The twenty-ninth annual John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition saw an all Indian final in the Ambassador Rounds as GNLU Gandhinagar overcame SOEL Chennai to bag three points in the MPL 2.
The Moot saw participation from five non-American teams, all from India. The Moot was organized by John Marshall Law School’s Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law and was funded by an endowment from the estate of Carl W. Carlson, a 1933 alumnus of the John Marshall Law School.
The GNLU Gandhinagar team consisted of Stuti Subbaiah K., Sravya Movva and Rhuta Deobagkar.
GNLU Team The Ambassador Rounds were held immediately prior to the final round, between the two teams selected by the organisers based upon their performance through the quarterfinal round. Poonamallee Shyam Sunder Deepika, Aishwarya Rukmani Krish Kaurnakaran, Anto Nishanth Yeddanapalli and Senthil Kumaran Manickam comprised the SOEL Chennai team.
Sravya Movva, a member of the GNLU team, said: “The Moot provided us with a very good insight into the working of the American courts and their style of advocacy. The whole thing was so different from the way it is done in the traditional Indian moots. The court manners were much more relaxed. More importance was given to the construction of your argument and how logically you put it forward. Not much importance is given to the authorities you cite. It made us look at the whole situation from a new angle.”
Rhuta, another member of the team told Legally India: “The host school (John Marshall Law School) was very helpful and they provided us an amazing coach. The judges were very good. They always slowed down when they asked us questions so that we don’t get confused because of the accent. They gave very valuable feedback after the rounds were done. The judges also interacted a lot with the participants during the off-court hours and the ceremonies.” Stuti added: “We also spoke to the folks from the American teams. They were very interactive and it was a refreshing experience.”
Legend: T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 (total points won in each tier); Pos (Position); W (Wins); R/u (Runner-ups); S/F- Semifinalist; B S (Best speaker); B M/R (Best Memorial/Researcher); HM (Honorable Mention & other equivalent awards); Pts (Points) For more information please refer to the MPL 2 rulebook.
Click to show 23 comments at your own risk (alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
Agreed, this is a good international moot. However, as pointed by '5' above, it is a tier 5 moot, for it sees low Indian participation. GNLU did not win the moot (in that event it would have bagged 10 points), it won the Ambassador Round which is unique to this competition. (After much deliberation) We considered winning the Ambassador round equal to an honourable mention award because both of them appeared to us ways in which the organisers acknowledged the quality performance of a participant.
I think 3 points is apt.. this moot just so happens to have a concept called 'Ambassador Rounds' ... which is like a wild card round, at the discretion of the organisers... am not taking anything away from GNLU or SOEL, but this is for all purposes only a quarter final finish... the John Marshall moot is really only an American moot (not international).. the only non-American teams that were there, were Indian teams... so kudos to both teams, but lets not create a mountain out of a molehill.. once again, well done guys...
Reason to Include LawAsia International Moot Court Competition in Tier-5(International Moots) of Mooting Premier League: This year, 3 Indian Teams (NLSUI Bangalore, NLU Delhi and IIT Kharagpur IPR) have participated in the moot, which is equal to the no. of Indian teams participating in most of the other International moots in this tier. It would be highly unfair to the teams who participate and win if this moot is not included. If the standard for inclusion is the repute of the moot and amount of Indian participation, this moot is at par with all the rest of the moots in the tier. For the MPL to be fair and un-biased to all colleges this moot should be included in the list.
We did have an elaborate discussion as to the inclusion of this moot in MPL. However, as you have rightly pointed out, the criteria for the inclusion of a moot in MPL are repute and participation. This year's edition of Lawasia, according to us, failed to fulfill them.
If i am to understand LegallyIndia has has been formed with the objective to democratically decide whats best for it, and not definetly not on arbitrariness. You may be running the website, but its legitimacy and authenticity is dependent on how the student community sees it to be fair and accurate reflection of the mooting culture.
