The GNLU International Moot Court Competition is back! The sixth edition is going to be larger and grander than ever before with 48 teams battling it out for the top honours. Apart from several teams from India, universities from across the world including some from USA, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mauritius etc are participating in the sixth edition.

What makes GIMC unique is that GIMC is India's only WTO moot court competition where teams have to argue before a Panel of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

You can find the 2014 moot problem here.

GIMC 2014 begins from 5th February and we shall bring to you all the updates of what is happening when GNLU, Gandhinagar turns into WTO! Expect the highlights and results of the preliminary rounds and the quarter finals (on 6th and 7th February) along with the live updates and coverage of the semi-finals and finals over the weekend.

So stay tuned to this post for more details on GIMC 2014 and you can also join the conversation yourself by commenting here or using the hashtag #GIMC2014 on twitter in the upcoming days!

---

5/2/2014

The innauguration of GIMC 2014 is scheduled for 5:30 pm.

GIMC inaugural ceremony is well underway.

To the surprise of most of the participants, the GIMC hospitality team gave each participant a GIMC T-shirt and each team was also given a box of lovely cupcakes with a handwritten good luck note!

GNLU Dean : Nobody loses in a moot court competition.

After encouraging speeches from the Director and Dean of Academic Affairs, GIMC faculty convenor, Mr. Girish R. has taken the stage. He has been greeted with much applause.

GIMC Faculty Convenor : You will face benches of experts who will grill you in a way to ensure all your preparation and arguments are fairly evaluated.

GIMC Faculty Convenor : We have added several more prizes such as best speaker overall rank 1, 2, 3. In addition to the coveted trophies and cash pprizes, books by publishing giants EBC and WestLaw will be awarded to the winners.

After the speech by the GIMC faculty convenor, SCC online Editor in Chief and EBC director Mr. Sumeet Malik is giving a presentation on the usage of SCC Online database. EasternBookCompany is GIMC's Knowledge Partner for 2014.

2000 hrs - The innaugural ceremony came to an end with some instructions for the participants regarding the prelim rounds.

Most of the participants were seen happily muching on their cupcakes as they headed for dinner.

You can head over to the GIMC twitter and Facebook pages for more photos and updates from Day 1 of GIMC2014.

See more Day 1 photos - here

---

6/2/2014

1215 hrs - Today is the day of first prelim rounds of the 6th GIMC. The first rounds of the day began in all five courtrooms at 1100hrs today and are just ending in some of the courtrooms while others are still in session.

 You can see Day 2 (prelim round 1) photos - here

7/2/2014

2000 hrs - The prelim rounds ended and the participants headed to Akshardham temple with the GIMC hospitality team for local sightseeing. 

2200 hrs - The results have been announced! 

All the teams put in a fabulous performance but the 8 that have qualified for the quarterfinals are... 

(Not necessarily in any particular order)
A. NALSAR, Hyderabad
B. NLSIU, Bangalore
C. ILS, Pune
D. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
E. George Washington University School of Law
F. HNLU, Raipur
G. NLU Orissa
H. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

And the team which missed out on qualification by a single mark was -
NUALS, Kochi

The quarter finals and semifinals are scheduled for tomorrow 8/2/2014.

 8/2/2014

1200 hrs -The quarter final rounds have just started.

Note: We apologise for the lack of coverage for the past two days which was mainly due to internet connectivity issues. But rest assured, this blog shall be regularly updated today.

In a few minutes we shall be bringing to you the photos from the last few days and shall follow it up with quarter final results at 1430 hrs. 

Live updates from semifinals shall begin at 1530 hrs.

1445 hrs - The quarter finalists were evenly matched and Panellists seemed so engrossed by the arguments being presented that much extra time was granted. The results are expected any minute now.

1500 hrs - And here are the results!

The semifinalists of GIMC 2014 are - <in no particular order>

A. George Washington University School of Law
B. NLSIU, Bangalore
C. NALSAR, Hyderabad
D. HNLU, Raipur

1525 hrs - We have a panel f four Panellists for the semifinals. They are - 

Mr. Shantanu Mukherjee, Mr. Gaurav Gupte, Mr. Aniruddha Rajput and Mr. Mukundan Chakrapani.

