Experts & Views
Live blog : 8th Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur is all set to organize the 8th edition of Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2016 from 19th February 2016 to 21st February 2016.
Mooting has been a culture at HNLU and every edition of HNMCC is aimed at raising the mooting standards by ensuring an intellectually stimulating moot problem along with an excellent Bench. Since its inception, HNMCC had built up a reputation for being India’s premier Competition Law Moot. Year after year the competition has witnessed an overwhelming response from various Universities, Colleges and National Law Schools throughout India. This year 23 teams from NLS Bangalore, NALSAR Hyderabad, NUJS Kolkata, NLU Jodhpur, GNLU Gandhinagar and other elite law schools from all across the nation are participating in the event.
Last year the event had made a successful shift from Competition Law to Environmental Law. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer pointed out, “our century before it expires has a choice to make. It faces a Hamletian dilemma. To be or not to be that is the question--- if we care or dare at least to frame the question and face the problem.” Indeed, today human survival is threatened not only by nuclear weapons but by an equally potent and menacing problem of environmental pollution. The 8th HNMCC, 2016, is based on Environmental and International Law and is intended to draw attention towards the Environmental Law issues which need to be addressed and resolved pragmatically for ensuring sustainability of the ecosystem as well as the survival of all forms of life on the Earth. This year, the focus of HNMCC is to promote amongst students a better understanding of nuances of Environmental Law and also to crack the intricate issues revolving around the subject matter by bringing it to the mooting arena.
The moot problem for this edition revolves around conservation of an endangered species of dolphins in a transnational river "Bhargavi", and the imposition and dishonour of international covenants and treaties governing the distribution of water and containment of pollution between neighbouring nations amalgamated with issues of diplomatic immunity.
The respected jury of the 7th HNMCC comprised of:
JUDGES FOR THE FINAL ROUNDS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Mishra, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Shrivastava, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh
JUDGES FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND QUARTER-FINAL ROUNDS
Mr. Abhishek Srivastava -Former Deputy Registrar, London Court of International Arbitration (India); currently an in-house counsel with TATA motors.
Mr. Anand Shankar Jha - Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Arvind Venugopal – Senior Associate , Khaitan & co.
Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi - Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Debanshu Mukherjee - Sr. Resident Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Mr. Gaurav Dugar - Associate, Trilegal, Mumbai
Mr. Himanshu Choubey - Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Mayank Mishra - Legal Officer, Caspian Impact Investment Advisor
Mr. Mohit Singh- Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Pallav Mongia Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Ravi Prakash - Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Saksham Chaturvedi - Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
Mr. Shantanu Kanade - Associate, BMR Legal
Mr. Srijan Sinha - Associate, Economic Law Practice
Mr. Vinayak Mishra - Managing Associate, BMR Legal
Mrs. Priyanka Rathi - Associate, BMR Legal
Ms. Avani Bansal - Advocate, AB Chambers
Ms. Guneet Kaur - Legal & Research Fellow
Ms. Ruchi Mehta Associate- JSA
Mr. Dhrupad Pant – associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas
The blogs would be uploaded as soon as a speaker has presented his arguments and thus we would have a minimum of four reports coming in every round from each courtroom. We would be uploading the reports from the courtrooms on 20th February, 2016 in the following order:-
20th February, Saturday
Results of Researcher Test 09:00 AM- 10:00 AM
Prelims Session I 10:30 AM- 12:00 PM
Prelims Session II 02:00 PM -03:30 PM
Declaration of Prelims Result 04:30 PM
Quarterfinal Rounds 05:00 PM- 06:30 PM
21st February, Sunday
Semi Finals 10:30 AM- 12:00 PM
Finals 02:00 PM- 04:00 PM
Result declaration of Final Round 07:30 PM
At the end of the competition winners are to be felicitated under the following categories:
i.) Winning Team Award Winner’s Trophy and Cash Prize of Rs. 25,000.
ii.) Runner up Team Award Runner‟s up Trophy and Cash Prize of Rs.15,000.
iii.) Best Speaker Award Cash Prize of Rs. 7,500.
iv) Best Memorial Award Cash Prize of Rs. 7,500.
v.) Best Researcher Award Cash Prize of Rs. 7,500.