Having said that, you saying "according to us" smacks of major subjectivity in decision making. If u have laid down on objective criteria, tell me how is does not satisfy those criteria. I have proved to you how it does, in fach how it has seen even more participation than even some of the moots present there. And the fact that this year's edition was to take place in India proves even more so that if was very easily accessible to all indian teams to participate.
If there were "elaborate discussions" in sure u can tell me how this moot does NOT satisfy that criteria as compared to the other moots that qualify in the same cateogry. In the absence of that legallyIndia is no better than those other totalitarian websites, who think "acccording to us" suffices as the best answer.
For your benefit the objective criteria according to you is:
These moots are internationally prestigious but only currently see limited participation, and are therefore counted on par with Tier 5 moots. This recognises that winning such a competition is noteworthy but that it would not be fair to disadvantage colleges that could not afford to attend these. For example, only three Indian teams participated in ELSA Asian rounds last year, ICC Mediation Paris saw only 4 Indian teams, Frankfurt International Arbitration only three Indian teams, Maritime International Arbitration in Sydney only two Indian teams, and Oxford IPR saw only two to three Indian teams last year.
Thanks for your feedback, I think that may have come across differently than Sanjay intended...
We had long discussions on LawAsia and it was also raised during the initial period when the MPL list of moots was finalised and debated, which was done transparently.
We again considered LawAsia last week when it was raised but we understand that participation this year was of only 13 teams, of which 3 were Indian. I believe John Marshall had 20 participants in total or so?
Additionally, the barrier of entry raises slightly after an event has happened and the winners are already confirmed, for obvious reasons of fairness.
Ultimately, as also happened during the initial selection phase, a line had to be drawn somewhere for practical reasons, and to many having an international Tier 5 was already contentious.
Therefore unless there are clear and overwhelming arguments in favour of a new moot or the promotion/demotion of a moot, it would be fairest not to change the existing order.
I agree there is merit to inclusion of LawAsia potentially, but it is a very borderline case in a Tier and category, which is itself already borderline, and many others would argue against it.
Hope that makes sense, please do let us have your feedback and criticism anytime, we will endeavour to continue being as transparent and inclusive as possible within our decision making.
haha llolz what a co incidence-National Law University, Delhi has won the LawAsia moot!! Just Two years into existence and they have something in almost every moot they have been to..i have to agree with #14, would be higly unfair to the new colg. to not include this moot.
haha llolz what a co incidence-National Law University, Delhi has won the LawAsia moot!! Just Two years into existence and they have something in almost every moot they have been to..i have to agree with #14, would be higly unfair to the new colg. to not include this moot. When NlU jodhpur was given points retrospectively. Just because NLUD is not a part of the big three, doesn mean its given un equal treatment..
There is no unfair treatment happening here.. LAWasia is without doubt a lesser known moot... further, it had only 13 teams participating, which is a ridiculously low number... and of these 13 teams,with due respect to them, none of the international teams were of any great repute... such as Ho Chi Min University, Taylor University, Katmandu Unversity, Pusan University etc... apart from NLS, NLU-D and Kharagpur, we've not even really heard of the other universities that took part... now that we have the luxury of hindsight, lets us not fight to get this moot included... if I had my way, even if this moot was initially a part of the legallyindia list, I'd get it removed for a lack of participation... these 13 teams have not even made it here on merit (unlike Stentson for eg. where 16 best teams from across the world participate), cos this moot has national rounds only for Malayasia.. anyone from across the world can participate, in spite of which we had a meagre 13 teams.. having said all this, the NLU-Delhi team must be congratulated.. very well done to them.. for this moot and all their good performances in the past.. but lets not fight to get a sub-standard moot included here just because an Indian team did well..!!
I dont know how one can say Pusan University and University of Hong-Kong, Tsinghua University who participated in this moot are really of great repute and all come in top 500 universities of world. And hardly 4-5 universities creates a place in this list. It is again to be noticed that in all 5 versions of Law Asia moot, atleast 2-3 indians teams are constantly participating. NLS Banglore has particpated in every Law Asia Moot. If asia.
