really challenge the teams.

Then came the day when I received the sacrosanct bench memo! Despite restrictions on my time, I was quite excited to sit down and read it all to get a better grasp of the different issues and arguments that I had missed when researching the problem.

Continued Pg. 7

Volume 5, Issue 1 JESSUP ROLES

Page 7

Experiences of a New Judge (Cont’d from Pg. 6) At the time, I was in contact with one of the more experienced judges who I am sure was getting a little annoyed by my over-excitement at the prospect of judging; regardless of where we were or with whom, the talk turned to Jessup and what questions to ask!

First day I had been allocated three rounds to judge with a fourth as backup. I was, however, pleasantly surprised when Rusty Dalferes, Judges Coordinator at the International Rounds, told me that there would be rounds for which judges would be needed. There was one simple rule: hang around the judges’ room and make yourself available. This of course had the added advantage of ensuring the judges stayed in the room and got to know each other a little better. Of course, there were rounds when judges were needed (some rounds more than others– Wednesday morning being high on the list), and I ended up judging as many rounds as I could possibly manage!

Legends old and new I especially looked forward to the judges with whom I would sit. Having sat on the other side of the bench for two years, I had gotten to know a few of the judges, in particular the “legends of old.” I was scheduled to sit with some of these, most notably Paul Karlson and Dagmar Butte. Unfortunately, there was a judging conflict and I had to be substituted from judging with Paul, instead, I got to judge with Deborah Skorupski. It was a great experience to work with these judges and, of course, it was great to learn from the best. I look forward to sitting with some of the other judges that I have gotten to know over the years but did not have the chance to sit with this year including Stefan Lorenzmeier, Keith Norton and Jack Norton, among many other impressive Jessup alumni. Of the new generation, I got the chance to judge with So-Nyeo Buehlow and be bailiffed by the bailiff extraordinaire, Will Patterson. There are of course so many more whom I would like to mention but am unable to do so in this short space.

Traditions One of the highlights was finding out about the judicial ‘traditions’ that have made the competition so great. First and foremost, one cannot forget Deb and Dag’s “judicial get together” where intellectual discussions about Jessup were held over some Earl Grey. Suffice it to say, it was most illuminating! And of course, the list of ‘most excellent’ questions asked by the judges, some of which make you question the sanity of the judges! I am sure someone promised to email me the list!

So, I want to thank everyone—judges, bailiffs and competitors alike—who made this such a memorable experience, and congratulate Amity and the ILSA crew for such a successful year. I hope the 50th anniversary is even better (and hope that I can make it!).

“Dear participants, I am just as nervous as you…”

By Sabrina Costanzo and Matthias Grabmair The big moment is there. You try to hide your tension. A last check for all materials being there. A brief look across the room to make yourself aware of everyone. They all look at you with anticipation, awaiting your next move. You nervously take a final breath and ... tell the oralist to proceed.

Young apprentice judges find themselves on a quest to gather experience throughout every oral round in which they participate. Each of them has joined the ranks from a different entry point and acquires individual ways of coping with the responsibilities of judging.

Continued Pg. 8

Soroush Kafiabadi-No longer a “new judge.”

Soroush is currently studying his LPC at College of Law in London, he competed in 2005 and coached the Kings College team in 2006.

“One cannot forget Deb and Dag’s “judicial get together” where intellectual discussions about Jessup were held over some Earl Grey.”

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 8

JESSUP ROLES “Dear participants, I am just as nervous as you...” (Cont’d from Pg. 7)

The following lines allow a brief, exemplary insight into the personal perception and attitude of two young judges, Sabrina Costanzo and Matthias Grabmair.

Sabrina Costanzo and Matthias Grabmair

“The crucial element remains the awareness of the fact that every round is the one round for the participants which will shape them and their memory of the Jessup.”

Sabrina: I participated as an oralist in 2003 and got hooked on the Jessup spirit. After coming back in 2005, I have been judging every year since with the same enthusiasm. My personal experiences as an oralist, the hard work spent preparing the arguments, the emotions I have lived, and the judges I had the honor to meet then, all strongly influence my approach to judging and sometimes render me just as nervous as the oralist presenting to me. Despite having changed to the other side of the bench, I still perceive myself as being in a position to learn from seasoned judges and under a duty to keep up a standard. It is not difficult to identify personally with the participants and I constantly aspire to make their Jessup experience just as memorable as mine.

Matthias: I competed in 2004 and have been judging since 2005. My fascination with judging stems from the unique nature of every single oral round as I consider them an opportunity to enter into a personal play about law and how it relates to a real-life situation, which to me is only framed by a case-specific argument. Rather than putting the person into an oral-exam situation, I perceive my duty as a judge as the obligation to provide each oralist with an individual environment and challenge that allows her to perform best given her personality and level of skill. For me, spurring their engagement during the argument and feeling their true emotional participation in the Jessup is the highest reward of all.

An oral round bench faces the difficult task of keeping itself balanced and of adjusting to the teams as well as to one another. We firmly believe young judges should contribute to this through sensitivity and reason, rather than by trying to imitate or prematurely acquire habits supposedly reflecting great wisdom or character; this task must be pursued with constant listening to more experienced judges as well as with the highest respect for the competitors and their hard work. Although judges eventually gain the experience of having absorbed many rounds and having mastered various constellations, the crucial element remains: the awareness that every round is the one round for the participants which will shape them and their memory of the Jessup. We are judges for two hours solely because the participants wish to plead to and argue with us so that they may grow from the experience. We owe it to them.

History of the Jessup

Submitted By: Caroline Cowen

The purpose of the Jessup Competition is to promote international education and global awareness of important issues of international law. The Jessup Competition was the brainchild of Professor Richard R. Baxter at Harvard Law School, who worked with then Assistant Professor Stephen M. Schwebel (later President of the International Court of Justice) to create a courtroom simulation that was grounded in international law.

Originally named the "International Law Moot," the Jessup Competition held its first round at Harvard University on 8 May 1960. The round, comprised only of Harvard Law students, involved a team of two American law students, Thomas J. Farer and William Zabel, and a team of two foreign LL.M. students, Ivan L. Head of Canada and Bernard H. Clark of New Zealand. The first Jessup problem, "Cuban Agrarian Reform Case," was written by Professor Schwebel. Since then, the impact of the Jessup Competition has increased dramatically.

In 1962, at the encouragement of Professor Richard R. Baxter and other members of ASIL, the Jessup Competition was held for the first time at the Annual Meeting of ASIL. Continued Pg. 9

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 9 History of the Jessup (Cont’d from Pg. 8) During that Annual Meeting, law student delegates from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Virginia, and Duke University met to discuss the future of the Competition and the need to coordinate activities between the international law student groups. The delegates founded the Association of Students International Law Societies (ASILS), an umbrella organization entrusted with the administration of the Competition and cooperative student activities.

The fourth Jessup Competition in 1963 involved eight United States teams. For the first time Regional Competitions were held. The winners of both regions competed in a Championship Round. At this same meeting, the students of the newly-formed ASILS officially named the moot court competition in honor of Judge Philip C. Jessup of the International Court of Justice.

1982 Jessup Champions— National Univ. of Singapore.

In the late 1960s, Stephen M. Schwebel, then Executive Director of ASIL, and later President of the International Court of Justice, sought to create a full-time fellowship position for the administration of the Competition, in cooperation with the student members of the ASILS. This fellowship position was located at the Tillar House, home of the ASIL in Washington, D.C. and was filled by a recent law graduate specializing in international law.

With the establishment of a fellowship in 1969, funded by the Henry Luce Foundation, ASIL became the official sponsor of the Jessup Competition. ASIL sought to help internationalize the Competition beyond North America by soliciting funds on behalf of the Jessup Competition to support the participation of teams from other continents. These funds allowed the teams from France, Argentina, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and Zambia to participate in the Jessup Competition.

During the 1960s, the Competition involved U.S. and Canadian schools only. However, as the number of foreign schools increased, the Competition was separated into two divisions - U.S. National and International Rounds - with the winner of each division competing in the Jessup World Cup Championship Round. In 1988, due to the dramatically increasing size of the Competition and the thoughtful suggestions from Friends of the Jessup (FOJs), the divisions were integrated into one international "Semifinals Competition."

In 1987, ASILS, which remained administrator of the Competition, reconstituted itself as the International Law Students Association (ILSA). The students of ILSA continued to support the fellowship position to an even greater extent and to seek more financial self-sufficiency for the Jessup.

Due in part to the increased size of the Competition, ILSA incorporated as an independent non-profit corporation on May 23, 1994, to administer the Jessup and ILSA's other diverse programs more effectively. In 2003, ILSA relocated its world headquarters to Chicago, Illinois, where it is hosted by the DePaul University College of Law.

Jonathan Clarke Green 1987-1989—Fellow.

In 2002, Shearman & Sterling, a prestigious New York-based international law firm with long ties to the Jessup Competition, agreed to underwrite and sponsor the International Rounds, now renamed the “Shearman & Sterling International Rounds.” Under the agreement, which brought the vast marketing, legal, and administrative resources of Shearman & Sterling to bear on the administration of the top level of the Competition, the championship trophy was also renamed the “Shearman & Sterling Jessup Cup.”

The Competition would not exist without the thousands of hours of volunteer support which are given by the Friends of the Jessup. FOJs include former participants, judges and supporters of the Jessup Competition worldwide. Through their dedication and contributions of time as judges, coaches, administrators and fundraisers, the Jessup has been able to grow and expand throughout the world. Participants in the Jessup can be found in the world’s finest law firms, corporations, universities, parliaments and international organizations. The 2008 Jessup Competition involved over 2,000 students from more than 500 law schools in over 80 nations.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 10

Ashley Walker - ILSA’s New Jessup Competition Coordinator

Ashley Walker— Jessup Competition Coordinator

“The FOJs are the backbone of the Jessup, and I am confident that with your continued commitment, our 50th Anniversary Year will be the most memorable to date.”

This past August, I joined the ILSA Executive Office as the incoming Jessup Competition Coordinator, marking the most recent development in my Jessup career. I was introduced to the Jessup Competition as a first year law student at Washington University in St. Louis eager to gain exposure to international law. Most first year law school curricula do not include a course in public international law, so I looked forward to the opportunity to participate in the Jessup as a second year student. However, I was nervous to compete for a place on a team arguing legal issues I had yet to study. That summer, I enrolled in the Summer Institute for Global Justice at Utrecht University to learn as much as possible about international law prior to Jessup auditions. After courses at Utrecht concluded, I attended The Hague Academy of International Law Public International Law Program. The Jessup program resembles The Hague Academy both in its educational scope and outreach to students of all nationalities. I forged close friendships with my Brazilian, Swedish, and Italian housemates in the Hague, and have only seen the camaraderie at the Academy equaled at the International Rounds of the Jessup, in particular the Go National Ball.

My hard work paid off, and my 2L year I had the privilege of competing on the Washington University Jessup Team both at the South Central Regional Competition and the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds. That year and the next, I put more time and effort into the Jessup than all of my law classes combined, and certainly experienced the benefit threefold.

Despite being eliminated in the “sweet sixteen” round at Internationals, our team left the competition feeling victorious, taking home the Evans Memorial award and new friendships with competitors from all parts of the world. I couldn’t wait for the next year’s Jessup season to begin.