 1530 hrs - The first semifinal has begun.

Team HNLU acting as Complainants and Team GWU School of Law acting as Respondents.

1533 hrs - The Complainant first speaker begins his arguments. At the very outset he is being grilled on the Panel’s jurisdiction. The questions continue on the basics of WTO Procedure and jurisdiction.

 1536 hrs - The first speaker has not yet been able to begin the arguements on issues. Questioning on basics continue.

1539 hrs - The Panellists rebuff the Complainant saying that he “keeps giving the same answer again and again.” The Complainant does not seem to be grasping the question and the Panellists are losing patience stating that this would be his last opportunity before the Panellists conclude that he cannot answer the question.

1542 hrs - The Panellists asked him to move on to the next issue. There is no respite as he is immediately asked to “cut out the rhetoric” and come directly to the legal issues at hand.

1545 hrs - The Panellists are now asking the speaker to back up his arguments with his authorities. The Speaker tries to quote a scholar and gets an impromptu lesson in how to cite authorities while speaking. Panellists ask him for a very specific authority and the original authority being relied upon is forgotten.

1547 hrs - The questioning is relentless. A look passes between the Complainant team members. They seem worried. The Respondent team members also glance at each other. They also might not have the answers. Respondent team has two members, both speakers. No researcher in the GWU team. Atleast no person has travelled to GNLU as a researcher.

1550 hrs - Barrage of questioning continues. It seems like the Panellists expect to be pointed to the exact authorities and even the page numbers in some cases. 

1553 hrs -  The speaker is told to make judicious use of time. The Panellists dont seem very pleased but everyone is very polite. Panellists say that the speaker should try to prempt the questions.

1557 hrs - The Speaker is quickly running out of time and has been unable to address any substantive issues in detail. The Complainant begins citing a Panel report and is immediately interrupted with another question. The Panellists seem inclined to speed things along by bringing the Complainant directly to the crux of the issue. The Panellists dismiss the arguments as being “presumptive” and ask him to give one or two sentences to sum up his remaining sub issues.

1559 hrs - The Speaker must be credited with maintaining his composure in the face of such harsh grilling. He just pointed the Panellists to the exact page and footnote related to the authority he was citing. This is the most intense questioning that has taken place in the last three days.

1600 hrs -  Panellists asks the speaker to summarize his submission and not to give them any “law” but to just tell them what proposition he wants to convince them of. The arguments come back to the mode of supply before the Panellists thank him for his speech. The first speaker from HNLU has finished his arguments.

1602 hrs - The second speaker from Complainant team, HNLU is a lady. She was interuppted after her first two words which were "Good Morning". One of the Panellists reminded her that it is afternoon.

1602 hrs - The second speaker has started of well after that first comment. She managed to answer the first few questions in a lucid and crisp manner and the Panellists allowed her to move on.

1604 hrs - Intense grilling resumes. One of the Panellists is insisting on a yes/no answer. That puts her in a spot. 

1605 hrs - She seems to faring better for now since the Panellists are letting her argue at length.

1607 hrs - Now the questioning is back and it is fierce.  The Panellists are now asking her to tackle the measure “head on” and to stop dealing only with the effects. The Panellists tell her that that she has failed to establish the issue for them and to build up on the “shabby foundation” given by her.  

1710 hrs - The second speaker of the Respondents seems to be the most confident speaker of this round. She is addressing the questions head on.  However, the Panellists are not satisfied with her argumentation.

The arguments are now based around the basis of online gaming. She is bringing in a lot of real life examples but is trapped while trying to say that some games are provided free of cost. The economics behind her suggestions is questioned and an impromptu lesson on economics and the value of money by the Panellists follows. There is a light moment as a Panellist says that Adam Smith must be “spinning rather than merely turning in his grave” !!

1715 hrs -    The arguments are now based on the interpretation of the word “restriction”. The strange reversal of roles continues with the Panellists quoting directly from Panel and AB reports contradicting the Respondent's pleadings. Panellists have a very good grasp of what has been held in previous cases.

