7th VIPS International Moot Court Competition, 2020: Live Reporting

Hello Everyone!

VIPS welcomes you to the 7th International Law Virtual Moot Court Competition,2020 live blog. The competition started on the 5th of October, 2020 in collaboration with SCC Online as Knowledge partner. A total of 54 teams participated in the competition. The preliminary rounds were conducted on 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of October. Today i.e., on 10th of October, semi-final rounds are going to begin.

SEMI-FINALS

Court Room 2 (TC-793 v. TC-775)

5:09 The session begins.

5:10 Judge Usher introduces the Judges of the session

The Hon’ble Judges for the session are: 

Mr. Vinai Kumar: Deputy Director, ISIL

Mr. Sanjeev Aggrawal: ASJ Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Karkardooma

5:11 The proceedings begin.

5:12 The counsel for Applicants start with the contentions.

5:13 Speaker 1 start with his arguments after the permission from judges.

5:15 Speaker 1 speaks confidently.

5:16 The speaker cited the case ‘Iran v. United States of America’ as precedent to strengthen their contentions.

5:19 Judge asks question regarding ‘Environment Jurisprudence’.

5:20 Speaker asks for a minute to answer the question.

5:21 Speaker tries to answer the question but is not able to answer the question posed by the judges.

5:22 Speaker 1 was about to go to second contention but the judge asks him a question based on the facts.

5:23 A series of questions and counter questions takes place.

5:25 The judge permits the speaker to proceed but does not seem satisfied with the answer given .

5:26 The speaker moves on to his next contention.

5:28 International provisions cited by speaker 1.

5:29 Judge asks questions based on ‘Treaty of Valerose’. The speaker does not seem confident and is stuck in the series of questions asked by the Judges.

5:34 Speaker 1 concludes his arguments.

5:34 Speaker 2 takes over the remaining issues.         

5:37 The judges ask questions and speaker 2 tries to answer them confidently. The judge asks speaker to drop the point he is contending.

5:38 Speaker 2 continues with other contentions.

5:40 Another round of questions and answer take place. The judge is trying to confuse speaker 2 by asking counter questions.

5:43 Speaker 2 asks permission to continue with his arguments. The judges grant the permission.

5:45 Court Marshall reminds about the time left for speaker 2 to speak.

5:46 The judges ask whether applicants are asking for compensation to which the speaker agrees.

5:47 Speaker 2 continues after answering the question.

5:47 Speaker asks permission from judges to proceed with The Prayer. The judges grant permission to proceed.

5:48 Speaker proceeds with the prayer.

5:49 The speaking time for the Counsel of Respondents begin.

5:50 Speaker 1  starts with her contentions.

5:52 Judges interrupt speaker 1 to ask a question.

5:54 Speaker 1 answers the question but is interrupted by the  judge again as the judge is not satisfied by the answer provided.

5:56 The judge is asking same question as the speaker is not able to answer the question appropriately.

5:57 The Judge skips to another question asking to differentiate between ‘discovery and invention’.

5:58 Speaker 1 tries to answer the question and asks to proceed with her arguments.

6:00 The judge gives suggestions on the contentions placed by speaker 1.

6:01 Speaker 1 continues with her argument.

6:02 Another question put forth by the judge asking about the use of investigation.

6:03 Speaker 1 tries to answer the question which leads to counter question.

6:03 Reminder of time left given by Court Marshal.

6:04 The judge not satisfied with the answer of speaker 1.

6:05 Dialogue initiates between the judges and speaker 1.

6:07 Series of questions take place as the speaker is answering all the questions put forth by the judges.

6:10 Speaker 1 asks for few minutes to conclude her arguments.

6:13 The judges have no further questions.

6:14 Co-counsel or speaker 2  takes over for the rest of the arguments.

6:16 Stockholm Declaration cited by speaker 2.

6:17 The judges ask questions from speaker 2.

6:17 The judges not agree with the answer given by speaker 2.

6:18 Speaker 2 starts with expropriation submission.

6:20 Harvard International Law Journal’s article cited by speaker 2.

6:22 Speaker 2 contends that expropriation was a counter measure and is not illegal.

6:23 The judge asks the criteria for the expropriation to be illegal, which the speaker answers immediately.

6:24 The speaker looks confused by the question put forth by the judge.