In the summer of 2007, I returned to The Hague, interning with a Croat defense team at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I developed enduring interests in the politics of the U.N.—the Security Council in particular—and the relationships among co -defendants, prosecutors, judges, and U.N. officials making critical decisions about the future of the Tribunal. That fall I returned to Washington University to captain the Jessup Team, which fought its hardest battles at the Midwest Super Regional Rounds. The level of competition in Chicago was enormously challenging. I vividly recall close contests with Loyola, Detroit Mercy and DePaul. Again our team advanced to Washington, and I was thrilled to share the international rounds experience with my new teammates.

That year, our team number was not called at the Announcement Party, and the devastation of countless hours of hard work and emotional investment suddenly cut short was heartbreaking. This is the quintessential competition experience; every elimination is premature, each competitor aches to go forward, argue another round. And now? How would I reconnect with the part of my life I had so generously neglected during Jessup season? As luck would have it, my graduation from law school coincided with Jeremy’s departure from the Jessup Competition Coordinator position with ILSA, and I did not have to answer that difficult question.

As the Jessup Competition Coordinator, I am able to devote myself entirely to the Competition that has given me so much over the past two years. As a former competitor, I am committed to making the competition experience as rewarding as possible, maximizing the educational and social gains that come from a week of exposure to the world’s top legal practitioners at the International Rounds. I have the rare opportunity to work from the inside out to achieve the Competition’s principle goal: promote the rule of law by educating and engaging the next generation of international leaders. I am honored to share in this mission and welcome your advice and ideas as the 2009 Jessup season moves forward. The FOJs are the backbone of the Jessup, and I am confident that with your continued commitment, our 50th Anniversary Year will be the most memorable to date.

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 11

Caroline Cowen—ILSA’s New Jessup Outreach Coordinator My name is Caroline Cowen, the new Jessup Outreach Coordinator. As I was winding down my senior year at DePaul University last fall, I began an internship at ILSA. From the start, the internship provided me with the opportunity to explore several facets of life I am passionate about, such as geography, international relations, and law. Moreover, I was able to meet people from various backgrounds, which has always been an enriching experience for me. My internship entailed everything from drafting visa letters to traveling to the U.S. Super-Regional Rounds in Houston, Washington D.C., and Chicago.

Traveling to these Rounds gave me an in-depth understanding of how the Jessup works. After International Rounds in April, ILSA invited me to return as an employee of the Executive Office. I was more than happy to stay on board. I will be assisting Ashley, our new Jessup Competition Coordinator, with the upcoming Jessup season, as well as helping to prepare for this year’s 50th Anniversary Celebration.

I am thrilled to be involved in the intricacies of the Jessup -- from administrative duties to partaking in the Go National Ball during International Rounds. Being a part of the Jessup team this year will surely be a worthwhile experience. I hope to see everyone I met last year in D.C. again, and I look forward to meeting all of the new teams, administrators, practitioners, and FOJs from around the world!

Calling all Judges!

ILSA wants YOU to apply your international law expertise and enthusiasm for the Jessup as a memorial and oral rounds Judge at the National, Regional and International levels of the Competition.

National and Regional Rounds are held end of January through the beginning of March all around the world. Specific locations and dates for these competitions will be announced in November and will continue to be updated throughout the Competition season.

The U.S. Regional Rounds are held in six cities across the U.S. during the weekends of February 13th-15th, 20th-22nd, and 27th-March 1st. The host cities, host institutions and corresponding dates for the U.S. Regional Rounds will be announced in November.

Caroline Cowen— Jessup Outreach Coordinator

The 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Competition is the perfect opportunity to reunite with old colleagues and forge new friendships among more than 3,000 of your fellow FOJs.

The Shearman & Sterling International Rounds are 22-28 March, 2009 in Washington, D.C. at the Fairmont Hotel, and coincides with the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law and the ILSA Spring Conference.

•

For more information about National and Regional Rounds, please visit the “National and Regional Rounds” page of the ILSA website at http://www.ilsa.org/ jessup/national.php.

•

For more information about the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds, please visit the “International Rounds” page of the ILSA website at http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/international.php.

•

For more information about the Jessup 50th Anniversary, including National and Regional Rounds events and the week-long celebration planned for the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds, please visit the “Jessup 50th Anniversary” page of the ILSA website at http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/50.php.

•

To receive an email announcement when the 2009 Judge Registration Form becomes available subscribe to the FOJ listserv.

Matthias Grabmair wearing Jack Norton’s Scottish Barrister Robes

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 12

1959 In the News

*Compiled by: Rebecca Grabski Major International Headlines from 1959

1) Dalai Lama leaves Tibet and presides in a small town in the foothills of the Himalayas in northern India, considered to be a government in exile.

2) Fidel Castro gains control of Cuba.

3) The Soviet Union reveals the first pictures of the far side of the Moon.

Stephen M. Schwebel and fellow judges.

4) Declaration of the Rights of the Child is drafted by the UN Commission on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1959.

5) December 1: 12 nations sign Antarctic treaty for scientific peaceful use of Antarctica.

2009 marks the 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Competition. In honor of this special occasion, the Friends of the Jessup Newsletter will highlight historic developments in the Jessup program and in international law. All FOJ’s are invited to attend the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds in Washington D.C. 22-28 March, 2009 to reunite with old colleagues and celebrate the many contributions of the FOJ community. Shearman & Sterling will host a reception to welcome and honor all FOJ’s on Monday, 23 March, 2009. For more information about this and other Anniversary events, please visit the ILSA website at http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/50.php.

1999—Pam Young, Elizabeth Black and Laura Alami

Union for the Mediterranean: Building a Legal Community Across Shores

By Sophie Wernert

Sophie Wernert— Advocat in Paris France and the European International Regional Editor. She is eagerly awaiting the Union for the Mediterranean.

The 2007 Jessup Problem concerning the Rotian Union is barely history (those Sophians...!), and yet a new international organization is in formation in the European / North African region: the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM).

Formalized on 13 July 2008 by the joint declaration of the Paris summit for the Mediterranean co-hosted by France and Egypt, the project of creating a Union for the Mediterranean is well under way. With 43 supporting States (including 27 EU-member States), the soon-tobe international organization has identified an ambitious political objective: “transform[ing] the Mediterranean into an area of peace, democracy, cooperation and prosperity.”

Continued Pg. 13

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 13

Current Events: Union for the Mediterranean (Cont’d from Pg. 12) The Euro-Mediterranean process was initiated in 1995 with the Barcelona process (Euromed), but failed to reach a viable stage due in large part to the Middle East tensions. It resurfaced it 2007 and became one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the EU, despite widespread skepticism on both sides of the Mediterranean. EU candidates, such as Turkey, were reluctant to participate, the UfM being perceived as a substitute for EU membership. Rapprochement among Syria, Israel, and their neighbors was also a significant step. The Maghreb expressed concern over another initiative dominated by the North.

Eventually, Libya was the only major absentee at the summit.

Beyond the diplomatic challenge of assembling those 43 State representatives, the Paris summit re-instigated a North-South cultural and political dialogue and identified common goals: e.g. protecting the environment beyond the 1976 Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution (and protocols), promoting sustainable development and management of natural resources and water, and encouraging co-development and poverty alleviation.

Several key projects were singled out, such as de-polluting the Mediterranean (by 2020), managing sea lanes and improving transport infrastructure, setting up student exchange programs and scientific cooperation, and promoting solar energy. However, even in its earlier political stage, the UfM promoters did not address any properly legal projects, aside from general considerations of human rights, justice, and migration issues.

In that context, the Civil Law Initiative (Fondation pour le droit continental) organized the International Convention of Jurists in support of the Union for the Mediterranean (Nice, France, 28-29 June 2008). The Convention gathered together lawyers from the Mediterranean region, representing the legal profession, including European and international institutions, with a view to building a legal community by adding a legal dimension to the UfM and identifying common legal areas and projects.

Participants to the Nice Convention endorsed a common declaration spelling out the possibility for legal convergence and mutual understanding between legal systems, and identifying initiatives to build a community of lawyers. Over 800,000 individuals and institutions, representing 22 countries, have signed the common declaration. Simplifying conflicts of laws and jurisdictions, reinforcing judicial cooperation, and creating professional networks were among the directives defined at the Nice Convention. Eventually, common legal issues should be identified leading - why not? - to the emergence of a “lex mediterranea” - a body of rules common and specific to the region.

The Union for the Mediterranean is only at its very early stage of creation. It is still an initiative and not yet an organization with a seat (which will be announced in November 2008), a sustainable budget or a staff. Yet, the Euro-Mediterranean legal community is looking forward to its next step. Upon closing the Nice Convention, Dr. Ahmed Fathy Sorour, Speaker of the Egyptian people’s Assembly, called for a second annual meeting on the other side of the sea, in Alexandria, Egypt, in October 2009.

Let us hope that with such legal expertise surrounding its formation, the Union for the Mediterranean, unlike our Rotian Union, will not inspire another Jessup Compromis!

More information: www.ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed /www.fondationdroitcontinental.org Image and credits: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/4/48/Union_for_the_Med.png

“The Union for the Mediterranean is only at its very early stage of creation....Yet, the EuroMediterranean legal community is looking forward to its next step.”

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 14

REGIONAL INTEREST

AFRICA In the Spotlight – An Interview with…Tania Steenkamp Tania Steenkamp (pictured pg 15), competed in Jessup in 2003 for the North-West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa. She is currently with Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Could you describe your history with the Jessup competition?

My first acquaintance with the Jessup was in 2002, the one and only time that my university decided to enter a team for the competition (for the 2002/2003 competition). In 2003, we came second in the national championships, advanced to the International Rounds and ended 22nd overall. Since then I've been involved as a judge in the South African and French National Rounds.

Francis Yalley— International Regional Editor—Africa

Why do you think Jessup has a role to play in the legal education of the countries you have been involved in?

In my experience, unless one decides to specialize in Public International Law by means of a Masters degree or PhD, there are relatively few opportunities for law students to learn about PIL issues. Universities most often choose to focus their programs on various domestic law fields, and would only have PIL as one or two courses contributing to one's law degree, often as an elective course. This approach may be justified by the fact that most law students will go on to practice domestic law. Be that as it may, the Jessup gave me and many other law students the chance to expand our PIL knowledge and to learn about work opportunities should one decide to specialize in PIL. Furthermore, being a competition that attracts teams from so many countries around the world, the Jessup forces participants to look at international law questions from many points of view, and not only from the point of view of one's own country.

What has been your best moment at Jessup so far?

Representing my country at the 2003 Jessup international rounds. In my experience no other international moot court competition can match the Jessup when it comes to the diversity of the teams taking part in the competition. The camaraderie among the participants—despite the tough competition--is truly unique. I’ve also had the chance to meet some admirable people as a direct result of being involved with the Jessup – both among the judges and the participants.

Have you had a worst moment at Jessup?

I've had a few embarrassing experiences when judges asked me questions I was not prepared to answer. One of the most embarrassing was probably being quizzed by John Dugard, the ILC's Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection, on the newest (at the time) ILC Report on diplomatic protection and having to admit that I hadn't read it, since it was released only a couple of weeks before the oral rounds of the competition.

