GNLU To Host the 9^th GNLU International Moot Court Competition

Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, is organising the ninth edition of the GNLU International Moot Court Competition (GIMC), 2017 after successfully hosting 8 editions of this internationally reputed moot. The event, which is to be held from the 1^st to 5^th of February 2017 in the GNLU campus, is the only moot in India on international trade law, and is a simulation of the dispute settlement process of the World Trade Organisation.

GIMC has consistently seen participation from around 45 teams from over 8 countries, with the previous edition being won by National Law Institute University, Bhopal. This year, around 50 teams from around the world are competing for the prizes of Winning Team, Runners-up Team, Best Written Submission, Best Orator (Preliminary Rounds), Best Orator (Final Rounds) and Best Researcher.

This year's problem revolves around the export and import of Aluminium between three fictitious nations, and the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The rounds will be judged by experts in the field of international trade law, who will mark participating teams on the quality of research and on their advocacy skills.

The entire moot is conducted by the students of GNLU, with an Organising Committee of more than 100 members, along with assistance from their faculty Conveners and the support of the Director, Professor Dr. Bimal N. Patel. Additionally, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, World Trade Institute, IELPO, Lex Witness and Manupatra are the official partners of GNLU in organising this event.  

The 9th edition of GIMC commences tomorrow, stay tuned for updates!

You should also definitely follow us on Facebook and Twitter for all the latest updates and tweet to us with the hashtag #GIMC2017. 

1715 hrs: The orientation hall has started filling up with participants and there is a general air of excitement in the room. The registration process shall soon be underway! 

 1720 hrs: The participants deserve nothing less than the absolute best. The consistently cherished delight of every GIMC- presenting the irresistable cupcakes of 2017!

 1725 hrs: At the very front of the opening ceremony venue, the GIMC 2017 trophies can be seen shining in all their glory!

1737 hrs: The inauguration ceremony has now commenced! Aastha Singh and Udita Bhatt of the GIMC Organizing Committee introduce the competition to the assembled participants. They are introducing the sponsors of the moot court competition which are Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, World Trade Institute, Bern, IELPO, Barcelona, Lex Witness and Manupatra.

1740 hrs: Prof. Dr. Bimal N. Patel, Director, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, acknowledges the contribution of the past student conveners of the GIMC OC, and the importance of their role in making GIMC an internationally recoognized competition.

1745 hrs: He mentions the importance of funding, and congratulates the students who have taken upon the responsibility to attract adequate funding to ensure that GIMC 2017 is successful. 

1747 hrs: He expresses his gratitude to the faculty members of GNLU who have spent their time and efforts to ensure that GIMC has, and will always be, an event par excellence. Dr. Patel appreciates the quality of the problem and fluency of organisation of the GIMC.

1748 hrs: He describes GIMC as an "intellectual fest", and outlines the importance of moots as an academic exercise and a network building exercise. He expresses his desire to make GIMC one of the largest moots in the world and lays the floor open for suggestions. He lauds the efforts of students and places his faith in the capabilities of students of universities present to lead moot court competitions to such world renowned intellectual competitions. 

1750 hrs: The Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Mamta Biswal is now adressing the audience. She begins by extending a warm welcome to all the assembled participants. She begins her address by outlining the aspects of law that are taught by law school - the theory being taught in the classrooms, and the procedure and practice being taken care of by moots.

1751 hrs: Especially in the context of international law, she stresses on the fact that there are no avenues for students to learn the practice and procedure. She describes GIMC as a chance to learn, the final panel being nothing less than the WTO panel itself. She wishes the participants the best for the competition and the days of learning up ahead and at the same time expresses that this process of learning is more important than the singular aspect of winning. 

1752 hrs: Dr. Thomas Mathew, Registrar, Gujarat National Law University is now addressing the gathering. He begins on a light note, by referencing the successful Bollywood movie, Dangal. He discusses his largest takeaways from the movie- the importance of self motivation above external motivation, and the importance of exposure and links this to GIMC and the takeaways participants should seek at the end of the competition and the journey during this moot. He wishes the best to the participants with these encouraging words!

 

1802 hrs: He announces the awards of the competition, and and the prizes that shall accompany each award for the winners. Further, he talks about the Gala Dinner and other events being organized by students members of GNLU for the participants in the coming few days. 

 

1806 hrs: He describes certain unique features of GNLU, such as specialized Research and Extension Departments. He invites all participants to contribute positively to the academic circle and their careers by engaging themselves in such courses and activities. He welcomes them to take part in all such training programmes and certificate courses being offered by GNLU with the aim to enhance the quality of legal education standards in India. He speaks about the need to benefit the legal fraternity from the student days and the endeavours of GNLU to expand horizons and further such endeavours.

 

1808 hrs: He ends his address by wishing for a healthy and happy competition in the coming 4 days. With this, the inauguration ceremony has come to an end! 

 

1810 hrs: The official resource partner for the 9th Edition of GIMC, Manupatra, is now going to be engaging in a brief session with the participants. 

 

1825 hrs: The Manupatra session has come to an end and the participants seem to have enjoyed learning new tricks to research faster and more efficiently.

 

1826 hrs:The Registration process for the participants is now underway. The participants are being given a warm welcome- they each receive a folder, a T-shirt and a box of cupcakes! There seems to be general eagerness in the room for the researchers' test which shall be conducted later in the evening today!

 

 

 

 

 

 

1903 hrs: The orientation for the participants is now underway and Dhruv Malhotra, Co-Convener, GIMC and Sudipta, Chief Scorer, GIMC are explaining the rules to the participants! The finals for the competition shall be held on 5th February, 2017. They are explaining time allocations to the teams as well as the procedure for rebuttals. 

 

1916 hrs: The researchers' test is now underway. The preliminary rounds shall be commencing tomorrow morning at 10:30 am. While we shall not be posting live updates for the preliminary rounds, stay tuned to our blog for the results of the preliminary rounds as well as live blog feed from the semi-finals and final rounds. 

 

                                                         

---------------------------------------------

02/02/2017

 

1030 hrs: The preliminary rounds have commenced and each team shall get the opportunity to argue from both sides, once today and once tomorrow. 

 

 

  

 

1300hrs: The arguments that the teams are using will not be revealed until the semi-final rounds to prevent giving those with rounds tomorrow an unfair advantage. However, do stay tuned as we will be posting the results of the preliminary rounds tomorrow! 

 

1500hrs: The official photograph of the participants of GIMC '17 has been clicked!

 

                                                         

---------------------------

03/02/2017

 

0930 hrs: We begin the day with a wish for the participants to do really well as the second set of the preliminary rounds commence!