The second speaker answerd the questions surrounding  “domestic regulation” confidently and succinctly backed up her arguments by quoting paragraphs from Panel reports. Panellists now point out that the Panel has interpreted the word very differently and are now quoting paragraphs from the moot proposition to imply bad faith on part of the respondent. When the speaker shows the law, Panellists show her the facts. This Panel is hard to satisfy!

The second semifinal has started.

Here is a quick photo of the semifinal panel - 

1820 hrs - The first speaker starts the speech speaking very slowly and in a very composed manner.  Speaker's approach is very dispassionate. The Panellists are quizzing the speaker on the forum the complainants have approached and have asked the speaker to enumerate the differences between a Panel and an Appellate Body.
The Speaker inadvertently walks into a trap by calling the dispute resolution mechanism of WTO a “sort of” arbitration and is now being grilled to no end about arbitration.

Speaker is now being grilled on the procedure of approaching the Panel. The Speaker states that Complainants have not brought along a copy of the GATS. The Panel expresses surprise. Not a good start.

The Speaker does not seem to have engaged the attention of all the Panellists. The Speaker is still being questioned on the basic procedural aspects of WTO. The Judges move on to questioning the speaker on proving how the Complainant State has been affected due to the losses suffered by one company. 

1825 hrs -  The Speaker remains composed throughout and is now arguing on the applicability of GATS. The Panellist tries to trap the speaker in a yes/no question but the Speaker manages to give a convincing answer and cites a Report to buttress the argument. The Panel however is not convinced and cite certain facts to counter the argument. The Speaker tries to place reliance on a Panel report but is interrupted and told to “answer the question” being posed by the Panel and not to give such an analogy.

The Panel finally accepts the argument and asks the speaker to move on to the next argument. The Speaker is now trying to establish the sector under which the present service would be covered. The Speaker is questioned a couple of times on the use of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties but the Panel accepts the argument and one Panellist even says that the speaker has a “decent point”.

1830 hrs - The Speaker relies on the Oxford Dictionary and the Panel is quick to grill  on the value of such a dictionary definition in WTO juriprudence. The speaker manages to give a convincing reply and the Panel seems to be in agreement. Good going so far. The Panel accepts the argument on the points of treaty interpretation but point out that the speaker may be missing a certain fundamental principle. Another Panellist reminds that the speaker is already running out of time. The Panel is now questioning on the meaning of the word “communication”.

The Speaker is now on the issue of the mode of supply. Judges seem to be amused rather than impressed by the Speaker's use of the phrase “electronic travel” and state that they would love to do so after teleportation technologies have been developed. The Speaker maintains composure and cites an authority to establish that point that the speaker was previously attempting to make. The Panellists are now questioning the use of the authority cited by the speaker and as has now become the norm, Panellists now cite an authority themselves to further the opposing point.

1835 hrs -  The Panel states that they’re not bound by the observations being quoted by the Speaker and ask the speaker to move on to the next argument. The Speaker is now trying to establish a restriction on market access and directs the Panellists to a specificpage in the Compendium. The Panellist points out that that the Panel Report in question held the contrary to the argument of the Complainant. The Speaker reiterates the stand however the panel rejects the use of her authority on the point.

The Speaker smoothly manages to move on to the next issue. The Panel asks the speaker to skip the prologue to the issue and to come directly to the argument. The argument seems to be accepted and the Panellists ask the speaker to move to the “likeness” argument. The Speaker cleverly uses the facts to the advantage of the Complainants.  

1845 hrs -   The Panellists are now questioning on some basic aspects of State Responsibility. The Researcher passes a note and the speaker smoothly concludes the answer and cites a report to back up the argument. The Panel gives one extra minute to wrap up the arguments but another Panellist says that he has a “couple of questions” and continues to grill on the issue of likeness of services and is quoting the fact sheet to show the disparity amongst the services which the speaker is claiming are alike. The Speaker responds with a two fold argument to establish the competitive likeness and establishes the case well. The Panel accepts the argument and asks the speaker to move on.

The Speaker runs out of time and asks for an extra minute to summarize the remaining argument. Without changing the pace, the speaker continues to lay down the arguments in a structured and a coherent manner.

The Speaker has attempted twice to use scholarly opinion to back up the argument but on both occasions, the Panel seems to not be inclined to accept scholarly views.  