Another experience, that I cannot forget, happened during the preliminary rounds of the South African national rounds. Our Jessup Compromis in 2003 concerned human rights abuses including trafficking in women and modern day slavery. The women in question were promised a new life in a new country, but ended up working in terrible conditions in brothels in their new home. Our position was argued by my teammate, therefore I didn't know it by heart. I did know that many of the instruments that were signed or ratified by countries concerned dealt with labour conditions and a large part of the argument concerned discussing the conditions these women lived in to prove that they were in effect kept as slaves and forced into prostitution by the traffickers. During one particular round, my teammate passed me a piece of paper just before I was supposed to start our rebuttal

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 15

Tania Steenkamp (Cont’d from Pg. 14) saying "= not prostitution. Work conditions!", of course meaning the prostitution in itself does not prove the women were kept as slaves, but the conditions in which they were kept do. I misunderstood the note at the time and stood up, saying with full conviction "it is not the prostitution which is in issue here - they don't mind being prostitutes - it is the conditions in which they live that is the problem." Needless to say, everyone in the room looked at me in complete shock (including my teammates) and then burst out laughing. I only realised what I had said after it was all over...

Do you have a favorite question when judging?

"Why?" Simply asking an oralist to substantiate a controversial statement often shows whether the Tania Steenkamp oralist has indeed thought about what he or she is saying, or is just repeating a tried and tested answer without actually thinking about it.

What are your plans for the 50th Jessup Anniversary?

I would like to judge at the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds in Washington, DC this year. I also hope to be involved both in the South African and French National Rounds as a judge.

Which question did you want to be asked in this interview, (and answer it)? What impact has taking part in the Jessup had in your life?

Taking part in the Jessup has created many wonderful opportunities for me. Besides meeting very interesting people from all over the world, I've had the chance to work with Shearman & Sterling's International Arbitration Practice Group in Paris for three and a half years - a unique experience that has given me the opportunity to learn from amazing lawyers like Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi. The skills I developed during my time in Paris will definitely be an asset now that I’ve returned to South Africa to continue my career.

The Ghana National Round of The 2008 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot

By Francis Yalley Court Competition The Ghana National Round The idea of organizing the National Round in Ghana was to ensure Ghana chose from the widest field of studentadvocates. Another reason was to ensure Ghana competed more effectively at the International Rounds with the National Round serving as a preliminary round for the winners.

The first National Round was held in 2007 between the Ghana School of Law and the Faculty of Law of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology. The Ghana National Round has since been dubbed the Akufo-Addo Ghana National Round in honour of the title sponsor of the event. Competitors were from the Ghana School of Law, the Faculty of Law of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology and the Faculty of Law of the University of Ghana, Legon. The purpose of the Akufo-Addo Ghanaian Tournament determines the top Ghanaian team which advances to the International Rounds to compete for the Shearman & Sterling Jessup Cup. Judges Judges were drawn from a corps of top international law scholars and first-class practitioners from the most preeminent law firms and highly regarded academics. The list read like a who’s who of Ghana’s legal and judicial fraternity. They included Professor Justice Date-Bah, member of the Supreme Court of Ghana, who presided over the final round, Gloria Akuffo, Yaw Benneh, George Sarpong, Frank Davies, Kwasi Prempeh-Eck, Ace Anan Ankomah, Nana Oye Lithur, Helen Pataki (Legal Advisor to the US Missions in West Africa), Nana Asante Bediatuo, Professor Ken Attafuah, Ernest Abotsi, Kissi Agyebeng and Yvonne Esseku. We could not have dreamed of attracting such a high caliber of judges and we extend them our grateful appreciation for making it possible to attain the highest standard in terms of judging.

The Preliminary Rounds The preliminary rounds were held to determine the contestants of the Akufo-Addo Championship Round. The judges were not to be envied at all due to the quality of the advocacy at play at this level.

Continued Pg. 16

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 16

REGIONAL INTEREST

Ghana National Rounds (Cont’d from Pg. 15) Several of the judges admitted that they were pleasantly surprised by the excellence displayed by the oralists and indeed one of the judges confessed that the notion that the standards of advocacy was falling had been totally dispelled by the performance of the competitors. The court rooms, especially during the 1st session, were full. The competition was fierce and intense.

Amity Boye and Francis Yalley

“There is no doubt that Jessup constitutes, for those who compete, an essential training ground for future leaders of the legal profession.”

At the end of the rounds, the scores bore this impression due to the close proximity of the score averages. As organizers the most difficult duty of all was to announce the results of the preliminary rounds. Kwame Amankwah-Twum, the National Administrator, had the duty of announcing the outcome. After computing the scores and double checking, the team from the Ghana School of Law was to meet the team from the Faculty of Law, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology.

The Championship Round The Chief Justice’s Court, the venue of the National Round, was packed to capacity with members of the audience jostling for space in the press gallery. The occasion was also graced by the presence of esteemed dignitaries including Nana Addo Dankwah AkufoAddo, the title sponsor; the Honourable Gloria Akuffo, Minister of Aviation; Nana Asante Bediatuo, Apagyahene of the Akyem Abuakwah Traditional Area; Professor Ken Agyeman Attafuah; Nana Oye Lithur; Kwesi Prempeh-Eck and Ernest Abotsi. The competitors gave a splendid performance; it was an intellectual contest at its finest. The competitors were at their combative best and yet were courteous in their delivery of their answers to the probing questions by the judges. The winner of the Akufo-Addo Cup was the Ghana School of Law team. Best oralist was Kidisil B. Augustine and the Nana Oye Lithur Best Female Oralist Award was Afua Baboa Opoku. Best Memorial was won by Ghana School of Law. After the final round the Student Representative Council of the Ghana School of Law hosted a cocktail reception for the competitors, dignitaries and observers. It presented an opportunity for the competitors to interact with the judges and other dignitaries.

Acknowledgments The organizers would like to thank Amity Boye, Executive Director of the ILSA, for her immeasurable help in bringing this dream to fruition. Our thanks also go to Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo, the title sponsor, for gracing the final round with his presence. We are grateful to Nana Oye Lithur for judging and for sponsoring the best Female Oralist Award, to T. Forson & Company for sponsoring the best Oralist Award and to the Honourable Gloria Akuffo for serving as a judge and sponsoring the best Memorial Award. Special thanks also go to Databank for donating and acting as Fund Managers for the National Jessup Project. This project would not have been possible without the help of Nana Kutin, Consumer Service Director of TV3; Bernard Avle, Presenter Citi FM Breakfast Show; Henry Amo-Mensah and Kwame Waja of GTV. Conclusion For the organizers, this was the best possible start to what has become an institutionalized and regular fixture on the legal calendar. There is no doubt it constitutes, for those who compete, an essential training ground for future leaders. For the volunteers, it serves as a great opportunity to see students apply the theory they have been taught and also a chance to give back to the schools and faculties that nurtured them.

Organisers Kwame Amankwah-Twum – National Administrator Michael Edem Akafia - Judges Coordinator Francis Kwesi Yally – Bailiff Coordinator

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 17

CHINA Jessup is a Life Changing Experience

By Zhang Bing Xin

Three years ago when I went into my coach’s office for the Jessup team selection interview, I did not seriously hope to be selected. I did not even know if I could speak English without difficulty; I never really had the chance to speak English except for little speeches in English lessons. I was lucky enough to be selected, and I have been involved in the competition ever since.

Ms. Carol Kalinoski provided essential help for introducing the Jessup to China. She comes here every year to judge the Chinese National Rounds. Every year she makes a speech on behalf of all the judges at the opening ceremony, and every year she repeats this same message: Jessup is a life changing experience. That is literally true for me. Everyone familiar with Chinese legal education would understand what I mean. In the typical Chinese legal education model, students are completely passive. All the courses are conducted in the form of lectures where students sit, listen, take notes, and try to memorize for the exams. Normally the classroom is comprised of a lecturer who keeps talking to an absolutely silent audience. And the lecturer lectures on legal theories and what the laws say, without bothering to question the rationale behind the rules and to examine how they are applied in real life. Nowadays the situation is slowly changing. A young generation of law faculty is trying to make their classrooms livelier and involve students in discussion and debating, but in my undergraduate study, the passivity was still prevalent (we have an undergraduate law degree in China).

Dr. Leng Xing-Yu International Regional Editor— China

Ms. Zhang Bing Xin, is from Renmin University of China, now a

That was why the experience of doing Jessup was brand new for me. It offered a whole new approach to research and study. Before Jessup what we learned were only provisions written on paper, boring to death. But in Jessup, I suddenly found that law was a living thing, always developing, and was so flexible that you could always find a way to argue for your side. And when you have to argue for two sides, you look at the same issue, same rules, and same facts in two opposite perspectives. This is extremely helpful for getting a deeper understanding of the law, for the ability of applying the law and using facts in different ways.

Ph.D candidate,

And then of course attending the International Rounds was an unforgettable experience. The first time I went to Washington, it was also the first time most of my teammates and I had ever been abroad. Seeing how the world’s top teams argue gave us a never-so-clear idea of where we were and what we could do. All these teams were so different, and I found the experience so interesting and rewarding that I participated a second time and now coach my school team.

Each year I still find myself learning new things from the Jessup. Because of my constant involvement, I developed such a strong interest in international law that I decided to pursue a career in this area, which I had never thought of before my participation with Jessup.

who won the

My professor, who introduced the Jessup to China and is now the National Administrator, says his reason for doing Jessup here is because he thinks it is extremely beneficial for Chinese law students to have a chance to participate, especially given our legal education system. I cannot agree more. Among the former participants, some are now successful young lawyers active in the top law firms in China, and some are law professors trying to make changes to the traditional educational model, and thus influence more young students. And for me, life has never been the same after the Jessup.

and was a member of the 2005 RUC team

Chinese National Championship.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 18 Ms. Ming Yaohua is from Suzhou University and was among the top 5 oralists of Chinese National Round this past year.

REGIONAL INTEREST

My Understanding of Jessup

By Ming Yaohua

I participated in the Sixth Chinese National Round for the Jessup International Law Moot Court in 2008. Jessup has brought a lot of unexpected changes in my study of law. The five months of preparation was more telling than the final result. The whole process of Jessup is a journey of unraveling the intricacy and charm of international law and legal reasoning.

Reading the Compromis of the competition really intrigued me. The hypothetical designed by many international law experts absorbed the latest developments and debates in this field, and it was so sophisticatedly composed that almost every sentence indicated some useful information which could be argued from both sides. More importantly, the competition has activated those international rules which seemed so far away from our life when they were discussed in classroom. It sharpened our edge to equip ourselves with those rules to solve “real” problems. In fact, all the crucial skills to be an excellent lawyer were trained and tested during the whole process: memo-writing, presentation, argument, and teamwork. Jessup has truly triggered and strengthened my interest in international law.

The oral part of the competition gave us opportunities to present our own opinions and also to hear very different views on the same facts from other participants. It is even more precious for us to have the chance to discuss heated issues of international law with experts, practitioners, and diplomats from various countries.

Finally, in China, Jessup sponsors provide an opportunity for an internship which is very valuable for participants. Through my Jessup experience, I was fortunate enough to be an intern in an international law firm for three months. This by-product of Jessup is invaluable and truly life changing!

Joining a Joyful Journey Mr. Hu Changjin is from China University of Political Science and Law and excelled in both the National Competition and International Rounds.

By Hu Changjin

This past April, I accompanied the Jessup team from our university to America, as we made our debut advancing to the Shearman & Sterling International Rounds of the world's largest moot court competition, the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition— considered the Olympics of international law, with a half-century long history. The journey was an unforgettable experience for all the team members.