 

1200 hrs: Here are some images from the day so far. Stay tuned till the evening to see the results of the preliminary rounds!

 

 

 

2140 hrs: The wait is over, cue the drumroll! Eight teams have made it to the quarter-final rounds. Stay tuned for the live feed from tomorrow Semi-final rounds onwards! All the best for the quarter-final rounds tomorrow to the teams! 

 

---------------------

04/02/2017

 

1130 hrs: The quarter final rounds are now underway! The judges are grilling the participants by seeking answers on law as well as fact.

 

1415 hrs: The results for the quarter-final rounds have been announced and the top 4 teams who are making it to the semi-finals are busy preparing for their rounds. Stay tuned for a live feed of the semi-final rounds! 

Before we begin the rounds however, we announce the 8 teams which had qualified to the quarter-final rounds (in alphabetical order): 

Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi
George Washington University, Washington D.C
Government Law College, Mumbai
National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad
National Law University Delhi, Delhi
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi 
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

We wish the participants the best for the semi-final rounds!

1503 hrs: The panelists have now arrived. It is a panel of 3 members who shall be judging the semi-final rounds of this 9th Edition of GIMC. The teams are being called in now. They all look eager and fresh for this round. 

1507 hrs: The semi-final rounds have now commenced and the round is being adjudicated by a panel of 3 members. The teams qualifying to the semi-final rounds (in alphabetical order) are: 

George Washington University, Washington D.C
Government Law College, Mumbai
National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad
Symbiosis Law School, Pune

1508 hrs: The first round has now begun, with the panelists introducing themselves to the participants and inviting the participants to do the same. The semi-finals shall be held one after the other, before the same panel of members. 

1509 hrs: The Complainant Speaker 1 has now commenced, she explains the structure of their arguments as well as the time division between herself and her co-counsel. She begins then with her first issue, and cites authorities to back the arguments she puts forth. 

1511 hrs: Within one minute of commencing her argument, the speaker is interjected by a member of the panel as he questions her legal argument and requires her to marshall facts in favour of her contention. She answers with ease, citing authorities and keeps calm in the face of the follow-up questions. 

1515 hrs: The speaker is confident, as she powers on with her argument, by drawing the attention of the panel towards their memorial submissions. She is interrupted yet again by the members of the panel who ask her a series of questions, to which her answers are satisfactory, as she is allowed to move on with her submission. 

1520 hrs: As the Speaker is questioned by the panelists incessantly, to which she maintains her composure, the respondents seem to have struck upon a point as they write down furiously. The Complainant Speaker however refers the members of the panel and cites authorities and correlates the same with her facts in answer to their questions and proceeds with her submissions. 

1523 hrs: The Speaker is now arguing on the GATT obligations of the respondents. As she explains their stance through use of authorities and facts, she also provides an arguendo. 

1525 hrs: The Complainant Speaker 2 has now commenced with her issues, as she lays down a brief structure of her arguments. She marshalls data in order to further her first submission. She is questioned on the considerations not taken into account by the NTC which she begins elaborating upon. The panelists ask the speaker to elaborate on her stance and be more specific about her references.

1528 hrs: As the speaker continues with her argument, she is interrupted by the panel regarding the credibility of sources relied on by the agent in her submissions. The speaker seems slightly baffled by the question, but is encouraged by the panelist as she regains her composure, and attempts to answer the question. 

1531 hrs: The Speaker has now moved on to her fifth submission with regards to immunity from safeguards in light of the status of a country as being a developing country. She is questioned on this aspect with regards to the capability of the members of the panel to adjudge such an issue. 

1534 hrs: The Speaker is now being met with a barrage of questions, and she is attempting to answer the questions to the best of her ability without losing her composure and by marshalling facts to her advantage. 

1536 hrs: The researcher for the complainant team is busy in writing down research points to assist the agent in her arguments. As she moves forth with her arguments on uniform treatment of countries, she is interjected by the panel who seek authorities relied on by her for the same submission. As she answers with a general principle, she is further questioned by the panel on the yardsticks for the same being employed by her. 

1541 hrs: The Complainant Speaker 2 is now being questioned by the Panel on the reasons for the reliance on a particular authority cited by her. As she replies, seeming unfazed, despite the constant line of questioning, the members of the panel are nodding in agreement and she is allowed to move on with her submissions. 

1542 hrs: The speaker seemed to have thrown herself into a new line of questioning deviating from the problem but after a few attempts, was able to bring it back to the issue at hand. As she answers their questions, the panel seems to be in assent of her responses. 

1543 hrs: With that submission and question, the speaker comes to a close of her arguments. She seeks permission to elaborate on their request for findings, which the members say will be looked into by them and invite Respondent Speaker 1 to commence with her arguments. 

1546 hrs: The respondent Speaker 1 is arguing upon the existence of an emergency situation.  She seems calm and confident as she marshalls facts to her advantage such that they are linked in with authorities. She is however interrupted by the panel who questions her line of argument using data. However, she remains unfazed as she responds to their questions and puts forth that her co-counsel will be dealing with the same in detail post her arguments. 

1550 hrs: As the Speaker moves forth with her arguments, she is interrupted by the members of the panel who seek facts from her to back her statement. She draws the attention of the panel towards a relevant fact as well as the burden upon them to establish a causal link which meets the assent of the panel as they nod and allow her to move forth with her next submission. 

1553 hrs: The placard with the time of 10 minutes left is shown to the Speaker. As she justifies the imposition of a provisional measure, she is questioned by a member of the panel regarding the actions of of the country the respondents represent. She attempts to marshall facts to her advantage to establish a crisis situation on which she is interrupted yet again by the panel who seek a clarification regarding the statement made by her. The Complainant team seem to be listening keenly, while they write down important points, in preparation for rebuttals. 

1556 hrs: The panelist draws a parallel to a similar situation but the speaker is careful not to misstep as she clarifies her stance and draws a distinction between the two situations in justification of the measures taken by them. 

1558 hrs: As she moves forth with her submissions, she is questioned on the aspect of providing adequate opportunity by the members of the panel. As she answers the same, confidently and calmly, she seems to have satisfied the members of the panel as she moves forth to the argument of establishing the status of developing country. 

1601 hrs: The speaker is questioned by the Panelist on metrics of adjudging a particular country as developed or developing on the basis of the argument taken forth by her. They seek examples of countries who fit within their question. As she answers deftly with a relevant example, she clarifies her stance on the question put forth by them. 

1602 hrs: The Speaker is now being questioned on the need for a particular trend in WTO jurisprudence. As she answers, the members seem to be satisfied, as they allow her to come to a close with her submissions. Speaker 2 for the Respondents has now commenced. 