Talking about world participation, certainly participation of 13 teams. More than 6 countries from India, 1 from UK and 1 from Australia. One cannot compare Stetson with Law Asia. Certaianly we are not looking world teams and Stetson is ranked in tier III and tier II. No one is saying that Law Asia deserves tier III.
If i will see Tier IV moots, there is no great moot as such. What MPL needs to do is to atleast include all those moot court competitions which are taking place in India (if international. I agree with # 14 that Law Asia should be included and my point is, that u can not say its sub-standard.
Couldn't agree more with #21, the Chinese University of Hong Kong that participated in LawAsia won the best memorial in Jessup 2010..and then there was NLS, which has been participating in LawAsia since 3 or 4 years now...and some of the universities which #20 mentioned as obscure and unheard of are some of the best universities of Asia, for instance, the University of Hong Kong....So I really don't understand whats the logic behind not including this moot in any of the tiers....it should be right up there in Tier 4 along with the likes of IICLAM and Amity....and if you think the number of Indian teams was really low then include it in the tier 5 at least...not including it would be unfair because then the basis on which a moot makes it to the MPL would be unclear...LawAsia attracts some of the best Asian Universities (including NLS), it had three Indian teams in total (equal to the number in most tier 5 international moots), it was held in Delhi this year (so you can't really say the teams couldn't afford to participate)...now, if you argue that only three teams participated even though it was held in Delhi, then I would like to point out that NLS Bangalore has been participating in this moot for the past 4 years, team from the university which won the best memorial in Jessup only recently too participated and maybe the low participation from the Indian teams can be attributed to the lack of knowledge about the moot rather than the moot being sub standard per se.....
I mean really, if you can accommodate GH Raisoni and Rizvi Moot, then you can surely accommodate LawAsia....it certainly attracts better teams (not a lot of Indian teams hence the inclusion may be in Tier 5), is based on a more challenging problem, so really, please try and include it in the MPL and the fact that an Indian team performed well shouldnt be a deterrent, infact, it should be taken as a positive so that more and more Indian teams participate in that particular moot...and I would also like to point out that Leiden Sarin Air Law Moot too has been excluded from this season's MPL and again, I really dont see any reason for doing the same, there is going to be an Indian qualification round for this moot. its a good enough moot to meet the criteria of MPL (its organized by Leiden University, Netherlands and last time teams from universities like McGill, Canada participated, so the moot is well contested and pretty challenging)....and really, if you guys have decided to include moots according to your own sweet will, then its fruitless to argue, but then again, I have given the reasons for inclusion of LawAsia and of Leiden Sarin......rest is upto you guys...the fact of the matter is, MPL should be a guide to the best mooting performances of Indian Law Schools, and if you will arbitrarily disregard the achievements in some moots while recognizing the same in other moots, then it would defeat the purpose..
One of the main reasons put forward by #20 was that only a meagre 13 tournaments took part in a competition that is open to the whole world.. and does not even have a screening process (i.e National Rounds)... Basically a moot with such abysmally low participation cannot be included.. next there will be a moot in which only 4 teams, NLS, NLU-D, Harvard and Oxford take part.. and u'll want that included too... cos the best universities in the world took part.. and there was participation of 2 Indian teams...
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Do let us know if there are any thoughts on this.
Thanks!
Sanjay Khan
This year, 3 Indian Teams (NLSUI Bangalore, NLU Delhi and IIT Kharagpur IPR) have participated in the moot, which is equal to the no. of Indian teams participating in most of the other International moots in this tier. It would be highly unfair to the teams who participate and win if this moot is not included. If the standard for inclusion is the repute of the moot and amount of Indian participation, this moot is at par with all the rest of the moots in the tier. For the MPL to be fair and un-biased to all colleges this moot should be included in the list.
If i am to understand LegallyIndia has has been formed with the objective to democratically decide whats best for it, and not definetly not on arbitrariness. You may be running the website, but its legitimacy and authenticity is dependent on how the student community sees it to be fair and accurate reflection of the mooting culture.