There was a marathon of preparation that lasted for half a year, making the competition an odyssey for all participants. After a painstaking period of research and practice day after day, we broke out of 28 teams in the Chinese National Round held in Beijing in February and won the opportunity to travel to Washington D.C. D.C. is not a metropolis, but a pleasant city with beautiful tulips—brightly-colored cupshaped flowers— growing everywhere in the sunny spring weather. Besides the exotic sights in Georgetown and the marvelous architecture on Pennsylvania Avenue, we were deeply impressed by people from different lands. Law students, coaches, judges and Friends of Jessup joined together—it was a joyful carnival, a rendezvous of friends from diverse cultural backgrounds and legal systems. Of course we attended the Go-National Dress Ball during which participants donned traditional costumes, sang ethnic songs, and performed traditional dances, all of which provided us a good exchange of entirely different lifestyles and cultural mores during the competitions. As Chinese, we had a profound feeling of pride when meeting various people in an alien land, all with a zealous and ardent passion for the oriental culture of China.

Continued Pg. 19

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 19

Joining a Joyful Journey (Cont’d from Pg. 18)

Since the Beijing Olympic Games were upcoming, we joined the overseas Chinese excitement when the Olympic torch relay was underway in the West Coast cities. Some Philippine friends could not help showing their delight because they had Olympic tickets. A young man from England tried to learn Chinese from us, preparing for his upcoming visit to the Beijing Olympics.

“Winning is less important than training,” said Professor Robert Beckman, long-time Jessup team coach of the National University of Singapore. What I’d like to add is that any experience is good with Jessup. Jessup taught us that “wisdom is knowledge returning home.” We sacrificed our time, energy and endeavors, and in return harvested plenteous experience, knowledge, and most importantly, friendships. Four months after our trip to DC, our country hosted a “truly exceptional” Olympic Games for the whole world. As in my Jessup journey, I embrace the slogan “One World, One Dream” from the Olympic Green as representing diversity and harmony.

What happens will always constitute history; I believe this memory will not perish, and this journey will live on.

Reflections upon Jessuping in China.

By Michael Y. Liu

Five years ago, China and Jessup began an association benefitting hundreds of students worldwide in this "international law Olympic event." Being one of the most recently manufactured "Jessupers" in China, I feel privileged to share my experience in this life changing process.

Quite frankly, I didn’t pick this moot court purely for learning international law, as did many students in China. My school, as the host university of the National Rounds, had not yet had a chance to qualify for the International Rounds. It may have been out of a competitive nature deep in myself as a student athlete or the rough instinct this moot court was something that could make a difference or possibly my passion and love of international law, that I put all of my heart into Jessup. It turns out, this might have been one of the best choices I ever made.

I am sure everyone who has participated in Jessup knows how much effort must be devoted and the countless difficulties encountered. I won’t try to list them here, but rather share one flashing memory of Jessuping I will always remember. After days and nights of reading and countless hours of debating, we were finally trying to put everything together—writing the Memorial. There was a night, after hours of writing and liters of coffee, I decided to take a break. I was standing on my balcony in my shorts lighting up a cigarette, and the one question we all had been avoiding just struck into my mind: "what if with all the things I had done, it still gets us nothing?" I can’t remember what I did next, but I do remember when I returned to the warmth of the room, I suddenly realized how freezing cold it was outside. Everyone who has Jessuped will remember that getting frustrated is just the starting point to understanding the case. And then what you have is a more productive round of hard work.

I can’t emphasize enough what Jessup will bring into your life, both professionally and personally. Besides the fact you will gather a huge amount of pride when you represent your university and your country, there are also many interesting stories and memories. One such story from this past summer: While studying at the Hague Academy, after three weeks of intense studying, a bunch of students decided to have a beach party at the famous Scheveningen beach. All of sudden, one girl asked whether we had heard about Jessup and started a conversation about it. Immediately, I discovered the two Germans I was friends with actually had done Jessup in the exact same year as I had. So far from my own country, with so many different people, I still found a commonality, just like the sentence printed on my Jessup T-shirt: "In the future, World Leaders will look at each other differently because they first met here as friends.”

Mr. Liu Yiqiang finished his LLM in July at Renmin University of China. In 2008 he was the No.1 oralist at the Chinese National Rounds. He is an associate with Fangda Law Firm in Beijing.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 20

REGIONAL INTEREST

Commonwealth of Independent States Cold War II?

By: Sergey Alekhin

It is challenging to write about something that evolves each day. In my situation I had two options: I could write an article about the development of the conflict between Russia and Georgia or I could try to give an analysis of the conflict.

Sergey Alekhin: International Regional Editor CIS

The Commonwealth of Independent States

Right now I study international relations in France, but I am Russian. When the conflict broke out, I was still in my home country. During the first several days, I watched the news – both Russian and from abroad – trying to get a general idea of what was happening in South Osetia. Instead, I realized this is one of the largest information warfares in modern history. Some of the headlines of the Western newspapers I saw were: “Russia invades Georgia,” “Chaos in Georgia,” “2,000 killed in Georgian conflict,” and “Russian invasion may be the beginning of the Third World War.” The Russian media presented the opposite point of view, blaming Georgia and, later, the United States for starting the war. Yes, in the Russian media the conflict was tagged as a war. (Analyzing the reasons of such an intense mass-media battle is a topic for a separate article).

In my opinion the media played a negative role in this conflict. Instead of providing objective information about the conflict – simply being informative – they were, and still are, provocative and heavily politicized regarding the conflict. I believe this was the main cause of another confrontation: dozens of Georgian web sites, mostly governmental, were attacked

by Russian hackers. (Anyone recall the 2002 Jessup problem with Babbage and computer terrorism?) The same thing happened when the Government of Estonia decided to move the Russian monument of the Unknown Soldier in Tallinn. Attacking a web site may not sound as daunting as the news of the death toll in South Osetia and Georgia, but if you think about it from another perspective, it becomes clear cyberwar can be as dangerous as real-life war.

Imagine an attack on the bank servers or social security servers of any developed state, or even an attack on the servers of a large power plant. Soon after the attacks on Georgian web sites began the United States admitted if such an attack was carried out against them, they would most likely be not able to withstand it.

I should say, despite some claims that Russia won in the conflict itself, we definitely lost strategically. Russia has been heavily criticized by the US and the European states, though now the situation is slowly changing. At one time the EU members were not able to agree upon any sanctions or strict condemnation of Russia. US Senate and Congressional hearings also reveal the US may not have a straight position in this conflict. But, our relations with the Western world have definitely changed. Not only have the Russian markets almost collapsed, but there are reports large investors are not looking the same way at Russia. Bearing in mind Prime-Minister Putin assurances the investors have nothing to fear, we should admit the conflict has played a negative role in Russia’s economy. Moreover, the process of signing a new agreement on cooperation between the EU and Russia has been suspended for an indefinite period.

It will only be possible, after a long time, to list the problems Russia encountered after “victory in the conflict.” Still, there are people that will say Russia’s superpower image is reviving and that Russia is showing its capabilities. Additionally, some Russians say they don’t need the West and that they will live well without any relationships to foreign partners. This sounds like people in Russia want their country to be completely isolated. For the leaders of Russia, I assume, “isolated” means “non-transparent,” which means, Continued Pg. 21

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 21

REGIONAL INTEREST

Cold War II? (Cont’d from Pg. 20) “let’s do anything we want with the country and no one will say a word against us because the citizens are used to the grin-and-bear-it lifestyle.” Regardless, I hadn’t heard opinions like that two months ago. This seems strange to me; I hear sentiments like this not only on TV or from older people who lived in the USSR and remember the feeling of being the superpower, but from my friends as well. The only thing I see, the only way I can explain this is massmedia manipulation. Indeed, it is much easier to watch only Russian news and read only Russian newspapers and websites than to try to build your own opinion regarding the conflict. This lack of knowledge and concern for learning other opinions is disappointing to me.

I believe both parties closed their eyes on the norms of international law. Both Russian and Georgian actions were disproportionate. But many people claim this situation is similar to the actions of the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq proportionate, and were these invasions more proportionate than Georgia destroying the city of Tskhinvali or the Russian army invading far beyond the zone of conflict? Sadly, what we’ve seen during the last few decades is the decreasing authority of international law. The world powers declare their commitment to international law, but when it comes to a situation like Afghanistan and Iraq, Kosovo’s declaration of independence and South Osetia, the attitude toward international law changes. After the Nicaragua case, the US simply relieved itself of responsibility to conform to the decisions of the ICJ. Currently, the Georgia vs. Russian Federation case is pending in the ICJ and it may result in a decision against Russia. I believe there are grounds to assume Russia may act in a similar manner as the US in the Nicaragua case. The people of Russia are well prepped by their mass-media for such an event. Sadly, I fear, this will signify another major step in the overall decline of the authority of international law.

This conflict has again reminded the world of the necessity of UN Security Council reform. Many believe when it comes to conflict resolution involving participation of a permanent member, the Security Council is highly ineffective. Some believe the current situation involving Russia proves this. The Security Council is unlikely to come up with an effective resolution for the conflict if Russia has the right to veto. It should be recalled the US used their veto right over 40 times regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There is a common preface in Russia, “Back in the old days…” Older people use it to compare the current state of affairs with Soviet times. Back in the old days Russians believed their country was the most powerful in the world and every single foreigner envied the Russian life. Back in the old days Russians were convinced they had everything they needed. Back in the old days Russians didn’t need to think about policy matters – the governmental policy line was the only correct one. Back in the old days the sun was brighter and milk tasted more natural. What I see now is the powers of Russia and the Russian media trying to make people believe it is possible to revive this feeling of the “old days,” but without mentioning communism. Those same powers used the Osetian conflict to rally the citizens around this idea. Scholars can discuss the applicability of democracy in Russia for ages but what people in Russia see is we are losing the concept that toppled the Soviet Union. I cannot say whether we even have had democracy after 1991, but right now, I fear, we are drifting away from it.

The Hague—Peace Palace

International Court of Justice Fun Facts!

1. The ICJ has 15 concurrent sitting Justices.

2. The first Justices took office the 6th of February in 1946.

3. An ICJ Justice’s term on the bench is nine years.

4. The annual salary of an ICJ Justice is $160,000 (untaxed).

5. To argue in front of the ICJ a person is not required to have any qualifications, but they must be appointed by one of the member States.

Can you name all the sitting ICJ Justices?

ICJ Chambers

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 22

REGIONAL INTEREST

Russian-Georgian Conflict

By Tamar Ghonghadze

As a participant of Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, I worked on various issues of public international law last year such as self defense, use of force, conflict qualification, and war crimes with the Jessup problem involving Adovia and Rotania. But I could have never imagined that soon upon my return to Tbilisi, I would have to face all these "hypothetical" issues in real life and in my own country of Georgia.

Tamar Ghonghadze enjoying a pensive moment

I witnessed in real life the ongoing conflict trigger two different parts of international law I had just been studying: jus ad bellum (the law regulating use of force) and jus in bello (laws of armed conflict) and from my student perspective I would like to explain what I have seen in relation to international law so similar to a Jessup problem.

In response to the shelling of ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia by separatist forces, Georgian military launched a limited operation into territory held by ethnic separatists on 7 August 2008 with the purpose of ceasing the attacks launched by Ossetian separatists and protecting the population (both ethnically Georgian and Ossethian in the region). The situation strongly deteriorated with Ossetian attacks that resulted in the beginning of the conflict between Georgia and the South Ossetian separatist regime. At the time this was not recognized by any of the UN member states and was exclusively an internal matter (1). The Russian armed forces entered the territory of Georgia in the early hours of 8 of August 2008.

And so began the Russian-Georgian Conflict.