The Panel outright rejects the opinion of the scholar quoted. The Speaker tries to establish that scholarly opinion forms an important source of international law. The questions now take a turn towards the use of highly qualified scholars's view and public international law. The speaker is told that the scholar being quotes is not really a reknowned publicist and that the Panel shall not accept the view.

1850 hrs - The speaker seems to have exceeded the extra time granted without permission and is sarcastically asked - Are you going to make all the submissions or is your collegue going to speak too?

That brings the first speaker's speechto an end. Time for the second speaker of the Complainant team to begin.

1855 hrs -  The Second Speaker starts confidently and is asked to cut to the legal submissions almost immediately. The Panellists interrupt his argument to tell him that he is simply making propositions and not giving any reasons. The argument is now based on a mandatory warning for suppliers located outside the Respondent State. The Speaker places reliance on an Appellate Body report to support his interpretation of the word “affecting”. The Panellist points out that his argument is circular and that it “hits him hard” and also that the Report he cited states the exact opposite and that what he was instead relying on was a paragraph of another report entirely. 

The Speaker seems a little taken aback and shifts to facts to support his case.

Does the second speaker have some papers mixed up? 

The Panel states that it is “sympathetic” to the point he is making and allows him to move on with the argument. The Panel launches a barrage of questions and the Speaker politely asks the Panel to allow him to complete his argument. He draws the attention of the Panel to a quote in the Compendium and the Panel seems to accept his argument. 

1900 hrs - The second speaker started of well but is now fumbling more than before. 

The Researcher from the Respondent team is furiously scribbling something down through out the Complainant speeches. The Respondents seem to nod when the panel asks a question.

1905 hrs - The Judges are now questioning the speaker on the difference between an administrative measure and a legislative measure. The Speaker gives an answer but does not convince the bench. The speaker is now arguing on the “reasonableness” of the measure in question. The Panel offers him a real life example similar to the facts to counter his argument. The Speaker replies with an example of his own to show the existence of an alternative less trade restrictive measure. Cleverly done but the Panel is quick to distinguish his example from the present facts.

1906 hrs - The Panel is now questioning the speaker regarding the practical difficulties in enforcing the alternative measures being suggested by him. The Speaker in his next argument tries to argue that the standard taken by the respondents is needlessly high. The Panellists ask him whether the Complainant would undertake liability for any incidents of fraud that would occur in case their suggested measure was adopted. The Speaker answers promptly and appears to convince the Judges to his position.

1910 hrs - The Panellist suggests an alternate measure that could be taken. The Speaker accepts that such a measure would not be “impartial” but would run afoul of other articles in the GATS which would be addressed in subsequent arguments. The Judges ask him to move on to the arguments directly. The Speaker tries to quote an authority which (as always) is questioned. The Speaker tries to urge that it would be a source of law which leads to some incredulity amongst the judges. He quickly corrects himself and the Judges decide to allow him to move on.

1911 hrs - The speaker is told that the Panellist is impressed by one particular argument. This is really high praise from this Panel. Good going Complainants!

1912 hrs - The Speaker is running out of time and the judges ask him to summarize his remaining argument. The Speaker attempts to raise a preemptive argument but the Judges tell him that they should let the Respondent to raise the claim and rebutt it later.

With that the Complainants conclude their argument.

1915 hrs - The first speaker of the Respondent begins her speech almost immediately. She is asked to skip her introduction and to come to the arguments. She is questioned on her interpretation of a certain word to which she replies that “it is the dictionary meaning”. The Panellist asks her as to which dictionary she is relying on and surprise, it’s the New Oxford Dictionary.

The two nations may have a trade dispute but they both rely on the same dictionary!

1918 hrs -   The Panel quickly brings the speaker to the crux of the issue regarding the mode of supply of the service in question. The panellist asks her to justify her stand following which he would tell her why it’s wrong. The Speaker tries to justify her argument by quoting certain authorities but the Panel asks her to point to the facts from the moot problem to establish whether the mode of supply of the service in question is “cross border supply” or “consumption abroad”.