1603 hrs: The Speaker commences with establishing a structure of the issues he shall be dealing with. Within a few seconds, he is interrupted by the members of the panel who seek the composition of the panel with regards to a particular authority. While the agent does not know it off-hand, he marshalls facts of the case to draw a parallel and also explains to the panel that he has the bench composition mentioned in the compendium prepared by them. He is allowed to move forth with his submissions. 

1608 hrs: As the Speaker continues with his submissions, he talks about the purpose of the GATT obligations, attempting to use them in his favour. 

1610 hrs: The Speaker is questioned by the Panel on the remedies used by their country and the speaker answers with proper structure, dividing his contentions in two prongs. The panelists seem satisfied. He is asked about authorities he places reliance on in order to further his submissions, which the speaker answers confidently and with ease, explaining the relevance of the same. He draws attention to a contention made by his co-counsel in order to substantiate. 

1615 hrs: The Speaker is being questioned on the aspect of suddenness which he explains by marshalling data to his advantage, and he points the panel to the relevant portion of the factual matrix for the same as well. 

1617 hrs: One of the panelists ask the speaker to clarify his stand on the developing-developed issue which he is able to do with ease. The panelist points to the speaker ignoring certain aspects of the issue to his benefit, leading to the speaker immediately shifting his attention to the said aspects. 

1619 hrs: The panelists do not seem completely satisfied and delve deeper into this line of questioning. They further question the Speaker regarding the lack of correlation between the argument of emergency made by the Speaker and the representation of the same in terms of data. The Speaker marshalls facts and authorities in order to clarify his stance. As his time comes to an end, he is granted an extension in order to complete his answer.  

1622 hrs: The Complainants have begun to put forth the rebuttals now, raising questions and inconsistencies with regards to each respondent specifically. The Speaker touches upon each contention and refers to the wordings in certain provisions and authorities to pull forth the same points of argument in their favour. 

1625 hrs: The Rebuttals will be dealt with by both speakers from the Respondent Team. Speaker 1 commences with the replies, in a structured manner, while calmly explaining her stance. She is questioned by the panel regarding her response, which she clarifies further by referring to the history and wordings of the provisions. 

1628 hrs: Speaker 2 of the Respodents is now addressing the remainder of the rebuttals. He keeps it extremely brief as he addresses the same and is not questioned. With that, the round comes to a close. 

1635 hrs: The teams stepped out for a few moments to allow the panel to deliberate on the rounds. The panel is now giivng contructive feedback to both the teams that competed in the first Semi-final rounds. Each panelist focuses on what he thought was the most important aspect of the round, and advices the speakers on how to answer specific questions. The speakers listen attentively, hoping that it will assist them if they make it to the Final Rounds.

1640 hrs: The panel, which consists of seasoned GIMC judges, also congratulates the participating teams for managing to present all their arguments within the short time period of 20 minutes. They point out specific speakers and certain personality quirks that they expressed during the rounds, and explained how such quirks impacts their perception of the speaker. 

1642 hrs:  The chair of the panel re-iterated the golden rule of mooting, which is that the participants ask the panelists to explain their questions when they have a doubt. With this, the panelists congratulate the teams once again, and the feedback session comes to an end. 

1648 hrs: The second set of teams have entered the Semi-Finals Courthall. The Complainant team walks in with a high pile of textbooks, while the Respondent team submit all of their compendiums to the Court Room Officers. There is a palpable tension in the air as each team tries to evaluate the preparedeness and competence of the other.

1652 hrs: The panel has left the courthall for a short break betweek rounds. Both the teams attempt to prepare a little bit more before the judges re-enter the courthall.

1657 hrs: The panel is yet to arrive, and the participants use this opportunity to read up on their arguments a bit more, and write down points to remember. No one looks particularly frazzled, as they seem confident of besting the other team. 

1705 hrs: One panel member enters the room to explain to the participants that the delay is due to another panelist being on an urgent phone call. He senses the tension in the room and tries to break it by making light of the waiting time. We should be up and running in just a few minutes!

1708 hrs: The panel has finally arrived! They introduce themselves and their areas of specialisation before beginning the round. The chair of the panel introduces his co-panelists with warm words of appreciation.

1711 hrs: The chair of the panel now requests both teams to introduce themselves. The participants introduce themselves in the order of speaking, and with that the rounds have commenced. The first speaker from the side of the Complainants has begun. He starts at an even pace, not being fazed by either the high qualifications of the panel or the opposing team.

1712 hrs: He is interupted almost instantly by the panel with a question. The speaker confidently answers, which prompts further questions from the panel. The answer seems to satisfy the panel, but the request him to provide a legal backing to the same. 

1714 hrs: The speaker then clarifies certain factual points regarding Aluminium, and attempts to show to the panel certain crucial aspects of Aluminium which will further his case. The panel continues on the trend of asking him for a soruce of his statements, and then asks him to relate it specifically to the problem at hand.

1716 hrs: The Panelists and Claimants deliberate upon the clarity with which Articles have been stipulated and whether prior decisions are required to support them. The Claimant applies facts with finesse to distinguish from cases that aren't in their favour. The speaker seems to have impressed the panel, as they allow him to continue uninteruptted. One member of the panel even begins to refer to certain material placed before the panel to check the veracity of the arguments being put forth.

1717 hrs: The streak of uninterupted argumentation comes to a swift end as the panel poses a question of facts. The speaker does not seem fazed, and forges on with his pleadings, deflty twining together points of law and fact.

1719 hrs: The panel asks the speaker to reiterate facts of certain panel reports that the speaker placed relaince on, and the speaker concludes his argument by tieing in all the alleged violations of the Respondent State with the earlier precedent.

1720 hrs: The speaker moves on to his next issue, and immediately invites questions from the panel on the status of countries as developed or developing. The panel poses questions regarding certain existiiing WTO members and asks the speaker to compare such situations to the countries present in this dispute.The questions regarding self-declaration flow one after the other from the panel, all of which is met with appropriate answers from the speaker.

1723 hrs: Speaker 1 has established himself as a skilled researcher! He seems to know the intricacies of every case that he poses to the Panel. The audience also watches him volley with the Panel with baited breath. The speaker makes a vague statement of unfair treatment, which invites the panel to ask him to show compelling economic yardsticks to support his arguements. The speaker does not bat an eye, and submits the required data to the panel.

1725 hrs: The Panel, although they may be impressed, appear nonchalant as they fire questions at the Speaker. The Speaker then moves on to the next leg of his argument, and the panel allows him to lay the groudwork for the same without interruption.