You may recall the situation between Adova and Rotania where allegations of use of force occurred due to reactions along the border and with the temples. Similarly, following a Georgian military operation to stop attacks by separatists in South Ossetia, the Russian Federation sent their military into Georgian territory, the region of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capitol. Incredulously, I heard the Russian government use similar arguments to those advanced at the Jessup moot to support the military actions which had just transpired: a) Protection of its nationals abroad and humanitarian needs to halt "genocide and ethnic cleansing" and b) protection of its peacekeeping forces deployed in the conflict zone (2).

I was amazed as the parallel situation of my Jessup problem took life. The main argument voiced by Russia to justify its military intervention in Georgia was the fact the population of the Tskhinvali Region had been receiving citizenship of the Russian Federation over the past few years. As we can recall from the Adovia/Rotania scenario, having citizens (or ethnic groups) in another country does not warrant the right to use force against a sovereign country. The ILC Report emphasizes state practice in combination with the prohibition of use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which outlaws use of force under the pretexts of diplomatic protection. The only exception to this provision, permitting the unilateral use of force by States, is Article 51, which deals with the right to self-defense (3).

But, as 2008 Jessupers recall the slippery slope we traveled, self defense is itself limited to cases in which the State concerned has been the victim of an armed attack (4). Such a prior armed attack must be carried out by a state against another state (5). Under the UN Charter, a military action carried out in self defense must meet the requirements of necessity (no other alternative action is possible) and proportionality. (Many of us can well recall the problems with our arguments against a panel of Jessup “ICJ” judges…)

I have listened to arguments about “armed attacks,” self defense, necessity and proportionality. Claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing (6) have been alleged. International Organization reports conflict (7) with media information and government claims which attempt to justify actions taken while people are injured and die from these hostilities.

Continued Pg. 23

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 23

Russian-Georgian Conflict (Cont’d from Pg. 22) As a law student I have observed how the principal rules of conduct of hostilities such as the distinction between civilian and military objectives, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, proportionality in attacks, and others have been applied in real life. Georgian media, as well as CNN, BBC and International human rights groups reported Russian forces violating principles governing the conduct of hostilities. They reported the main targets of attack were cities and villages populated by civilians. As a result of these attacks houses and property were destroyed and civilian casualties were registered. I have seen on the news "recent satellite images confirming the destruction of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia. Detailed analysis of the damage depicted in five ethnic Georgian villages shows the destruction around the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, caused by intentional burning.(8)” Again, what was a “game,” a serious law student educational challenge, has come to life. I wonder, were the writers of the problem precognizant… I have dreamt several times of waking up to another day of being in DC at the Jessup competition, seeing the cherry blossoms in the nice spring air and thinking about legal arguments concerning the conflict between two made-up States, knowing the activities were not happening in real life. Despite several days of confusion, frustration, and stress regarding the factual circumstances, the questioning by judges, and the competition between teams from around the world, the moot case will always stay in our memory as part of a fun competition and leave us with more practice in international law and memories of parties and friends. But sadly, the events of this August have also made this particular "hypothetical" very real for me and my fellow teammates.

(1) Anthony Dworkin “The Georgia Conflict and International Law,” found at http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-georgia.html (2) International Crisis Group Report “Russia vs Georgia: The Fallout” available at http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm? id=5636&l=1 , p. 28 (3) International Law Commission, 52nd Session, First Report on Diplomatic Protection, by Mr. John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on Draft Articles, A/CN.4/506, 7 March 2000 (4) Nicaragua case, ICJ Reports 1986, para. 195.

(5) Palestinian Wall Case, Advisory Opinion, para. 139 (6) www.kremlin.ru/eng/events/details/2008/08/08_205064.shtml.

(7) Human Rights Watch Report, August 28, 2008, available at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/27/georgi19704.htm (8) Id. at August 29, 2008 available at - http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm.

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 set-up of the mooting process, 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.

Jessup Teams 1999 Go National Ball

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 24

REGIONAL INTEREST

EUROPE Practicing Law in a Foreign Jurisdiction: How Can Jessup Be

By Ioana Knoll-Tudor Helpful?

I have effectively been a foreign lawyer since I left Romania at age 18 to go and study law in France. Since then, I have studied law at various levels all around Europe, and am currently an associate lawyer in an international law firm in Warsaw, Poland. The experience I gathered, and the passion I have developed for international law has fuelled a broader perspective on legal issues and institutions that I believe has made me a stronger lawyer. My involvement with Jessup over the years, first as a participant, then as a judge, has allowed me to develop the skills necessary to become a ‘European Lawyer’, and remains one of my most treasured experiences.

For me, an intimate knowledge of the language or the legal system is no longer a barrier to practising abroad. This may have been true once, but with the growing popularity of law student exchange programmes such as Erasmus, and competitions such as Jessup, it is increasingly more common and popular to practice law in a foreign jurisdiction.

Possibility to practice as an EU lawyer For EU-qualified lawyers, practicing in a different EU country is facilitated by the adoption of two EU directives: one allowing them to practise in any other EU member state under the title where they are qualified, once they are registered on the list of foreign lawyers at the local bar (for example, I am working in Poland as a Spanish ‘Abogada’), and the other allowing EU-qualified lawyers to qualify in another European jurisdiction, usually involving a local entry exam. These two directives have been implemented in most EU national legal systems.

Ioana Knoll-Tudor is an Associate at Gide Loyrette Nouel in Poland. Ioana competed in the Jessup National and International Rounds for the Paris II Assas Law School in 2001 and has judged National Rounds in Poland, Romania, and France since 2006.

How is it in practice?

So while it is possible to work in other EU jurisdictions, how easy is it in practice, and what added value can you bring? In today’s business environment, especially in new EU member states, most of the clients of an international firm are either foreign investors or national investors collaborating with a foreign investor. Either foreign investors will appreciate being able to deal with a lawyer who speaks their language, or transactions are carried out in English, which dominates as the main language of drafting and negotiating. As most national codes and laws are translated and available in English, and as there are always nationally trained colleagues who can assist you, the potential language barriers are significantly diminished. Added to this is the growing importance of harmonised EU law, reducing the differences among national legal systems and making the experience of the foreign lawyer more relevant and pertinent.

The only field of law foreign lawyers have trouble breaking into is litigation, since appearing in front of a national court requires a good command of the language as a prerequisite (in Poland, an EU-qualified lawyer may not appear in front of a Polish court without being assisted by a Polish qualified lawyer). However, as dispute resolution methods such as arbitration and mediation become ever more popular, even the specific field of litigation is opening up to foreign lawyers (most international arbitration cases are conducted in English, French or Spanish).

What are the skills that a lawyer needs in order to be able to practice law in a foreign jurisdiction?

• A good understanding of how legal systems work, the general issues and problems to be aware of, and where to look for the relevant information; Continued Pg. 25

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 25

Practicing Law in a Foreign Jurisdiction: How Can Jessup Be Helpful? (Cont’d from Pg. 24) • An ability to draft and to express legal issues and solutions in a clear, concise and reader-friendly way; • Experience in dealing with more than one legal system.

A foreign lawyer complements the work of national colleagues in terms of creativity and an outsider’s perspective.

Creativity is required as there is always room for comparing the relevant provisions of jurisdictions you know against provisions of the national law of your host country. Taking a very simple example, under Polish law a limited partnership is a new and rarely used form of company. There is barely any jurisprudence to draw on. Therefore, as a foreign lawyer, there is a reflex to immediately check other legal systems to see how this issue is dealt with. In reality, it turns out that the provisions of the Polish Code of Commercial Companies concerning limited partnerships are inspired by German law, where this type of company is in common use. Bringing the practice of a foreign legal system, while being aware of the specificities of the legal system you are practicing in, is one vital added value of a foreign lawyer.

When do lawyers acquire these skills?

As someone who has been a Jessup judge in Eastern Europe, I saw that comparative skills are neglected within some areas of legal education. In many Eastern European countries, the focus is on learning codes and provisions and being asked to reproduce them during oral or multiple choice exams, without being required to examine them or argue points in practical situations. It is also true that drafting skills are a neglected part of the legal studies. Only rarely are law students asked to draft a legal document, leaving them confused as to how to approach a particular subject once they start their professional life. The lack of relevant drafting skills that could be easily developed in one’s legal education—say, an optional class—effectively undermines students’ efforts to become European practitioners in a certain field of law.

How can Jessup be useful?

Jessup may raise the awareness, on the part of students, that they need to further develop a specific skill set. Participating in a Jessup competition involves drafting memorials, developing main lines of legal argument and devising subsidiary response points, and coming face to face with a legal system other than your own, namely international law. Most importantly, participants will engage law students from all over the world, exchanging knowledge and creating inspiration and interest – a true comparative, and indeed competitive, experience.

In my opinion, the Jessup competition is not only a great exercise for every student (or judge) involved, but also opens doors as well as minds, and exposes a student to what she will later refer to as the ‘real world’.

ILSA FALL CONFERERNCE: “UNDERSTANDING GENOCIDE.” The ILSA Fall Conference “Understanding Genocide.” was held October 2-4 at the Vermont Law School in South Royalton, Vermont.

The keynote speaker was Juan Mendez, who served as the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide from 2004-2007 and is currently the President of the International Center for Transitional Justice.

The conference featured ten substantive panels and also hosted networking events for students interested in careers in international law.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 26

REGIONAL INTEREST

Latin America The 2008 Jessup Problem and the Colombia-Ecuador incident: Not just a mere coincidence By The University of Los Andes 2008 Jessup Team

Ricardo Chirinos— International Regional Editor—Latin America

March 1, 2008 is a date that will not be forgotten by the five students from Universidad de los Andes in Colombia that participated in the 2008 Jessup competition. The morning began like every other Saturday morning we sacrificed in preparation for the National and International Jessup Rounds: a trip to the law school's auditorium for a round of intense mooting. The team and our practice round Jessup judges, Federico Guzmán and Sebastián Machado, were oblivious to the chain of Compromis-related real-life events that had just ensued.

Early that morning Colombian military forces had bombed a FARC camp located in Ecuadorian territory just a few kilometers from the Colombian border. The attack resulted in the death of 25 guerrilla members, including the group’s second-in-command, legendary leader “Raul Reyes.” Formed in the 1960´s, the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) is the largest and oldest insurgent organization of the Americas. During this century the United Nations Security Council and the Organization of American States (OAS) had determined the FARC’s exercise of violence in Colombia entailed acts of terrorism threatening the nation’s peace and security. The FARC has since been recognized as a terrorist group by the governments of Colombia, Canada, the United States and the European Union due to the terrorist acts it has carried out, acts which include kidnappings, bombings, and laying landmines.

While it is still not completely clear what brought about the reaction of the military that Saturday morning –whether it was a planned cross-border attack, a trans-border hot pursuit, or some other reaction prompted by necessity—what is, or at least was clear to us (and probably to many other fellow Jessupians) was the unparalleled analogy with Michael Kirgov, Gommel Vinitsa, and of course, Samara Penza, the leading figures of the 2008 Compromis. After being completely engrossed for over half a year with hypotheticals such as “whether international law recognizes pre-emptive self-defense,” “what constitutes an armed attack,” “whether a State can ever legally purse perpetrators of terrorist acts across the borders of other States,” and “under which circumstances can the wrongfulness of a violation of sovereignty resulting from a response to a terrorist attack be precluded,” a State, rather, THE State we were representing at Jessup had just acted so as to bring to life the events that prompted all these hypotheticals in the first place.