Having said that, you saying "according to us" smacks of major subjectivity in decision making. If u have laid down on objective criteria, tell me how is does not satisfy those criteria. I have proved to you how it does, in fach how it has seen even more participation than even some of the moots present there. And the fact that this year's edition was to take place in India proves even more so that if was very easily accessible to all indian teams to participate.
If there were "elaborate discussions" in sure u can tell me how this moot does NOT satisfy that criteria as compared to the other moots that qualify in the same cateogry. In the absence of that legallyIndia is no better than those other totalitarian websites, who think "acccording to us" suffices as the best answer.
For your benefit the objective criteria according to you is:
These moots are internationally prestigious but only currently see limited participation, and are therefore counted on par with Tier 5 moots. This recognises that winning such a competition is noteworthy but that it would not be fair to disadvantage colleges that could not afford to attend these. For example, only three Indian teams participated in ELSA Asian rounds last year, ICC Mediation Paris saw only 4 Indian teams, Frankfurt International Arbitration only three Indian teams, Maritime International Arbitration in Sydney only two Indian teams, and Oxford IPR saw only two to three Indian teams last year.
And here is some date about the moot:
lawasiamoot.org/international2010.aspx
We had long discussions on LawAsia and it was also raised during the initial period when the MPL list of moots was finalised and debated, which was done transparently.
We again considered LawAsia last week when it was raised but we understand that participation this year was of only 13 teams, of which 3 were Indian. I believe John Marshall had 20 participants in total or so?
Additionally, the barrier of entry raises slightly after an event has happened and the winners are already confirmed, for obvious reasons of fairness.
Ultimately, as also happened during the initial selection phase, a line had to be drawn somewhere for practical reasons, and to many having an international Tier 5 was already contentious.
Therefore unless there are clear and overwhelming arguments in favour of a new moot or the promotion/demotion of a moot, it would be fairest not to change the existing order.
I agree there is merit to inclusion of LawAsia potentially, but it is a very borderline case in a Tier and category, which is itself already borderline, and many others would argue against it.
Hope that makes sense, please do let us have your feedback and criticism anytime, we will endeavour to continue being as transparent and inclusive as possible within our decision making.
Best regards
Kian
Do let us know if there are anymore queries.
Thanks!
Talking about world participation, certainly participation of 13 teams. More than 6 countries from India, 1 from UK and 1 from Australia.
One cannot compare Stetson with Law Asia. Certaianly we are not looking world teams and Stetson is ranked in tier III and tier II. No one is saying that Law Asia deserves tier III.
If i will see Tier IV moots, there is no great moot as such. What MPL needs to do is to atleast include all those moot court competitions which are taking place in India (if international.
I agree with # 14 that Law Asia should be included and my point is, that u can not say its sub-standard.
I mean really, if you can accommodate GH Raisoni and Rizvi Moot, then you can surely accommodate LawAsia....it certainly attracts better teams (not a lot of Indian teams hence the inclusion may be in Tier 5), is based on a more challenging problem, so really, please try and include it in the MPL and the fact that an Indian team performed well shouldnt be a deterrent, infact, it should be taken as a positive so that more and more Indian teams participate in that particular moot...and I would also like to point out that Leiden Sarin Air Law Moot too has been excluded from this season's MPL and again, I really dont see any reason for doing the same, there is going to be an Indian qualification round for this moot. its a good enough moot to meet the criteria of MPL (its organized by Leiden University, Netherlands and last time teams from universities like McGill, Canada participated, so the moot is well contested and pretty challenging)....and really, if you guys have decided to include moots according to your own sweet will, then its fruitless to argue, but then again, I have given the reasons for inclusion of LawAsia and of Leiden Sarin......rest is upto you guys...the fact of the matter is, MPL should be a guide to the best mooting performances of Indian Law Schools, and if you will arbitrarily disregard the achievements in some moots while recognizing the same in other moots, then it would defeat the purpose..
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first