1728 hrs: The speaker finally concludes his submissions for this particular issue, and the panel begins their questionning. The panel first asks the speaker to contextualise his argument by linking it with the factual matrix.

1730 hrs: The panel asks for sources to certain facts that the speaker is placing heavy reliance on. The speaker provides a satisfactory reply, which leads him to the next sub-issue in his line of argumentation.

1732 hrs: The speaker seeks an extension of time to conclude his arguments, which is granted by the panel. The speaker concludes and his co-delegate begins in an equally calm and composed demeanour. 

1734 hrs: The second speaker begins by clarifying the Complainant's case, while the Panel patiently listens. As soon as he moves on to his arguments, the panel begins posing questions to him. The speaker has no trouble answering the Panel satisfactorily. The Panel insists on specificity in the use of facts by the Respondent, and only permits him to proceed with his argument after clarifying the same.

1737 hrs: The  speaker draws the attention of the Panel to the statistics in facts regarding economic fluctuations suffered by the Respondent. He proceeds to deny that these fluctuations would serve as a defense to the treatment being meted out to the Claimant. The panel listens to his denials without any further questions.

1739 hrs: The panel picks up on the point of time lag, and poses a series of questions related to facts. The speaker answers the questions without fumbling. The panel continues to refer to certain facts to find holes in the argument of the Complainant. The speaker explains with a simple example to try and convince the panel.

1817 hrs: He lays down the definition of criitical circumstances, but it seems that the definition is patently in their favour as the Panel does not seem interested in asking him doubts. 

 

1819 hrs: Despite the fact that this is the last speaker, the threshold of energy in the room remains the same, as the Panel and even the Claimants attentively listen to the Speaker. The first question that this speaker is facing seems to be a long one, and the panelist can be seen nodding as they agree with the question posed by the Chair.

 

1821 hrs: The speaker offers to deal with a different issue first to clarify the question posed, and after obtaining the permission of the panel, moves on. He is soon interupted and asked to clarify if he is sure that is his final position on the issue. He answers in the affirmative, causing the panel to become engrossed in his written submissions. Meanwhile, the Claimants quickly note down points to rebut. It does not seem that they would leave a stone unturned to poke holes into the arguments of their opponents.

 

1824 hrs: The tension in the room shoots as the panel stops the speaker from moving on with his last submission, and asks another question as to the facts. The panelist describes a hypothetical situation and asks the speaker whether any damages would have been felt. The speaker apologises for not adressing this earlier and attempts to satisfy the panel.

 

1826 hrs: The speaker sidesteps the minefield and attempts to proceed. However, the panel seems to have other plans and requests the speaker to argue further on the criticality of the situation.

 

1827 hrs: Finally, the last speaker gets an opportunity to proceed to his argument on developed and developing nations. The panel listens intently, with no indication as to whether they buy the arguments or not. 

 

1829 hrs: The speaker seems confident of his arguments, and lays down a list of examples to show that the factors relied upon by the Complainant side does not hold water. The panel asks the speaker to name a few economists that support his arguments, and goes on to ask the speaker about the background of the writer and the book. The speaker is unable to answer, which is excused by the panel. The speaker is now presenting the prayer from the side of the Respondent State. 

 

1833 hrs: The speaker comes to an end with 2 minutes left on the clock. The first speaker on the Complainant side begins his rebuttals, amidst warnings from the panel that no extensions will be given. The second speaker also presents certain rebuttals, and points out that some of them were pointed out by the panel itself. The panel seems to be jotting down their notes and thoughts about the round, which is almost at an end. 

 

1835 hrs: The second speaker of the Respondent side begins with his reply to rebuttals, and then allows his co-delegate to take over the same. The Respondents do not fail to point out that the Claimant had not dealt with one of the rebuttal points in the terms of reference. 

 

1837 hrs: The rounds have now come to an end! The panel directs the teams to wait outside while they deliberate, and ask the teams to come back in later for feedback on their rounds.

 

---------------------

05/02/2017

 

1423 hrs: The courthall is set for the final rounds to begin. 

The panel judging the final rounds for the 9th edition are:

Ms. Anuradha R.V., Partner, Clarus Law Associates

Dr. Rodrigo Palanco, University of Bern, Switzerland

Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr. Seetharaman Sampath, Principal Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys

Ms. Altagracia E. Cuevas-Arthur, University of Barcelona

 

1435 hrs: The court hall is slowly filling up as the teams await the arrival of the judes. The teams seem to be in intense discussion in these last few minutes before the rounds commence. However, they look composed and eager to put forth their arguments to this bench. We wish the teams the best!

 

 

 

1448 hrs: The problem is centered around certain safeguard measures imposed by one of the parties, Puerto Sombra, a developing country. This imposition was a consequence of intense competition faced by its domestic Unwrought Aluminum industry from increasing imports. A large share of these imports came from Pueblo Faro, a neighbouring state. Pueblo Faro’s complaint to the WTO alleges non-compliance of the aforesaid safeguard measures with the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

 

1451 hrs: Four of the five panel members have now arrived! It is only a matter of minutes now before the round begins! 

 

1453 hrs: The final rounds are now underway! The teams that will be competing in the 9th edition of the GNLU International Moot Court Competition, 2017 are George Washington University, Washington D.C as the Complainants and National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad as the Respondents. 

 

1454 hrs: The first speaker for the Complainant begins her submissions by assuring the panel that this is a run-of-the-mill situation, and begins on issue 2, as issue 1 is contingent on the same. She begins her argument by outlining the Argentina Footwear dispute, and draws comparisions to the instant case. She explains how the respondents have relied only on data of 2 years and the increase of imports has only been 27%. 

 

1456 hrs: She explains that the respondents are attempting to paint a run of the mill situation as a critical circumstance issue. As she begins, she is interrupted by a member of the panel. Ms. Altagracia asks her to clarify their stance regarding the Most Favoured Nation principles and violations of the same. The speaker assures her that these will be dealt with in her coming issue and attempts to move forth.

 

1457 hrs: As the speaker explains her stance on the MFN clause, she is interrupted yet again by the member of the panel who seeks a clarification on which obligation under the MFN has been violated. The speaker seems to be met with a barrage of questions now regarding Article 19 exceptions and similar treatment. She seems slightly fazed, but stands true to her stance and seems to have satisfied the member of the panel with her answer. Another member of the panel interjects and poses two interpretations of the argument of the Complainant side and asks her to clarify her stance. The speaker admits that they are running both arguments, and this prompts another barrage of questions about the existance of critical circumstances.