2008 Colombian National Jessup Team — Santiago Arteaga, Maria Fernanda Diago, Mario Osorio, Guillermo Otálora and Alvaro Pereira

The parallel between the 2008 Jessup problem and what had taken place on March 1 (involving the States of Colombia, Ecuador, the FARC, and eventually Venezuela) was astonishing both in terms of timing, subject matter, and accuracy in the chain of events. As Rotania had crossed over a few (25) kilometers into Adova to apprehend Samara Penza and the other LAPS terrorist suspects, and as Adova had responded by suspending trade relations and dispatching several thousand troops to the shared border, so had Colombia bombarded the FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory, and so had Venezuela—political ally of Ecuador—responded by provisionally cutting off trade relations and sending troops to the border. There had even been a resolution of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) on March 6 and a declaration of the Latin American heads of States convened in the Dominican Republic on March 7 which, to a certain extent, were the very incarnations of the fictitious UN Security Council Resolution 2233 of March 7, 2007. This parallel outcome of events in Colombia was so surreal, yet unequivocally tangible and immediate at the same time, that it could not but have a direct impact on the Colombian Team that is complex and hard to define: not only had we been delving extensively into the subject for the purposes of the competition, but we were born and raised in an analogous context, and now we were directly living history.

Continued Pg. 32

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Students are the true revolution

Page 27

By Daniela Blank, 2006 Venezuelan Jessup

No one ever thought that the so-called “dumb generation” would ever wake up, not even us.

On May 28, 2007 thousands of students protested on Venezuelan streets over the closure of the country’s oldest and most popular TV station: RCTV. Just 12 hours before, millions of Venezuelans watched as their television screens went black, and months of threats became reality: RCTV was no longer on the air due to the Government’s refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Venezuela's oldest private television network.

Such a massive reaction had not been seen during the last few decades. The media, academics and experts used to call the youth the “dumb generation” because we never reacted to our government’s constant threats, because we never thought they affected us directly. However, to their surprise, hundreds of university and school students all over the country, even those considered supportive of the Government, protested on the streets for weeks in a non-violent but rebellious way, with their hands painted in white, screaming and singing: “We are students and we just want freedom”.

Having acquired a certain knowledge of human rights law as a Jessup competitor and being mindful of the egregious human rights violations that occurred elsewhere which started with increasing restrictions to the right to freedom of speech, I certainly felt a responsibility for my country and acted by joining the emerging student movement.

When we originally decided it was time to take action we figured if we wanted to change the world we live in, we should also change the way in which we interact with it, and hence the way we confront the realities surrounding us. We decided the only way we wanted to be heard was if we could embody our youthfulness through our demonstrations.

We started by changing the way we informed people of our demonstrations. First, we used text messages and each person contacted those he trusted and thought might be interested, and in turn those contacted people, did the same thing. Second, we relied heavily on social networks such as Facebook in order to inform the student community either about the activities, and about how to gain access to information about the activities. Finally, we relied on good old word of mouth, those attending student assemblies got the information, and they would disseminate of that information as they saw fit.

We decided to take our demonstrations to new and different places where people usually would not find them. We started staging surprise demonstrations at shopping malls, subway stations, highways, parks and random street corners. This way we achieved two main goals: we kept the students mobilized and created a sense of omnipresence.

Furthermore, we understood the importance of providing a particular message at each demonstration. The idea was not simply to reject Government measures, but, more importantly, to inform and educate the public through various creative and simple ways that would evidence the direct impact on the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of the population. It was crucial for our fight against the Constitutional Reform the Venezuelan Government tried to implement last year. The reform not only affected basic rights for civilized countries such as private property but would have also allowed continuous and indefinite re-election of the President. We fought against such reform in a nonviolent and democratic way, and at the end, the people voted against the reform, which not only represented a victory for the students of Venezuela but also for our country and the democratic values we all share.

Another important factor, we understood the importance of connection with the cause. Whenever we wanted to carry out an activity, it required the approval of a student assembly. This created a sense of belonging that motivated the student community to carry on despite the political stigmatization and physical repression by State authorities. Although this way of organizing did not always provide the expected results and it certainly backfired more than once, it allowed us to express ourselves as we would naturally: removing external influences or interests from the decision making process and being autonomous in our actions. In the end, our demonstrations allowed us to remain true to our identity, to be rebellious, irreverent but profoundly human and innovative.

Looking back on what Venezuelan students achieved in less than two years, it is clear to me we were able to go much further than merely responding to the continuous threats against our basic rights and freedoms. After the demonstrations against the closure of RCTV, we organized and created The Parliament of Venezuelan Students in which elected representatives from more than 54 Universities meet monthly to discuss the movement’s next steps.

Undoubtedly, the greatest thing I learned participating in the student movement was that anything is possible: if you work hard, believe in a cause, it doesn’t matter how big or strong your opponent—Don’t ever give up without having even tried.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 28

REGIONAL INTEREST

South Pacific; New Zealand and Australia A Team of Judges' Clerks

By Jared Ormsby

As members of the 2006 New Zealand Jessup team, Janna McGuigan and Colin Fife had no idea they would end up clerking for New Zealand's highest appeal courts. If it were not unusual enough to have two members of the same team clerking at such a high level, it turns out the whole team have taken up positions as Judges' Clerks since competing at the 2006 Shearman & Sterling International Rounds.

Jared Ormsby— International Regional Editor—South Pacific

Janna is currently Judge's Clerk for Supreme Court Judge, Justice Andrew Tipping, and Colin is a Judge's Clerk to Court of Appeal Judge, Justice Robert Chambers. Their teammate, James Shaerf, just completed clerking in the Court of Appeal and has been awarded the W M Tapp Studentship to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Their other teammate, Justin Wall, is a Judges’ Clerk in the High Court of New Zealand.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand is New Zealand's highest appeal court having taken over the role from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2004. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the Court of Appeals of New Zealand and the two Courts act as the final guardians in New Zealand's justice system.

Both Janna and Colin cite the Go-National Ball as the highlight of their social experience at the Jessup Cup. However, the Jessup was much more than simply an opportunity to socialise and compete with other law students. For Janna and Colin the Jessup Competition assisted them immensely in their careers. When asked whether or not he gained academically from the Jessup Colin explains, "Absolutely, I think quite apart from having to confront a substantive body of law that I was unfamiliar with, I gained some skills in terms of how to attack extremely complex problems and large problems that I don't think I would ever encounter at University".

Both Janna and Colin agree this ability to break down complex problems has been of immense value to them as Judge's clerks. Janna describes her role as a clerk in the Supreme Court as mainly "researching areas of the law the Judge considers he needs more intense research on. Often [Justice Tipping] will give me the role of looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions". Both Colin and Janna agree they have ample opportunity to express their legal opinions within the context of the legal research they are working on and that this creates significant opportunities for them to learn from the knowledge and experience of the nation’s greatest legal minds.

Janna also emphasises the whole Jessup experience has helped her to look at both sides of a case when performing legal research and to be prepared to answer questions which go against any opinion she might provide.

Colin Fife and Janna McGuigan—1/2 of the Team of Judges’ Clerks!

Both Colin and Janna consider they could not have picked a better first job. Colin explains the "experience and exposure to legal reasoning in terms of how arguments come together, successful ways of pitching a case on appeal…and also seeing how Judges work as well, and what kind of arguments appeal to them. It's been absolutely invaluable."

In New Zealand clerking for a Judge is usually limited to a maximum of two years. In the future Janna plans to complete a Masters degree overseas and work as a commercial lawyer and Colin will be taking up a position at the law firm Chapman Tripp within its commercial and regulatory team. Whatever they decide to do, we are certain to expect big things from them and their teammates in the future.

Volume 5, Issue 1 REGIONAL INTEREST

Page 29

United Kingdom UCL Establishes Human Rights NGO

By: Richard Walker

In September 2007 students at University College London, including former UCL Jessup Team participants Jonathan Butterworth (2008) and Qudsi Rasheed (2007), and other London Universities, with the support of academic faculty members, established the UCL Student Human Rights Programme (UCLSHRP). The objective of the organisation is to “further human rights protection by raising awareness, fostering discussion and encouraging action.”

They aim to achieve this through several exciting new initiatives.

A group of UCL students run the Intervention Action Team (IAT). The IAT researches and drafts legal interventions, in partnership with qualified solicitors and barristers from the Law society of England and Wales, on behalf of lawyers at risk of human rights abuse across the world. Recent research has included the judicial system of Ghana, numerous US death row inmates, Iranian children on death row, Chinese human rights activists held in detention and incarcerated Singaporean opposition politicians.

The UCLSHRP established the UCL Human Rights Bulletin. The bulletin is online, printed monthly and distributed in universities, law firms and chambers. The aim is to provide students and legal professionals with a resource that keeps them informed about human rights case law and legislation focused on the UK and ECHR but also with an international outlook as well as reports on domestic and global human rights issues and interviews with key actors in the human rights field. This Bulletin is edited and published by UCL students and editorially reviewed by UCL faculty. Winter 2008, the Bulletin will be expanded to include an online section that will have daily content updates.

Jonathan Butterworth: International Regional Editor—UK

Richard Walker is the Vice President of UCLSHRP and a LLM student at University College London.

The UCLSHRP holds regular human rights lectures from experts in the human rights field, with a vocational or educational benefit for the audience. Recent lectures include Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, and Dr Andrew Lang (LSE) on “Trade Law and Human Rights”. Upcoming lectures include an examination of the right to privacy and UK ID Cards with the UK NGO “No 2 ID” in Autumn 2008.

On a monthly basis the UCLSHRP analyses the most pressing and important human rights issues through panel discussions. Recent panels include “Control Orders Discussion” with Tom Hickman (Blackstones Chambers), Zhubair Ahmad (2 Hare Court Chambers) and Eric Metcalfe (JUSTICE). Upcoming panels include “Human Rights and Zimbabwe”, “Human Rights and Asylum Seekers in the UK”, and “A Bill of Rights for the UK: Rights and Responsibilities?”

Another focus is The UCL Human Rights Review (UCLHRR). The UCLHRR shall be published annually featuring five non-student contributions from professors, practitioners, and judges and five LLB, LLM & PhD distinction standard contributions. The 2008 review includes contributions from Dawn Oliver, Rodney Austin, Stephen Guest, George Letsas, and Colm O’Cinneide. The UCLHRR shall be launched on 29th October 2008 at UCL with guest speakers including The Right Honourable Baroness Hale of Richmond, Judge Dean Spielmann of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor Dawn Oliver and Dr. George Letsas, both of UCL. The UCLSHRP is also collaborating with the Law Society of England and Wales to host a conference on “Careers in Human Rights” and is planning a Summer conference on the topic of “Human Rights and Private Actors.” The climax of this human rights furore is UCLSHRP Online—www.uclshrp.com.—launching in October of 2008.

Continued Pg. 30

Qudsi Rasheed (story pg 30), 2007 Jessup Team Kings College London UK top oralist and finalist at the International Rounds.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 30

REGIONAL INTEREST

UCL Establishes Human Rights NGO- UCLSHRP (Cont’d from Pg. 29) The site will include an audio visual media archive of UCLSHRP past events, online access to the Journal and Bulletin, and a database of human rights internships and job opportunities. Additionally, a team of student and staff will provide a regularly updated human rights news and developments section.

The passion of the students has been strongly backed by UCL with the UCLSHRP receiving a UCL Futures Grant to establish and launch the UCL Human Rights Review and the UCLSHRP website. To receive more information about the UCLSHRP and to support their human rights efforts, contact uclshrp@gmail.com.