6:26 The judge corrects the wrong interpretation by speaker 2.

6:27 Speaker 2 contends that expropriation was not discriminatory in nature.

6:28 Speaker 2 proceeds with the prayer.

6:30Court master asks the teams to proceed with rebuttal and sur rebuttal.

Rebuttal

6:30 Speaker 1 from TC-793 proceeds with the rebuttal and provides 6 points to counter the contentions of the respondents.

Sur rebuttal

6:32 Speaker 1 from TC-775 proceeds with the sur rebuttal.

6:34 The oral proceedings for court room 2 ends. Participants waiting for judges’ feedback.

6:52 Hon’ble judges share the feedback. Both teams get good reviews from the judges.

6:57 Vote of thanks by Mr. Aditya Vikram Sharma.

6:59 Group photograph takes place.

6:59 Results to be declared shortly.

The meeting ended by the host leading to  the semi-final round in  court room 2 come to an end.

 

Court room 1 (TC 803 V TC 813)

The Hon’ble Judges for the session are Justice Geetanjali (Additional district and sessions judge, Saket) and Dr. Anupam Jha (University of Delhi).

The Session begins!

4:55 The Court master begins with the technical check.

4:57 The Court master briefs the participants about the rules of the competition.

4:58 The Court Marshal asks the teams about the speaking time of each speaker, with the time of Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal.

5:02 Court Master asks the teams to abide by the rules and timelines and for the queries.

5:06 The co-convener informs the Judges and the participants that the co-Judge will be joining shortly.

5:13 The court master clarifies the doubt of a participant.

5:18 The Judge Usher introduces the Judge(s).

5:20 The court master informs the Judge(s) and participants about the scoring criteria.

5:21 The court master seeks permission to state the brief facts of the case, the Judges permits the Court master to do the same.

5:29 The proceedings begins!

5:30 The Counsel for Applicants start with the contentions.

5:34 Speaker 1 from TC 803 begins with the second submission.

5:36The Speaker requests the judges to refer to the page 27 and continues submitting with the contentions

5:37 The judge asks about the manufacturing of the drug without killing the bird, which is confidently answered by the Speaker.

5:40 The Speaker refers to the memorial to put forward the contentions on behalf of the applicants.

5:43 Court marshal informs the court regarding the remaining time of Speaker 1.

5:44 Speaker 1 concludes their arguments.

5:45 The Hon’ble Judge put forward another question regarding migratory birds,

5:46 The co-counsel or speaker 2 takes over for the remaining two issues.

5:47 The speaker informs the court about the four things that he will be establishing, and begins with refering to the fact sheet.

5:50 The speaker requests the Judges to refer to para 25 on page 20, then to para 31 on page 22.

5:56 The speaker refers to various Articles and very confidently puts forward his submissions.

5:57 The speaker establishes that a counter measure cannot be taken by the respondents on two ground, which are further explained by him.

5:59 A dialogue initiates between the Hon’ble Judge and the speaker regarding what according to the speaker is public purpose.

6:04 The judge continues to question the speaker to answer which the Speaker refers to page 22 of the fact sheet.

6:06 The speaker proceeds to the second submission.

6:07 the speaker runs out of time and requests for 3 minutes to submit his contentions. The Judges permits the speaker to speak for 2 more minutes.

6:10 A series of questions is asked by the Hon’ble Judge, the speaker is troubled initially, but answers the questions calmly.

6:13 The Judge continues to put forward questions, which is answered by the speaker.

6:15 The speaking time for Respondents begins.

6:17 Speaker 1 informs the court that she will be dealing with the first two issues and the remaining two issues will be taken up by Speaker 2.

6:18 Speaker begins with answering a few questions that were put forward earlier but could not be answered by the Applicants.

6:22 The speaker begins with the second argument and refers to a precedent for the same to establish that there is a breach of Article 3.

6:27 The speaker begins with the submissions of issue 2.

6:28The judge asks a question regarding the authority of the court in the precedent cited by the speaker, speaker answered the same.

6:30 The Judge puts forward a series of questions, which are answered by the speaker but the Judge(s) does not look satisfied.

6:32 The Court marshal informs the court about the remaining time of Speaker 1.

6:34 The judge asks the speaker to read article 5 of state responsibility, the speaker does so and answers the question accordingly.