 

1501 hrs: She is asked whether she is claiming only a violation of Article 1 or a violation of the safeguards. The panel also questions her about why the Complainants are questioning the validity of findings regarding critical circumstances. As the speaker clarifies that there are no critical circumstances in the present factual matrix, the speaker marshalls facts to her advantage and cites the Argentina Footwear case to explain her stance. 

 

1502 hrs: The panel asks her whether the Argentina Footwear case laid down a benchmark for critical circumstance, to which she clarifies that the case is merely being used to compare the present situation to the one in the Argentina case. She further goes on to state that all factors need to be taken into account to demonstrate the existence of critical circumstance. 

 

1503 hrs: The Speaker is now arguing upon the aspect of burden of proof. She explains that there are certain factors which have not been taken into account while looking at the data in order to establish critical circumstances. She explains that there is no sudden, drastic increase such that it is unforseen as to establish critical circumstances.

 

1504 hrs: She attempts to establish that the respondents are manipulating data to establish their claims when in actuality, an anti-dumping remedy would be much more suitable to them. The speaker alleges that the validity of the data is questionable, and accuses the Respondent state of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

1506 hrs: The Speaker puts forth further that even if the Members of the Panel disagree with her earlier arguments, there are certain procedural safeguards which are still essential to follow. She reads out the "clear-cut" rule that mandates that the notification has to sent before a measure is imposed as has been by the respondents, which has not been done in the instant case.

 

1507 hrs: She is interrupted by Ms. Altagracia, who seeks the practicability of following the rule in the strictest sense. She replies by pointing out that while the practicality in following it in the strictest sense might not be possible, the delay of 15 days in the instant case is certainly unreasonable. 

 

1508 hrs: The Speaker further strengthens her stance by pointing out that the full investigation was concluded in 2 days. The Speaker explains that the shortest time period they could find during research is that of a month and this displays a lack of thorough investigation on part of the Respondents.

 

1510 hrs: The Speaker moves on to stating that the benefit of Article 9.1 should not be given to the respondents as they have failed to establish that the country in question is a developing country, which the Respondent State has failed to do. 

 

1511 hrs: Ms. Altagracia asks her if the Panel constituted today has the powers to adjudicate whether a country is a developed or developing nation. The speaker answers in the negative, and further contextualizes her argument by refering to earlier Panel reports. The speaker elaborates that she is not suggesting that they are not a developed country, but merely that the respondents cannot place reliance on any authority to establish that they are a developing country in the first place.

 

1513 hrs: As the speaker proceeds with her argument, she is questioned on how it is relevant to her claim whether the country is developing or developed. She attempts to answer this, and is interupted again and reminded that she is not answering the question to the point. At this point, her time has expired, and is granted an extension of 5 minutes by the panel.

 

1514 hrs: The panel disagrees with her point that there is a disadvantage to her State, and states that it would only be relevant if both parties to the dispute were developing. 

 

1515 hrs: The Speaker is questioned yet again on whether the Respondents operating in the market will lead to an usurpation of the market share of the complainants to their detriment. The speaker ends on a slightly less confident note, but quickly regains her ground and concludes her arguments. 

 

1517 hrs: Speaker 2 of the Complainant commences with laying down the structure of his arguments. He commences with his first argument pertaining to the effect of the GATT 1994 obligations. His primary argument, based on bound rates and an obligation on the Respondent State to set their rates at a particular rate does not seem to stick with the panel, and he is asked to rephrase his submission. 

 

1519 hrs: The member of the panel questions whether the increase in applied rate as long as they are still following the bound rate is actually an inconsistency of their obligations. The speaker seems to be well prepared with an answer, and delves directly into his submission that the true obligation has not been complied with and had they wished to comply with the same, they should have tweaked and set their applied rate at a different rate. He explains how the concessions need to be looked at under the negotiation.

 

1521 hrs: The panel expresses their view that the contested actions of the Respondent State was actually beneficial to the importers in question, and not harmful as the Complainant alleges. The Speaker is now being met with a barrage of questions with regards to whether they would have preferred an arbitrary change in their applied rates.

 

1522 hrs: The speaker responds with drawing a difference between the long term and the short term measures. He explains that the safeguard measure was sudden and the provisional measure was without notification.

 

1523 hrs: He explains that the requirements under A. 19(1)(a) have not been met and it is similar to a unilateral measure. He is immediately questioned by Ms. Anuradha R.V  as to whether then, no safeguard measure should be applied on any country. He explains how the same would be impracticable- however, his argument is with regards to the non-compliance in light of the required timeline and that such a cost cannot be unilaterally imposed and then cannot cry wolf to the actions of the complainant. 

 

1524 hrs: The speaker then moves on to his next submission, which is is based on the expectations of negotiators. He begins by placing reliance on various WTO Panel Reports and claims that these reports mentioned negotiator expectations. He explains that it's not every fact they expect the respondent negotiators to inform of, but there are certain reasonable expectations which can be held.

 

1526 hrs: The panel then poses the question of whether such negotiator knowledge, and the actual knowledge of negotiators plays any role in the evaluation of obligations that the countries enter into. The panel then questions the speaker on unforseen developments and their impact on the negotiations, to which the speaker argues that there an infinite number of events that could later on occur, all of which cannot be benchmarked during negotiations. 

 

1529 hrs: He is questioned regarding any authorities relied on for the same to which he explains that the argument is open-ended with no one single authority. He then places the burden of proof on the Respondent State to show what was on the negotiators mind at the time of entering into obligations. 

 

1530 hrs: The speaker moves on to his next submission regarding imposition of safeguards, and states that there are 3 requirements that require to be met before a safeguard is imposed. He relies on the Argentina Footwear report and the US Steel Safeguards report to add weight to his arguments, He submits that these reports do not use and end-point to end-point analysis, and extends this to the instant case. He argues against an end-point to end-point analysis, and goes on to point out that the Respondents used annualised data in the instant case, which is indicative of lack of sufficient data. 

 

1533 hrs: The Speaker clarifies that it is not a definite time but the end to end analysis which is being used by the Respondents and that they are attempting to pass off certain data to establish a trend analysis. The Speaker explains how there is not sufficient data to establish such a trend and the argument of the respondents would fail without the pseudo-third point they are attempting to create for an analysis. The Speaker is questioned on whether there could be a reason for the particular year being evaluated since there was an increase in that particular year.

 

1534 hrs: The Speaker explains that there are 2 prongs to this analysis- how, they should have used the data in their economic analysis as well unlike the present usage which is manipulative and the second being, that the safeguard measure should have been brought in 2014 and bringing it forth now, indicates this is not sudden. 