1924 hrs - A Panellist tells the speaker that her argument would stand only if they were to treat the current dispute as concerning a good and that the Complainants had convinced them that the present case concerned a service. The Speaker tries to distinguish the two modes by giving an example and citing a Panel report to back up her argument.

A Panellist tells her that the Panel report would not be binding on them and that the Panel in that case exercised judicial economy and did not discuss the issue at length. The Speaker tries to point out that there is no authority to help the case of the Complainant. She asks permission to move on with her issue if the Panel is convinced. The Panel tells her that she can move on but that they are not convinced.

1927 hrs -  The Panel corners the speaker into a tricky yes/no question, yet again! The Speaker answers with a yes which a Panellist immediately contradicts and as always gives an authority to back their stand. The Speaker tries to answer and bring the Panel back to her argument. The Judges tell her that she has already argued that issue and that they are not convinced with it. The Speaker moves on to her arguendo argument and is now starting to speak a little faster.  She is now being questioned on the interpretation of the schedule on specific commitments. 

The speaker is making continuous use of hand gestures. I hope that does not distract the Panellists from the point she is trying to make. It is the same gesture again and again. 

1931 hrs -  The Speaker lays down an argument at top speed and a panellist tells her that he is disregarding the “cloud of words” she spoke and that she should clarify what exactly she is seeking. The Judge asks her if she would be arguing anything more. The Speaker moves on to the second measure which the Respondent state is defending. 

In the previous semifinal, both teams' second speakers dealt with the second measure. 

1935 hrs -  The Judges are now grilling her on the use of a certain authority in a footnote. The Speaker directs the judges to a page in the “blue compendium” and the Panellists continue grilling her on the authority of the source. The Speaker elaborates well but the Judge replies with a blunt “what is this”, accepting that he got her context but asks her whether the Panel is bound by it. The Speaker admits that the Panel is not and moves on to the next argument.

1940 hrs - The Panel suggests that the Speaker should carefully consider her arguments before speaking. The Panel is now questioning her on the differential standard being meted out to foreign suppliers and domestic suppliers. The Panellists ask her if she has a come across a specific instance in her research to which the Speaker admits that she has not come across such a case.

The Panel further grills her on the availability of less trade restrictive measures. The Speaker does not appear to have convinced the Judges by her answer and the questions keep coming. The “summarization of her last issue” seems to be forgotten as the discussion shows no signs of reaching a conclusion.  However, it doesnt seem like the speaker is managing to convince the judges with her arguments.

The speaker is arguing in detail regarding the second (and the last) measure that the Respondent is expected to defend. What shall be the scope of the second speakers' arguments we wonder. The Respondents seem to have adopted some unique strategy. Time shall tell if it works.

1945 hrs - The Panellists are now pointing out facts in the moot proposition to question the intentions of the Respondent State in their imposition of the measure. The Panel again asks her whether she has any other argument since she has run out of time (quite some time back).  She asks permission to take some time to answer their last question. Before she could complete however, she is asked a flurry of questions and the original question is forgotten. The Speaker is now arguing based on the Patent Application annexed to the moot proposition.

1951 hrs - The first speaker finally cedes the floor to the second speaker who has assured the judges that he would not take long. The second speaker has started off quite well. He seems confident.

The Speaker starts by establishing the standard reliance on the VCLT provisions. He also brings out a case against his argument and distinguishes it effectively. The Judges appear to accept his argument. "We are with you on that." - This is a good sign.

The Speaker now tries to rely on the supplementary means of interpretation under Article 32 of the VCLT but the Panellist question whether his authority would fall within the ambit of the Article 32.

1955 hrs - The speaker managed to answer effectively and continues to argue his interpretation of the word “restriction”. The Panel tells him that they agree with his first point but not his subsequent argument. The Speaker tries to draw the attention of the Bench to the GATS but the Panellist states that they were initially very impressed with his argument but not so when they see it in detail. uh oh!

2000 hrs - The Panellist says that  the Speaker seems to be missing the point regarding the “balance of payments”.  Speaker clarifies that that he is only rebutting the Complainants arguments which leads to multiple “no no no s” from the Panel. The Panel asks him to repeat his argument. The Speaker is now trying to elaborate on the same.