6:37 The speaker seeks permission to speak for 2 more minutes which is granted by the Judge.

6:40 The court marshal informs that time for speaker 1 is over and speaker concludes her submissions.

6:41 The co- Counsel takes over for the remaining issues.

6:44 speaker cites a precedent to justify her statement.

6:44 The judge puts forward questions stating two statements of the applicants, the speaker answers the same.

6:49 The speaker confidently puts forward her submissions and refers to different Articles, the fact sheet and foot notes.

6:55 The speaker concludes with her contentions.

6:56 The Judge asks the speaker to answer a question that was put forward by the applicants in their submissions.

Rebuttal

6:57: Speaker 2 of TC 803 begins with the Rebuttal and puts forward 5 points.

Sur-Rebuttal

6:59 Speaker 1 of TC 813 takes over for Sur-Rebuttal.

7:02 The Judges enter the breakout room for discussion.

7:20 Th Hon’ble Judges share their feedback with the participants.

7:22 The participants enquire about few of their submissions.

7:24 Vote of thanks by Prof. Dr. Rashmi Salpekar.

7:26 The Jdges enter the break room again to clarify an issue regarding the scoring.

7:29 Group photograph takes place.

7:30 Results to be declared shortly.

The semi final round concludes in Court Room 1 and the meeting is ended by the host.

FINAL (TC 813 v. TC 793)

The final round of the 7th VIPS International Moot Court Competition begins on 11.10.2020.

The session begins.

2:14 The court master begins with the technical check and also briefs the participants about the rules of the competition.

2:17 The Court Marshall asks the teams about the speaking time of each speaker, rebuttal and sur rebuttal.

2:20 OC introduces the Judges of the session

The Hon’ble Judges for the session are:

Hon’ble Prof.(Dr.)Tamanna Suryanarayana: Vive Chancellor, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University

Prof.(Dr.) A. David Amberose: Professor and Head, Department of Legal Studies, University of Madras.

Prof.(Dr.) Sanoj Rajan: Distiguished Professor, Zhejiang Gongshang University, China

2:22 The court proceedings begin.

2:23 Speaker 1 for Applicants begins with her arguments.

2:25 Speaker 1 asks for permission to start with her contentions and the judges permit her.

2:27 Speaker 1 refers to para 9 of fact sheet.

2:27 The judge puts forward a question which the speaker tries to answer it.

2:28 Despite the cold demeanour of the judges, the speaker proceeds calmly.

2:29 Speaker 1 asks the judge to repeat the question.

2:30 The judge does not seem satisfied with the answer and puts forth another question regarding the responsibility of state for acts of an agency.

2:31 The speaker tries to answer the question, but the judges does not look satisfied.

2:32The judges asks for precedents, evidence to support the contentions but the speaker is not able to answer it due to technical issue so the judges ask the speaker to continue with her contentions.

2:34 The judge asks a question about Effective Control which the speaker answers it confidently.

2:35 The judge continues to ask questions regarding the same.

2:36 The judge interrupts the speaker and asks to differentiate between international wrongful act and international criminal act.

2:37 The speaker tries to answer the question but is interrupted by the judges and tries to put across her contentions but the judges does not look satisfied and keeps counter questioning her.

2:39 The judges ask the speaker to move on to next issue.

2:41 Speaker asks the judges to refer to para 18 of the fact sheet, and the judges ask the speaker to not ask judges to refer to facts and she should read it to judges herself.

2:41 The speaker 1 apologises and reads para 18 to the judges.

2:42 The judge asks about the legal footing of a press release issued and the speaker answers based on the facts sheet.

2:44 The Judges ask a series of question to the speaker which the speaker answers.

2:45 Speaker 1 moves on to next issue.

2:46 Time over for speaker 1 but she still continues to speak.

2:48 The judge asks the speaker regarding her contentions.

2:48 The judge asks about the domestic extraordinary situation and international extraordinary situation.

2:50 Dialogue initiates between the the judges and speaker for Applicant.

2:52 The judges ask the speaker regarding her next contention so that they can allot the time allowed to speak.

2:53 The judges does not look satisfied and keeps on asking questions.

2:54 The co-counsel or speaker 2 takes over for the rest of the issues.