International Human Rights and Responsibilities Debates in the UK and Beyond

By Qudsi Rasheed That rights come with responsibilities cannot be doubted. That the majority of rights are not absolute, and can be limited by reference to the rights of others and weighty public interests, clearly indicates individuals have duties both to the state and to other individuals to exercise their rights responsibly. Recent years, however, have seen a trend, both internationally, and here in the UK, to formalise the notion of individual responsibilities to the state and the wider community in an international treaty or constitutional text. This begs the questions of whether the legal profession will in future years be bringing claims against individuals due to a breach of their human rights responsibilities, and perhaps even more controversially, whether the legal profession will grapple with human rights that have been forfeited as a result of a breach of human responsibilities. How such actions will be incorporated in a Jessup problem remains to be seen!

The 1990s saw the development of a ‘Responsibilities Movement’ which sought to pursue the responsibilities agenda on the international plane. In 1997, the InterAction Council published a draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, seeking to formalise a shared ethic that exists between the world’s major religions. This document comprised a list of duties that the individual owes to the state and the community to which he belongs. Failed attempts were made by InterAction to have the draft declaration adopted by the General Assembly, with the draft relegated to discussion in the Human Rights Committee.

A similar trend has developed in the UK with both leading political parties keen to emphasise that individual responsibilities are equally as important, if not more so, than individual rights. With the consultation process on a Bill of Rights for the UK having just begun, there is a move by some to constitutionalise the notion of individual responsibilities.

These developments are legally problematic: they often seem to indicate that rights should be contingent upon individuals acting in a certain manner, which is clearly not compatible with human rights theory and practice. Further, the idea of responsibilities has historically been used by authoritarian states to control and suppress individuals. From the legal perspective, rights are universal and are intrinsic to all human beings qua being human. Thus there is a danger that talk of responsibilities may be part of a wider agenda on the part of certain individuals and groups to limit rights by making them contingent upon responsibilities. This must be avoided.

If however, the formalisation of responsibilities operates at the moral level, as political and social rhetoric—that is, by accepting all individuals ought to act responsibly, but that legally this would not affect the possession or exercise of rights—then the moves can be welcomed. The UDHR, ultimately a document of moral rather than legal force, as well as the preambles to the ICCPR and ICESCR, clearly accept this position, as do a number of national constitutions.

As far as domestic and international human rights law is concerned, the legal profession must be wary of any attempts to limit rights by creating a binding ethical code which would be contrary not only to the principles of liberalism, but also to basic theories of human rights. Further, in light of the poor human rights records of many countries, we must continually emphasise the fact that under human rights law, rights attach to the individual with the correlative duty and responsibility on the state to respect those rights. Lawyers must continue to remind politicians of the key distinctions between law and morality, and ensure that the responsibilities debate operates purely in relation to the latter.

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 31

To Be or Not To Be: Remote Coaching for the Russian National Competition

By Maria Issaeva In 2005, when the Russian Jessup turned four, the Russian National Administrator Magali Veneau introduced the absentee coaching program—a new idea to help Russian law students prepare for the Competition. This help is badly needed because mooting is fairly new to Russia, and thus the consequences: Russian law tutors often have not even heard of the Jessup. Their help in preparing students for the Competition is therefore rather illusory.

The Russian Jessup Charter of Coaching, which was prepared to give the idea of remote coaching both to absentee coaches and team members, defines an absentee coach as follows: "The Absentee Coach is a "Friend of Jessup", i.e. a person who, regardless of his or her current professional occupation, has extensive experience in the Jessup Competition, and is both capable and willing to volunteer some of his or her free time to assist a Russian Team participating in the Jessup Competition over the internet."

The Charter goes on to say that "the Team-Coach relationship within the Jessup Competition is similar to that in a football game. For the Team to achieve its objectives: • The Coach defines a strategy, provides guidance related to techniques, skills and resources and offers moral support; • The Coach does NOT run around the pitch, score or stop goals. This is the players’ role.

Thus, the absentee coach acts as any other team advisor but is in touch with his or her team solely via the Internet.

The program has been in Russia for the past four years. There were successes, and there were flaws. In 2005 the team of St Petersburg State University, being distantly-coached by Lani Daisley, took the title of the Russian National Champion. In the same year the team of novice students from Nizhniy Novgorod Higher School of Economics was coached by J.J. Weston and impressed everyone by placing 5th among the 30 Russian teams participating that year.

However, many other teams failed to contact their coach at all or contacted their coach once or twice. With 17-18 lawyers—all FOJ - kindly volunteering their time to the program, the situation in 2006-2008 cannot be called anything but stagnation.

What are the reasons?

Already in the first year of the program it became obvious that Russian students and the Friends of Jessup have different ways of thinking and their expectations do not correspond. The absentee coaching program was introduced, primarily, to give first-time Jessup participants an expert’s insight and advice about the Competition. However, most of the first-time Jessup participants failed to ask their coach’s the right questions.

Contact me asking 10 questions about Erewhon – would you be able to? It may be difficult to believe but this is what the Jessup is for many Russian teams – complete terra incognita. Here is the level of expectation of an average Russian student.

An average Russian student participating in the Competition for the first or sometimes even second time would expect: • to read the relevant treaties mentioned in the Compomis (without the travaux preparatoire); • write the right answers on paper based on the treaties; • if there are no right answers, get a couple of books (if available) or internet articles; • learn the answers by heart; and • speak them out loud in front of a judge without being asked "unnecessary" questions.

Imagine that in the middle of this preparation the student is suggested to contact an absentee coach. What kind of questions would you expect?

I remember being the absentee coach to a first-time participant team myself in 2007: all I received from them was an email of 21 December saying "Recently we have got an access to LexisNexis and Westlaw internet libraries. Therefore, we do not have problems with legal research. However, you can give us some advice about other databases."

I remember thinking of the need to be proactive in the role of an absentee coach, but could not find the proper way to address this thought.

Continued Pg. 32

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 32 Remote Coaching (Cont’d from Pg. 31) Additionally, I was very busy at work at that time. The moral of this story: an absentee coach will not help if you cannot ask the right questions. An absentee coach will not help if you did not have a teacher before.

Remote Coaches are needed for the entire global competition season!

Please email Ashley Walker: awalker@ilsa.org Maria Issaeva:

It is yet unclear to us how to deal with the situation. Last year we seriously considered discontinuing the program but decided to give it another chance this year – because Russian students do need this help. They just do not know how to benefit from it.

Instead we have changed some of our strategy. First, in May 2008 the Russian National Administration developed a list of questions and sources for the basic preparation for the Competition – concentrating on the theory of international law. The list was approved by the ILSA Executive Director and distributed to more than 50 Russian law schools in the beginning of June. Second, according to the new Russian rules of the absentee coaching program, a team will only be assigned an absentee coach if they submit a list of initial questions to us along with their request for a remote coach. The students are thus required to contribute at least something prior to signing up for the program. The 2009 Jessup Year will show whether this new strategy is going to work.

If after reading this article you have any ideas or suggestions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at missaeva@whitecase.com.

Maria Issaeva Russian National Administrator Associate White & Case LLC, Moscow.

missaeva@whitec ase.com.

Remote Coaches are needed from all parts of the world to advise, via the internet, students in Russia and other countries that are new to the Jessup. For information about remote coaching a Russian team, please email Maria Issaeva. For information about liaising with teams from other countries, please contact Ashley Walker.

The Colombia-Ecuador Incident (Cont’d from Pg. 26) The line that divides mock from reality, mooting from actual practice became, on that noteworthy day, grey to say the least, a transforming circumstance that made the 2008 Jessup competition particularly meaningful. From that day forth, all remaining practice sessions were permeated by unilateral declarations of representatives of different States, resolutions of international organizations and the opinions of experts appearing in national and international media. Indeed new sources seemed to be appearing everywhere and we suddenly became “highly qualified experts” asked to share our recently acquired expertise with students, professors, alumni and even our Dean. Those circumstances, aside from making the preparation feel like a rehearsal for the real thing, made the Colombian National Round a very special one. All three Colombian teams tried arguing their new sources to show how international law “was changing” as they spoke.

After we won the national rounds and went on to Washington, we continued to be asked about the situation several times, and heard the event and sources cited on more than one occasion by other teams in both the preliminary and advanced rounds. Hence, we must confess, in Washington our team’s biggest fantasy was to compete against the Venezuelan team as the Respondent State of Rotania where we would be able to reenact, with a real sense of conviction, what had recently been a reality among the three Andean nations. Maybe next time…

Volume 5, Issue 1 Special Interest

Page 33

Prosecuting the Khmer Rouge and Pioneering Cambodia’s

By Anees Ahmed & Julie Bardeche Jessup Participation The Khmer Rouge Tribunal (KRT), formally known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, is the youngest addition to the international criminal law family. The crimes, however, are some of the oldest being prosecuted by any existing international tribunal. Its mandate is to try senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge and others responsible for the egregious violations of international humanitarian law which occurred under the Khmer Rouge between 1975—1979. The KRT is a hybrid tribunal similar to the tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It creatively addresses the simultaneous concerns of the Cambodian people for sovereign ownership of its judicial process and that of the world community to ensure the KRT enforces international fair trial standards. The KRT accomplishes this by employing international personnel appointed by the United Nations who work side-by-side with their Cambodian counterparts..

Since the commencement of its judicial proceedings a little more than a year ago, the KRT has indicted and detained five of the senior-most surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge. The defendants have launched their preliminary jurisdictional challenges, pre-trial proceedings are ongoing and the first trial is likely to commence before the end of 2008.

Even in its early days, the KRT has laid down some groundbreaking jurisprudence, especially, in respect to participation of victims as parties at every stage of its proceedings. More important, however, has been its impact on local judicial, educational and rule-of-law institutions. Since its formation (1) new criminal and civil procedure codes have been adopted, (2) trainee judges have been sent to the tribunal for internships, (3) local law schools have launched advanced international law, human rights and public law curricula, (4) legal and judicial officials of the tribunal are regularly lecturing in these courses, (5) and there has been wider and deeper debate in the media and civil society on human rights and rule-of-law issues.

Another significant influence of the KRT has been the proliferation of moot court competitions in Cambodia, some of them using tribunal issues as topic problems of the competitions. Local civil society and the donor community have supported these initiatives. As a result of the enthusiasm generated, two students recently represented Cambodia in an international client counseling competition in India. It was their first time traveling abroad. Although they were eliminated in the preliminary rounds, they were emboldened by their victories over some regional heavyweight teams. This enthusiasm may also see Cambodia’s first team appearing in the international rounds of Jessup in Washington DC in 2009. This event will propitiously happen in the fiftieth year of the Jessup Competition and, equally important, in the year that arguably saw Cambodia’s first free and peaceful national elections after decades of civil war and strife.

The idea of participation in Jessup started during an international human rights class taught by Anees Ahmed in a law school in Phnom Penh, which is also one of the only schools teaching in English. The students had recently witnessed lengthy arguments by national and international lawyers in a jurisdictional appeal at the KRT. They came back to their class and wanted to know if they could practice something similar among themselves. They were given a previous Jessup problem and four weeks to prepare. Without access to any major library facility or online legal resources, they worked overtime to deliver spectacular oral performances. This impressed the Dean so much she vowed to leave no stone unturned to ensure their participation in the International Rounds of Jessup 2009. The Dean, a Stanford-trained attorney who immigrated to Cambodia because of her love of its people, has since contacted the local legal community to garner support and resources for Cambodia’s first Jessup team. A team of five candidates has been selected and their thorough training has started. They will have regular lectures by international legal personnel and Julie Bardeche, who represented France in Jessup 2008, shall be their part-time coach until the team is fully registered and a coach and a national administrator are appointed.