2005 hrs - Not much activity at the Complainants desk. They are patiently listening to the Respondents' submissions. Are they already ready with the rebuttals?

2007 hrs -  The Panellists tell the speaker that they thought that the Speaker really had a “concrete argument” which would turn the case in their favour but that he is completely ignoring the last paragraph of the relevant article. He offers to summarize the argument but a Panellist tells him that he would like to do it. The Speaker does not grasp the summary offered by the Panellist and the Panellist is therefore forced to repeat it. The Speaker reiterates his stand and refuses to concede his argument in the face of overwhelming opposition from the Panel.

2013 hrs - The second speaker asks for an extension again and the Panel asks him to speed up. Reliability of authorities cited by the Respondents is under question again.

2014 hrs - The speaker is told to refer to authorities from trade jurisprudence and not to lecture the panel. But he seems to have recovered well after that remark and has managed to move to another contention.

2017 hrs - The Speaker submits his final argument and the Judges question him and tell him that he cannot traverse beyond the facts. He answers succinctly and the Panel appears to accept his answer. The Speaker draws attention of the Judges to a document in their Compendium. This seems to be a strategy to buy more time by starting a discussion on a new document.

The Speaker is asked whether he has any other submission to make. The Speaker moves on to trying to justify the product under one of the exceptions under GATS. The Panel tells him that he must rely on facts and not on what may be held in some case. The Panel again asks him if he has any new points and the Speaker tries to continue his argument but is told that he has already argued that submission. The Speaker finally moves on to his last submission but the Panel does not seem to be very convinced with it.

 The speaker has rested his case.

2020 hrs - The Speaker from Complainant raises three points of rebuttal and places reliance on multiple reports to make her point. The Panel tells her that they are already aware of the settled jurisprudence on the same.

The Second Speaker raises rebuttals on the use of a certain report by the Respondent. The Judges tell him that his second point has already been argued in their pleadings. His third point is rejected by the Panellists outright. His last rebuttal is on the concept of good faith but the Panel completely rejects the point and rely on Ian Brownlie for the same. 

The Respondent begins his sur rebuttals and is quick to distinguish the cases cited by the Complainant. The Panel seems to be in agreement with most of his points, except for the last point to which the Speaker admits he has no authority for.

 The Second Semifinal Round has also ended. Please stay tuned in for the Results.

In the Second Semifinal the Complainants were from NLSIU, Bangalore and the Respondents were from NALSAR, Hyderabad.

AND THE TWO TEAMS WHO SHALL BE DUKING IT OUT IN THE FINALS ARE

NLSIU, BANGALORE AND GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW!

Our heartiest congratulations to the two teams and we wish them all the best! Stay tuned for the finals which will take place tomorrow afternoon. Good Night! 

9/2/2014

1503 hrs -  The courtroom is ready. We are waiting for the teams and judges to arrive. The final shall soon be underway!

1508 hrs - Panellists for today's final round are - 

• Mr. V Lakshmi Kumaran, Managing Partner, LKS
• Mr. Greg Tereposky, Partner, Bordon Ladner Gervais LLP
• Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia, Member, WTO Appellate Body
• Ms. Victoria Donaldson, Counsellor, WTO Appellate Body
• Ms. Tetyana Payosova, Research Fellow, WTI, University of Bern

1510 hrs - 

The finals are underway!

NLSIU acting as Complainants and GWU, School of Law as Respondents!

1512 hrs - The First Speaker from the Complainant team begins her speech confidently and calmly, laying down the structure of their arguments and the time reserved by each of the Speakers. She moves on to introducing in brief the facts leading to the dispute. In the semi finals the Panellists hadn't asked for introduction to facts but today they have. No questions in the first two minutes.

 1520 hrs - The Speaker is now trying to establish  the mode of supply under which the service should be classified. The Panel quotes the decision given in the Panel Report in US-Gambling case and asks her to justify why the decision of that Panel would not apply. The Speaker confidently replies by quoting the Appellate Body report and answers that the question of the exact mode of supply has never been confidently determined. She is then asked as to whether it could come within both the modes at the same time. The Speaker confidently replies that it would lead to ambiguity if such was held and has managed to establish that the resent case is distinct from US-Gambling and that that ruling should not be followed.