2:54 Speaker 2 refers to environmental regulations.

2:55 The judge asks the question and speaker answers it, but the Judges counter question her.

2:57 The judge asks the speaker to cite a precedent which the speaker does. the judge further asks the speaker about the year of the precedent cited which the speaker is unaware of.

2:59 The judge asks to differentiate between self preservation and  counter measures.

3:00 The judge asks for juristic opinions to support their contentions.

3:01 The judge asks about expropriation illegal and expropriation unlawful.

3:02 The judges ask speaker 2 to justify her answer.

3:05 The judges keeps asking relevant questions to speaker 2.

3:09 The judges ask the speaker to cite precedents to support her arguments.

3:11 The judges emphasise to cite precedents to justify the arguments.

3:13 The court Marshal informs about the time left for speaker 2 to speak.

3:15 The judge asks a question referring to fact sheet.

3:16 A round of questions and counter questions takes place.

3:16 Time over for speaker 2 for the Applicants.

3:17 Judges continues to ask questions.

3:19 The judge refers to page 22 of fact sheet and asks questions.

3:20 The judges ask the speaker to read last line of para 21 of fact sheet.

3:21 The speaker answers the question based on traditional knowledge.

3:24 Another round of questions and counter questions.

3:25 The judges give 1 minute to speaker 2 to conclude her arguments.

3:25 The speaking time for respondents begin.

3:26 Speaker 1 for Respondents starts with his contentions.

3:28 The speaker 1 proceeds with his submissions.

3:29 Speaker trying to justify the actions of respondent.

3:30 The judges ask questions regarding’ International Health Regulation’.

3:31 Speaker answering the question and seems nervous.

3:32 The speaker continues with his contentions.

3:33 The judges asks the speaker to counter the arguments of Applicants in the draft.

3:35 The judges interrupt the speaker and ask questions.

3:36 The judge asks questions and counter questions regarding draft articles.

3:37 The speaker tries to answer the questions but is again counter questioned.

3:39 The judges ask speaker 1 to continue with his arguments.

3:40 Speaker 1 moves on to next issue.

3:42 The judge ask the speaker to move on with the arguments.

3:45 The judges to paragraphs from the fact sheet and also to International Law Commission.

3:43 With little difficulty the speaker tries to answer the queries of the judges.

3:45 Speaker 1 to move forward to second submission.

3:47 Court Marshal inform about the time left for speaker 1.

3:49 Judges keep on putting forward questions which the speaker is tying to answer but is not very well versed with the facts.

3:51 Time over for speaker 1 for Respondents.

3:52 Speaker asks for 2 mins to conclude his arguments.

3:53 The co counsel or Speaker 2 takes over for the rest of the issues.

3:55 The judges put forth some questions. The speaker looks nervous, the judges ask him to calm down.

3:56 The judge ask another question and keep on asking questions one after another even before the speaker can speak.

3:57 Speaker is trying to answer the questions put forth by judges.

3:59 The judges asks for provisions to substantiate the arguments.

4:00  The judge ask the speaker to continue with his contentions.

4:01 Judges ask whether the expropriation is illegal.

4:02 Speaker tries to answer the questions.

4:03 The judge asks the speaker whether he is referring to confiscation or seizure and the difference between them.

4:04 The judge asks for clarification on  the answer given by speaker 2.

4:05 The judges are not satisfied by the answers given by speaker 2 and are of opinion that he is switching his statements.

4:08 The judges ask about the contentions of the speaker based on the facts. Which the speaker answers confidently.

4:11 Court Marshal informs about the time left for speaker 2 to speak.

4:13 The counsel proceeds with the prayer.

Rebuttal

4:15 Two minutes given for rebuttal.

4:16 Speaker 1 from TC 813 proceeds with the rebuttal to counter the contentions of Respondents.

4:18 Time over for rebuttal.

Sur rebuttal

4:18 One minute for Sur rebuttal

4:19 Speaker 2 from TC 793 proceeds with the sur rebuttal.

4:20 The judges moved to breakout room for discussion.

The final round concludes and link shared for Valedictory Session.

 

Results

Runner up:

TC 739

National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Best Team:

TC 813

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

Best Memorial:

TC 791

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam

 

WE EXTEND OUR HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS TO THE TEAMS!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.