DISCLAIMER: Every effort has been made to ensure that the blog is presented in a gender neutral manner, however, wherever "He" is used within the blog it can be construed to include "She" as and when applicable. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
LIVE BLOG OF PRELIMINARY ROUND 1:
GLC, Mumbai v. NLSIU
Speaker no. 1
The first speaker for applicant i.e. GLC Mumbai very brilliantly stated the facts and enumerated his issues with which the jury seemed pretty satisfied. They asked them the reason for using the ICJ's logo to which the speaker gave no clear answer.
The speaker presented his arguments banking upon the beauty of pink bibo and the harm done by the respondents being contrary to equitable utilization of resources to which the jury followed up by asking whether they themselves had done such harm or not to which the speaker denied.
The speaker alleged that the respondents had breached the customary law and avoided their responsibilities. The jury asked them about their primary concern - "environment or economy" to which the speaker gave a detailed satisfactory answer.
The speaker started explaining the irreversible nature of damages and the liabilities incurred and the dynamics of the treaty.
The jury delved into the chronological order of breaches by parties to which the speaker responded smoothly.
Speaker no. 2
The speaker explained the sovereignty to enjoy natural resources and its nature and restrictions and satisfied the queries of the judges exhaustively.
The jury questioned the applicants about the state of technology and referred the proposition which states that only Aresian forests were damaged to which the speaker could not give a justified answer. Judges questioned them about the economy and their inherent interests. The speaker presented an elaborate account of the mechanism within which the damage affected their interests and a factual assessment of their position.
The jury rejected the legal points employed by the applicants in support of their plea.
The judges were not satisfied with the assessment of the resource distribution and asked the Agent to move on.
The jury questioned about the laws that had been violated to which the speaker gave an unsettled answer and subsequently pleaded ignorance. The judges stated that the contention put forth was a faulty premise and harshly remarked that the applicants were unsure of their own stand and were adopting double standards to which the speaker could barely respond.
The speaker concluded by summarizing his arguments in an ordered fashion.
RESPONDENTS - NLSIU
The first speaker presented the facts and enumerated the issues in a very eloquent manner which definitely impressed the jury.
The speaker elaborated upon the nature of the treaty and the repercussions of its breach upon the interested parties. The jury asked about the environmental impact assessment, technology transfers and international supervision to which the speaker gave satisfactory answers by referring to the moot proposition.
The jury asked the applicants to present other examples which would clarify the dynamics of endangered species to which the speaker stated that there were no accurate examples available.
The jury doubted validity of the unilateral research of the applicants and were not impressed with their roundabout explanation.
The jury stated the argument presented by them in their successive contentions appeared contrary to each other to which the speaker gave a candid response.
The speaker was stumbling on the question put forth on diplomatic immunity.
SPEAKER 2:
The speaker started confidently with his interpretation of the treaty and satiated the jury's concern over lack of consultation.
The jury asked them why they had approached ICJ rather than domestic tribunal, the applicants’ response to which in their observation was again contrary to the first speaker.
The speaker explained the chronological order of breaches and cited various authorities in favour of his arguments which seem to have gone well with the jury.
The speaker delved into the ambit of international environment law. Judges have been speaking more than speakers as they continue to bombard questions. The speaker pacified the mood of the courtroom by giving firm answers.
The speaker calmly concluded with his prayer for relief
UPES v. RMLNLU
The first speaker for the applicants i.e. UPES stated the facts very eloquently. The jury followed up by asking about the nationality of the scientist Dr. Anil Mehta in response to which the speaker first stated Arressia but upon referring to the proposition changed his stance and pleaded that the proposition did not contain sufficient data for construing the nationality.
The jury asked to demarcate the reference which stated that the team of researchers was not allowed to enter Arressia in response to which the first speaker evaded answering.
The jury asked the speaker to proceed with the issues. The jury stated that the agent’s way of addressing the court was incorrect.
While the speaker was explaining the issues the jury asked for the exact treaty and the provisions which were violated. The jury was not satisfied with the answer and they asked the speaker to elaborate it in light of the substantive and customary law domains.
The jury asked the speaker about the sources of international law and the statement of the International Court of Justice which the speaker again evaded answering.
The jury asked the speaker to delved into the nature of the treaty and explain tripartite obligations under it. The speaker ran through their entire interpretation to construe that the motive of the conservation of the endangered species of Pink Bibo. The quantum of state's discretion in abiding by the treaty was explained and the speaker concluded with the liability to pay the compensation by Borressia.