 

1536 hrs: The speaker draws the attention of the panel to certain parts of the Final Determination Report provided. The Speaker is now arguing upon the requirement for additional factors under A. 4 which have not been analysed in the Report.

 

1537 hrs: As the time allocated to the Speaker comes to an end, he is granted an extension of 5 minutes to address the judges  The Speaker remains calm as he explains the requirement for other factors in order to establish an actual causal link with serious injury. 

 

1538 hrs: The speaker goes on to adress the point that the lack of a non-attribution analysis does not allow the profitability aspect to be established by citing several authorities. He continues with the argument that the final determination does not analyze any new data either and there was sufficient time for the same.

 

1539 hrs: The speaker concludes and lists the findings that the side of the Complainants wish that the Panel holds in their favour. The Respondent Speaker 1 has now commenced. 

 

1541 hrs: He shall be addressing issues 1, 2 and 5. He lays down the time allocation between the members who shall be speaking. He begins with the first argument. This is with regards to Article 6.2 which requires a specific legal basis for the complainants which in the present case is misidentified. The case of US-Steel, US-Gluten is cited in order to explain misidentification of legal basis.

 

1543 hrs: Further, he is now explaining that there is a requirement of consultation prior to safeguard measures in regards to the notification which conflicts with the requirement of consultation post under Article 12.4. The Speaker is now looking at consultation for definitive measures. He is interrupted by a member of the panel who seeks a clarification that there were certain internal consultations with stakeholders and she asks whether these consultations could meet requirements under Article 12.3 and it could be read in consonance with Article 12.4.

 

1545 hrs: As he answers her question, he seems to have satisfied her on this aspect and is allowed to proceed with his argument. He is now arguing upon the immediacy of notification and the need for urgency which he says needs to be on a case to case basis.

 

1548 hrs: He explains, through citing authorities, that delays have been held differently in different cases as reasonable. This he establishes in light of the administrative difficulties faced by the resoondents. In the present case there is only a delay of 8 working days which should be taken as reasonable. He has moved on and is arguing upon the aspect of the objective of Article 12.4 and the object being transparency which has been met in the present case.

 

1549 hrs: He refers to requirements under the Committee of Safeguards and establishes that a delay of 10 working days in the present case due to electronic forms creating administrative difficulties are reasonable. The speaker appeals to the panel to consider a dely of 10 days permissible, in light of administrative delays.

 

1550 hrs: He is now arguing upon the aspect of treatment being granted to the respondent state as they are a developing country.His first prong is that there is no criteria to establish a developing country. He explains that this criteria is not fixed and is on a case to case basis. He explains that this differential treamtment must thus be provided to all countries. Self-declaration is considered within the same, and in this case, the respondent state has self-declared the same. The speaker points out that going against the self-election of the Respondent State as developing is against the sovereingty of the State, and cannot be condoned by this Panel. 

 

1553 hrs: He compares the Respondent State with countries such as Turkey, which are considered developing to further add weight to his argument. He is questioned on the self proclaimed nature of the Respondent state as a developing country and contrasts this with the aspect of whether this necessarily means that all countries should follow the same and provide treatment as claimed by them. 

 

1555 hrs: He answers that in light of the absence of all other criteria and authorities in light of the same, this should be taken to establish developing country. He is allowed to move forth with his submissions.'His next submission is that of critical circumstances, which is that there is unsold somestic production of Aluminium. He is preliminarily questioned on how such circumstances were unforseen. He assures the Panel that his co-delegate will elaborate on the same in detail, and summarises the Respondent State's position on the same.

 

1557 hrs: He goes on to establish that for critical circumstances, he is looking at the aspect of unsold production. He points out that unsold domestic production lleads to incresed inventory costs and fixed costs. He prompts a question from the Panel regarding the competitiveness of the domestic industry. The panelist points out that safeguard measures cannot be used everytime a domestic industry is unable to meet the competitiveness of the international market. 

 

1559 hrs: He explains that the requirement of a safeguard measure is to provide breathing space to the domestic industry and allow them to be competitive again and he says that the import industry will compete again post the measure. When further questioned about the effectiveness of this solution, he points out that a structured plan has been prepared by the Respondent State. 

 

1600 hrs: The second speaker from the Respondent Side has begun on a calm and composed note, and chooses to discuss the arguments of the Complainant Side before moving forth with his submissions. He refers to certain Panel Reports and attempts to establish that 2.5 years is adequate. He points out that one of the authorities submitted by the Complainant, which is the Argentina Preserved Peaches case, is in fact patently in the Respondent's favour.  He points out that the Argentina Preserved Peaches case has been cited for which the time frame for serious injury establishment was a mere 6 months greater than the time frame in the instant case, and in that particular scenario the same was adequate

 

1603 hrs: He is proceeding uninterrupted by the Panel and is now arguing upon the falling profitability. He draws the attention of the Panel towards their written submissions. He cites authorities in order to support his argument. He explains that the relevant factors raised by the Complainants are not relevant in actuality. He attempts to discredit the Complainant's argument of "true obliations" as contrasted with GATT obligations, and urges the panel to not take that argument into consideration at all. He proceeds with his argument that on a plain reading of the GATT the idea of a true obligation as raised by the Complainants does not arise and merely by granting concession itself, the obligation arises. He is questioned as to whether the idea of bound and applied tariffs are not be considered as has been raised  by the Complainants.

 

1605 hrs: The Speaker clarifies that the requirement is that tariff concessions are inclusive of the GATT obligations. This prompts a volley of questions and answers regardin retaliation. The speaker satisfactorily ends it by pointing out that the safeguard agreement here has been imposed only for 3 years, which leaves the other country bereft of the right of retaliation.

 

1607 hrs: The speaker now proceeds with his submissions where he draws the attention of the Panel towards the fact sheet. He explains that they have met the requirement of Article 19(1)(a). The speaker continues his trend of taking authorities submitted by the other side and pointing out how they actually fall in his favour.

 

1608 hrs: He is interrupted by the Panel on whether there are unforseen developments and which these would be. He in interupted again by the Panel when he states that the economic developments iin 2013 were unforseen in 2016. He quickly clarifies and goes on to marshal facts in his favour. 

 

1610 hrs: The panel questions the "unforseeability" of the circumstances, given that there was a tariff concession earlier. The speaker contends that since the other side indulged in unfair trade practices, whicch were not forseen. Therefore, there was a surplus of capacities and this, coupled with the global depression, lead to a flooding of the domestic market. The Speaker also clarifies that the surplus of capacities was created due to the fact that the individuals or consumers refused to buy goods at such high prices and he ties this in with the Global Recession such that the domestic market is saturated.