These are interesting times in Cambodia and for its legal community. It is clear the Khmer Rouge Tribunal shall forever change the way Cambodians perceive their legal and judicial institutions, and the way those institutions perceive themselves. And, for the writers, it is a thoroughly educational and satisfying feeling to be part of this process.

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 34

Interview with James Nafziger

By Mara Smith

I spoke with James Nafziger, Thomas B. Stoel Professor of Law and Director of International Law Programs at the Willamette University College of Law about his experience with Jessup, including his time as its first Executive Director. Here’s what he had to say:

“Jessup is the best intensive education a student can have with international law issues.”

James Nafziger 1986

How did you become the first Executive Director of ILSA and the Jessup Competition?

In 1969, when I was fairly fresh out of law school after a clerkship on the federal court, a law school mentor, the late Professor Louis Sohn, asked if I might be interested in applying for a new fellowship at the American Society of International Law (ASIL). I did so eagerly and soon became the Henry Luce Fellow, responsible for the Jessup Competition, and the first Executive Director of the Association of Student International Law Societies (ASILS—ILSA’s predecessor). The initial goals of the annual Fellowship were three-fold: to establish the student organization and the Jessup Competition on a professional basis, to expand membership in the ASILS and participation in Jessup, and to introduce the first foreign teams, France, the United Kingdom, and Argentina, to the competition. The Luce Fellowship also carried with it the wonderful opportunity for me to be a sort of everlasting secretary of the ASIL’s then robust program of scholarly panels and discussion groups. Fortunately for me, my boss and later President of the I.C.J. was Stephen Schwebel, from whom I have always learned and who remains a good friend.

What has been the biggest change you’ve seen over the years?

Aside from the organizational transfer of the Competition from the ASIL to ILSA, I think the biggest change has been the vast expansion and success of foreign teams and the greatly broadened awareness of the importance of international law among American students.

What roles have you been associated with in Jessup?

After my service as the Luce Fellow, I became Administrative Director of the ASIL, which involved continuing collaboration on the Jessup Competition with my successor ASIL Fellows.

After four years I left that position to begin full-time teaching, which included coaching student teams, and occasionally helping to co-host regional rounds. In 1986 I co-authored the Art Treasures Case with Dinah Shelton and Ved P. Nanda. The problem’s thinly disguised reference to the Elgin Marble dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom generated an interesting controversy in itself. In late November, some three months after the Jessup problem had been released, I received a package in the mail from a Greek colleague with whom I had taught at the Aristotelian University in Thessaloniki. Apparently, the Jessup problem had reached a prominent Greek political party with an axe to grind. Its official organ condemned our Jessup problem for raising a question about the legal succession of modern Greece to the Ancient Greeks and for tainting the image of the then Cultural Minister, Melina Mercouri (again, with a thinly disguised reference). The political organ claimed that we authors clearly were part of a hostile American Establishment. Fortunately, my Greek colleague’s letters to the editor of the publication eventually appeased the Greek politicians.

What do you see as the big issues for Jessup in the future?

Speaking just about future Jessup problems, the big issues should be the big issues of international law. They will center on the integrity of governments in applying international law, their capacity and inclination to cooperate with each other in resolving mutual problems and in seeking third-party settlements of disputes by the I.C.J. and other means. As well as the adequacy of institutions that have to monitor and supervise international law. The annual Jessup problem must somehow embrace both the fundamental elements of public international law such as its sources and enforceability and the increasingly specialized—not to mention complicated— character of substantive themes such as human rights, humanitarian law, and environmental law.

Continued Pg. 37

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 35

FOJs ON THE MOVE Congratulations to Ronald Bettauer who received the ABA Section of International Law’s award for “Outstanding Performance by an International Lawyer in Government”. He is currently a visiting Scholar at George Washington University Law School and working as a US appointment to the Board of UN Register of Damage Caused by Construction of the Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Ronald wrote the Case Concerning the International Export of Nuclear Explosive Technology in 1977.

Congratulations to David Baron (George Washington University Team 1995, long-time Jessup coach, FOJ and an ILSA Board Member) who is now a partner at Greenberg Traurig LLP. David moved his international dispute resolution practice to Greenberg Traurig in order to take advantage of Greenberg's global platform and 30 U.S. offices. According to David the best part of the move has been the opportunity and ability to expand Greenberg's global practice alongside long-time FOJ Steven Schneebaum, also a partner at Greenberg Traurig.

Congratulations to Nikhil Mehra on his return to New Delhi India and his new role as Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Nikhil competed in 2002 for the National Law School of India University in Bangalore. Best of luck and we hope to see you at the 50th Anniversary!

Congratulations to Bart Vis who has recently moved to Amsterdam, The Netherlands to begin a new job with Norton Rose as Advocaat-Stagiair. He has just passed his exams and begins work now as a qualified lawyer. Bart competed with the Universiteit Maastrcht team in 2005. We hope to see Bart at the 50th Anniversary!

Jean Marie Kamatali was dean of the law school at the National University of Rwanda and contributed to the post-genocide legal and institutional rebuilding in Rwanda. He brought two teams from Rwanda to Jessup in 2002. He has served as a visiting professor in different universities throughout Africa, Europe and North America. Jean Marie Kamatali is a consultant for the USAID project in Burundi and has participated in the 41st and 42nd Sessions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights held respectively in Accra, Ghana, and Brazzaville, Congo. He is now a visiting professor and assistant director for the LLM program at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law. The ONU Pettit College of Law program is the only school in the United States offering a degree in democratic governance and legal reforms to foreign lawyers.

Liridon Shurdhani started his LLM at ONU Pettit College of Law. He has been involved with ILSA since 2002. In 2003, with Liridon as team coordinator, Kosovo managed to send a team, with the help of international law professor Enver Hasani. From 2004 until now he was the National Administrator for the Jessup Competitions in Kosovo. This past year he assisted with hosting the National Rounds at the University of Prishtina, where a winning team was announced but due to some difficulties in the last minutes could not travel to the International Rounds. We are hopeful a team from Kosovo will attend the 50th Anniversary Competition this year!

Liridon Shurdhani and the ONU LLM Program

Congratulations to Isil Okten who has passed the NY Bar Exam! Isil is an attorney with White & Case in London England. She competed with Jessup in 1995 for the University of Istanbul team.

Sergey Usoskin, who competed with the St Petersburg State University Jessup Team in 2005 and coached the team from 2006-2008 is on the team of lawyers representing Russia before the ICJ in the dispute Georgia vs. Russia.

Diana Taratukhina from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, 2007 MGIMO Jessup Team and a judge at the Russian Rounds, is also on the team of lawyers representing Russia before the ICJ in the dispute Georgia vs. Russia.

Tina Burdjaliani, former Jessup judge at the International Rounds, is an agent for Georgia in the ICJ dispute Georgia vs. Russia.

Continued Pg. 37

Friends of the Jessup Newsletter Page 36

Announcing the 50th Anniversary Jessup Contests 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

•

The Jessup Cup

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

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

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

IMPACT ESSAY TOPIC

The year is 2059. The cover of the latest Time magazine shows the Jessup Cup and features two articles on "The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition: A Century in Review." The first article covers the 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 ILSA’s 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 may be directed to Mara A. Smith at fojnews@ilsa.org.

Volume 5, Issue 1 Page 37 Interview with James Nafziger (Cont’d from Pg. 34) What advice would you offer for students and young professionals?

Jessup relies on the full support of students, volunteers, academics, practitioners of all sorts, and other professionals. The Friends of Jessup, in particular, provides an invaluable network that facilitates the support of voluntary judges and others.

To students, I would say: Take your studies seriously, get involved in Jessup, and become fully engaged in the Competition. There is so much to gain from this experience in a highly stimulating learning environment. To young professionals, I would say: Do the professional work that you think can get you off to the best start, whether it is internationally related or not, and, if you continue to aspire to particular international work, do some publishable writing in your field or fields of interest, and become constructively involved in conferences of professional organizations, such as those of the ASIL, the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA), and bar associations. You have a great opportunity individually to help meet the important challenges of strengthening and improving the rule of international law, thereby fulfilling both your own professional lives and your civic responsibility.

FOJs on the Move (Cont’d from Pg. 35) Pablo Arrocha, 2005 Jessup participant and judge at the International Rounds, represented Mexico in the Avena case before the ICJ regarding the interim measures proceedings.

Sabrina Costanzo can be found these days in Cambridge Massachusetts where she has started her LLM program at Harvard University as a Fulbright Scholar. Sabrina competed in 2003 with Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano.

Sabrina at Fulbright Opening Program

Top 10 Interesting Things from 1959

*Compiled by: Rebecca Grabski

10) On February 3, Alaska is admitted to statehood. Later that year, Hawaii followed suit on August 21 9) Fred Mennen started his Jiffy Pop sales campaign in 1959, and by early 1960, he had secured distribution of this product in most major cities of the U.S. 8) At the annual Toy Fair in New York City, Ruth Handler introduces "Barbie", a new doll named after her daughter Barbara.

7) September 12: "Bonanza" debuts on NBC and it's the first weekly television series shown completely in color.

6) February 2: A plane crash kills Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and The Big Bopper (J.P. Richardson). This date becomes known as "The Day the Music Died" 5) May 28: Able, a seven-pound female rhesus monkey, and Baker, a one-pound female spider monkey are launched into space for fifteen minutes.

4) Minimum wage in the U.S. was $1.00 per hour; an average worker earns $91.53 a week.

3) The BIC ballpoint pen is introduced in America.

2) Cost of a first class postage stamp is 4 cents. Today the cost is 42 cents.

1) The one billionth can of Spam is sold.

1982—Jessup Competition.

Thanks for Reading! Let us know what you thought: fojnews@ilsa.org

Justice Word Search I Y H P B M E P J A W T X L D B S W S V

Find the ICJ Justices!

Rosalyn Higgins Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh Raymond Ranjeva Shi Jiuyong Abdul G. Koroma Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren Thomas Buergenthal Hisashi Owada Bruno Simma Peter Tomka Ronny Abraham Kenneth Keith Bernardo Sepulveda-Amor Mohamed Bennouna Leonid Skotnikov

T N T P A U Y Z U A F W L P Z F H F G B

O J S K U R K O R O M A G G E Z B N X B

Z D I A F O R N L K S V U Q R J E P S X

Y I S U O X W A T Z H I O O A A R F Z F

B X X B Y M F A A N T S M K G X M O G O

E P K E Z O B R D R G A N H I D C M R K

F N Q B B Q N A S A A R B I H N D P I K

K R H S G J U G N D P N A G G Q T X X S

R Q C R Q N T U E Q K Z G B L G G O T K

T D N I W Z O V E G I Y L U Z P I P K N

N Y B M C N L O C J R X W N R Q V H K S

X J K F N P R L A H T N E G R E U B E L

N C O E E V A I C T P Z B S D O N J I T

H P B S D N H H E N W A S A H K L A T T

Y G Y I E J K M Q Y Y S D Q V N V J H O

I V U U T B B P J A R A N J E V A X Q M

Q R U L A K N S A A B R A H A M W U X K

X J O X N M R M Y F B Y K T V W S S G A

D A L A C D D O P F E T U T V X N L W Y

Sudoku 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! *Answers: http:// www.ilsa.org/ jessup/foj.php Good Luck!

3 9

2

9 7

6 5 8

8 1

6 5

9 5 3 6

2

8 7

2 1

3 5

Level: Easy

9

8

6