 

1613 hrs: Upon being reminded by the panel that he has limited time, the speaker goes on to his submissions on safeguard measures of increasing tariffs. He explains that there were no concessions with regards to industries such as iron and when with aluminium industry, such a move was made, the results in terms of the demand would be unforseen. He explains that he motive behind such a move was to send a signal to the world community.

 

1616 hrs: The Speaker is now arguing on the aspect of proper assessment of the increasing imports causing damage to the domestic industry. The speaker speeds up his arguments, sensing that his time has run out. He cites data in order to indicate the increase in imports. He wants to draw a link between cause and effect- the imports and the injury.

 

1618 hrs: He draws the attention of the Members of the panel to the factual matrix and requests them to read with him as he furthers his argument. He goes on to establish that clearly a competition exists. He takes the panel through the data year by year, to show competition between the domestic industry and the imports. 

 

1619 hrs: The Speaker explains that the consumption had increased and the consumers were using the same but they had a preference for imports. The Speaker explains further that earlier the prices were controlled and despite the same, there was a clear preference for imports and the latter provided competition. He explains that the increase in imports leads to an increase in the injury factor.  He urges the panel to notice a trend and to not focus merely on index points. His time comes to an end, and he is granted an extension in order to answer a question on extraneous factors and their impact on the causal link that the speaker is attempting to show. 

 

1621 hrs: To answer this question regarding non-attribution analysis, he explains the criteria or factors which are required to be causing injury to the industry in question in order to conduct such analysis. He uses the authorities cited by the Complainants against them to explain how they supported his stance.

 

1622 hrs: He goes on into the factor of corruption, and explains that the statement of corruption is on the basis of the CEO of a vested party and should not be taken as an authority to bind parties in an international capacity. 

 

1623 hrs: He further explains that the other non attribution factors cited by them should also not be taken into account because they have established that these require other causal factors as a basis. In the present scenario, such causal factors have not been established at the base by the Complaiants. 

 

1624 hrs: The Complainants have now begun their 5 minutes of rebuttals. The first point that is raised is with regards to the principle of self-declaration in the context of a developing country as being definitive which according to them is not definitive and another standard of criteria needs to be shown.

 

1624 hrs: The second point is that of profitability. The question that the Complainants want their colleagues acrooss the aisle is that of how imports are the crux of the issue as opposed to profitability. 

 

1627 hrs: Speaker 2 of the Complainants is now putting forth his rebuttals with regards to the issues of the Respondents. His first point is with regards to the non-attribution analysis and the link with serious injury. He points out that this point was also raised by the Panelists. He seeks the other side to show the panel where the final determination accounts for such analysis.

 

1629 hrs: He further raises the point with regards to unilateral analysis on the part of the Respondent State. He inquires what benchmark would be set by them with regards to establishing a safeguard measure. The Respondents have now commenced with their responses to the rebuttals. The first speaker relies on Article 9.1 with regards to developing country status. There is no further burden of proof which requires to be met according to the speaker.

 

1630 hrs: The Speaker 2 is now dealing with the remainder of the rebuttals. On the question of whether profitabilty of imports in the crux of the issue, he clarifies that the lack of profitability is the imports. He explains that the demand for imports is due to cheaper availability. He explains that the agreement on safeguards at no point disallows competition to be barred.

 

1633 hrs: He is addressing the aspect of other causal factors and draws a distinction with direct causal factors and shows how there is no requirement for a non-attribution analysis. He comes to a close of his arguments- but wait, he wishes to address another point. Ploughing through, he explains his last point and comes to a close of his arguments.

 

1634 hrs: The final round has now come to an end! 

 

1639 hrs: The panel seems to be deliberating upon the round as they ponder over the scoresheets. There is chatter from the audience indicating that the round was extremely engaging. Stay tuned for results when we live blog the valedictory ceremony.

 

1734 hrs: The Valedictory ceremony is now underway! The Valedictory Ceremony has now commenced. Esha Meher and Dhruv Malhotra are hosting the ceremony. Esha Meher recounts the growth of GIMC to the point where the 9th Edition has surpassed the previous editions in all regards- professionalism, quality, competition and interaction. Dhruv Malhotra introduces the panel that adjudicated the final rounds and thanks them for taking time to elevating the standards of GIMC. 

 

1735 hrs: The dias is graced by the presence of Hon'ble Justice Subhash Reddy, Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Anuradha R.V., Mr. Seetharaman Sampath, Ms. Altagracia E. Cuevas-Arthur, Dr. Rodrigo Palanco, Prof. Dr. Bimal N. Patel, and Dr. Thomas Mathew. 

 

1740 hrs: Prof. Dr. Bimal Patel is now adressing the gathering. He remarks about the importance of moot court competitions, and highlights the most important take away from such events, which is the elevation of academic excellence and practical knowledge, rather than a win or loss. He congratulates the Organising Committee for such an exemplary event, right from choosing an expert to draft the problem, to inviting such distinguished judges to adjudicate the event. 

 

1743 hrs: Justice Subhash Reddy is now addressing the gathering. He recounts the growth of the profession of law in India and the education for law to the point where a 5 year integrated course can be pursued. He draws a comparison between a laboratory for the science students to the practice of mooting for law students and explains how this is the metric on which the practical knowledge is enhanced.

 

1747 hrs: Justice Subhash Reddy expresses his hope that all participants were met with the best hospitality at Gujarat and shall take the remainder of their days, specially the foreign participants, to explore the state. He congratulates the Organizing Committee as well as the sponsors of the event and wishes the best forward!

 

 

1750 hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra is now addressing the gathering. She expresses that there is no learning under the sun which puts a man's wits to test as much as the profession of law. She further expresses that law provides a multi-dimensional approach which is the requirement of the world today. 

 

1752 hrs: She further expresses that the profession of law has seen tremendous growth for the past 2 decades such that there has been an increase in the importance given to practical skills and the opportunities provided to the same. 

 

1753 hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra is further explaining to the participants the importance of internships based on inclination and not just the monetary aspect of the same. She explains that every internship has certain expectations of professionalism and students today are expected to meet that standard.

 

1754 hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra explains the growth associated with litigation in terms of the longer innings associated with the profession and she explains how the work-life balance is met by such. Ms. Malhotra also reminds the gathering about the importance of mock trials and encourages students to take part in more such events.

 

1756 hrs: Mr. Seetharaman Sampath is now adressing the audience. He begins by pointing out that trade law has always been his area of specialisation, given that he has practiced in this field for the past 17 hours. He believes that the experience to attend GIMC has been an enriching one which has close likeness to a current matter being dealt with beyond the fictitious problem as well. In fact, the consultation

for the current matter is tomorrow! 

 

1800 hrs: He further states that there is no mutual exclusivity of doing well and doing good in trade law as compared to other fields of law. He further highlights the importance of trade law given the changing political circumstances in the world, with the election of the 45th President of the United States of America. He offers an internship in his firm, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, to all the 4 teams that made it to the semi-final rounds. He further expresses his desire to continue to collaborate with GNLU for the forthcoming editions of GIMC.

 

1801 hrs: Ms. Anuradha R.V. is now presenting her thoughts to the gathering. She begins by point out how a moot court competition allows a law student to enhance skills by engaging in research, advocacy and the skill of convincing. 

 

1803 hrs: She congratulates the teams who made it to the finals for their performance. She explains that while they did extremely well, they could have done better. She provides constructive feedback- through helping the teams understand that questions are guiding in nature and not addversarial and that the purpose of the provisions is to understand their meaning before reliance on other sources.

 

1804 hrs: She commends the creativity of the participants as well as their understanding of the complexities of trade law and she hopes they continue to pursue the same in future. She wishes the best to the teams and expresses her belief that trade law is the most intellectually exciting of all the dynamic fields of law given its importance in the current context. 

 

1605 hrs: Dr. Palanco will now be adressing the audience. He begins by thanking the organising committee for doing a wonderful job, and mentions that it was a pleasure watching the final round. He expresses his appreciation for the high level of competition witnessed by him during the finals.

 

1606 hrs: He then goes on to elaborate on the art of mooting- it's one that goes beyond mere provisions, and he believes that it imparts life skills to participants in that it teaches them to function as members of a team as well as provides the wits to think on one's feet. 

 

1608 hrs: He further expresses that mooting helps an individual appreciate the capability of research and more importantly, understand weaknesses that shall be faced in the larger scheme of life in the outside world. He also points out that mooting helps one realise how dynamic law is- mooting brings the law alive and makes it all the more interesting. Additionally, a mooting exercise helps one understand how to fairly assess an adjudicate a problem. According to him, the crux of the profession of law is the ability to solve problems and he explains how a moot provides such skills as well as helps in identification of interests and grasp concepts in essence such as justice.

 

1610 hrs: Ms. Altagracia E. Cuevas-Arthur has now taken the podium to adress the audience. She is a recurring judge at both the Spanish selection rounds of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition and EMC2. 

 

1612 hrs: Ms. Cuevas believes that law is a profession which has the capacity to change the lives of other individuals. She goes on to say that the rounds she witnessed today were comparable to the rounds she has witnessed as a judge at the above moots. She expresses her belief that a moot court competition allows an individual to understand capability to convince and to acquire an understanding of the law that they possess.

 

1614 hrs: She is now making comments pertaining to the rounds she witnessed in the finale. She explains that there are different focuses in different competitions based on geography as well. For instance, European mooters focus on analysis and law, while Asian mooters focus on advocacy. She explains that the correct balance can be struck only when a particular team is able to combine structure with facts and law as well as mannerisms, which is taking the chief emphasis of each location and striking the right balance. She stresses on the importance of time management above all, specially with regards to the final rounds she witnessed.

 

1616 hrs: According to her, while there are challenges of an international career, it is important for an individual to continue believing in themselves and working hard such that nothing is impossible. She encourages all individuals sitting in the room to expand their horizons and push to the boundaries as they know exist and at the end, attempt with all might to reach where they truly wish to go. 

 

1618 hrs: She lastly ends her speech with expressing that after witnessing the final rounds, she would look forward to welcoming participants with such interest in trade law to the IELPO LLM Programme as well. 

 

1619 hrs: Ms. Shivani, the student convener of GIMC has been called upon to express her thoughts upon the competition. She takes the stage to the thunderous applause of the gathering. 

She expresses that the competition is the culmination of a long process that began even before the 8th edition of GIMC had come to a close. 

She thanks the previous conveners who came before her for imparting her with the skills to help the moot grow.

 

1621 hrs: She thanks the previous conveners who came before her for imparting her with the skills to help the moot grow. She expresses her gratitude to all the elements in the OC which helped her elevate the competition- she thanks Mr. Girish R., the Faculty Convener, as well as all the coordinators- she expresses that they have guided her throughout and had her back. She also thanks the entire OC for  playing a pivotal role. 

 

1622 hrs: We appraoch the end of the valedictory ceremony, and the faculty convener, Mr. Girish R. has now been called upon to address the gathering. Mr. Girish R. expresses his gratitude to the autonomy and freedom provided by Director Sir in helping any event hosted by GNLU a grand success. Having been convener of the Committee for 7 years, he states how he cannot imagine an alternate scenario where he is not the faculty convener. 

 

1826 hrs: According to him, the reason for GIMC having attained such status is due to the efforts of the Organizing Committee and the support provided by Director Sir. He recounts how GIMC commences to prepare more than a year in advance for the next edition and he announces to the teams that the next edition shall be the 10th edition of GIMC and the problem shall be drafted by a problem drafter who has drafted the EMC2 factual matrix in the past.

 

1830 hrs: The results are here!

The winning team - National Academy Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad.

They will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 40,000, an opportunity to attend a summer school at University of Bern, an opportunity to intern with Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, and books sponsored by IELPO.

The runners-up – George Washington University, Washington D.C.

Runners up will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 25,000, books sponsored by IELPO, Barcelona.

Best Written Submissions- Symbiosis Law School, Pune

The team with the best written submissions will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 9,000, books sponsored by IELPO, Barcelona.

Best Orator - Prelims- Kyle Zhu, George Washington University, Washington D.C.

The best orator from the preliminary rounds will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 5,000, books sponsored by IELPO, Barcelona and WTI, Bern.

Best Orator - Finals- Ashwin Murthy, National Academy Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad

The best orator from the final round will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 5,000, books sponsored by IELPO, Barcelona and WTI, Bern.

Best researcher- Karan Sangani, Academy Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad

The best researcher will receive a trophy, merit certificates, Rs. 5,000, books sponsored by IELPO, Barcelona.

All the semi-finalists will receive certificates of merit. 

1836 hrs: Dr. Thomas Mathew, Registrar, GNLU is now delivering the vote of thanks. He commences by thanking the dignitaries on the Dais for their presence and words of encouragement to the teams.

1838 hrs: This brings us to the end of the 9th edition of the GNLU International Moot Court Compeition, 2017! Do follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more updates about our tenth edition. Hope to see you next year!