SPEAKER 2
The judge remarked that the opening stance taken by the Agent appeared like he was arguing a different issue all together. The speaker was seemingly trapped in a web of interlinked questions in response to which the speaker pleaded that that the facts were silent. The judges remarked that their perception of facts does not concur with his plea and asked him to move to the last issue.
The speaker presented his contention on diplomatic immunity and cited several authorities. The judges express their doubts about their binding nature and the speaker gave a hazy response. The judges asked him about the laws which were violated and the speaker couldn't answer because of a paucity of time. The jury exclaimed that there was no need for the prayer now.
RESPONDENTS : RMLNLU
SPEAKER 1
The speaker had an excellent start by explaining the intricacies of the mutual interaction of species and utilized Darwin's theories which had been applauded by the judges. But the judges did not fail to point out the discrepancies in the respondent’s perception of facts to which the speaker gives reasonable excuses to avoid adverse inference.
Due to paucity of time the jury asked the speaker to move to his last contention as only 3 minutess of his time is left. The Vienna convention provisions are interpreted by the speaker and the feasibility of the methods undertaken is stressed both of which fail to convince the judges.
SPEAKER 2
The speaker was bombarded with queries about the laws violated, the liabilities incurred as a repercussion of it and environment impact assessment and exceptions which the Agent smartly resolved.
Judges asked the speaker to be fast and highlighted the conflict of stands in the authorities he was citing to which the speaker replied hastily.
The speaker confidently and calmly presented the prayer for relief and his part ended on an amicable note.
JGLS v. SLS , Noida
APPLICANTS (JGLS)
SPEAKER 1
The judges look to be in the mood of rebutting the Agents as much as possible. The Agent's arguments were met with a series of questions relating to facts and general understanding of the concept. The Agent seems to be handling the queries well. Some periods of awkward silence could be observed in the courtroom during his pleadings.
As expected, the agent did exceed his time limit, which was abruptly pointed out by the judge after an implicit extension of a couple of minutes, at which point he was asked to conclude within one minute. The judges didn't seem very satisfied with his submissions.
SPEAKER 2
A confident speaker is pitted against a judge determined to break him down.
During the course of the arguments, the judges ask questions about the basics of international law. Before the speaker answers, the question is broken down into three flawless parts, the answers of which could only be known to someone as learned as the judge himself.
The courtroom, towards the end, reaches a stage where the jury is presenting arguments for the applicants. The Agent was able to wrap up the arguments with an extension of two minutes. No one knows if the judges are convinced or not.
RESPONDENTS (SLS, Noida)
SPEAKER 1
The Judges surprisingly let the respondents restate the statement of facts, perhaps to increase matter to grill upon. The Agent is then faced with an enormous multiplicity of questions. The Agent is able to answer them confidently; however the Agent fumbles as the questions progress. The overwhelming amount of questions inevitably led to a shortage of time. The judge seemed discontent with the answers.
SPEAKER 2
The submissions of the Agent were marked by an awkward silence that lasted for 20 seconds. Given the vociferous nature of the judge, this is indeed a very rare moment. The judge seeks to teach the respondents the importance of various life skills. He seems more of a parent than a judge. The judge seems eternally dissatisfied.
KIIT v. RGNUL
APPLICANTS (KIIT LAW SCHOOL):
SPEAKER 1
First speaker from side applicants asks for a time of fourteen minutes to argue his two issues. For the first issue, the agent tries to convince the judges of the fact that introduction of genetically modified organisms is in violation of international law, in the light of Convention of Biodiversity. The applicants’ failed to convince the judges through their arguments and was subjected to a brutal questioning. The questions included the definition of pollution as would be applicable in the present case and the binding force of Rio Declaration on Aressia among others. Even though the Agent tried his best to clear all the doubts of the judges, he doesn't seem to have convinced them of the same.
SPEAKER 2
The second Agent arguing from the side of Aressia urges that Boressia is responsible for violation of International Law principles, including the Vienna Convention and the doctrine of Pactus Servanda. The applicant was also subjected to various queries by the judges, which the Agent attempts to answer as well as the agent can, but fails to satisfy the judges.
RESPONDENTS (RGNUL):
SPEAKER 1
The Agent, while dealing with the issue of violation by way of genetically modified organisms, argues that the organism were of immense importance to the conservation of the environment and the eco-system. While the Agent seems to be handling the rebuttal of the judges well, he does agree that the procedure laid down by the Vienna Convention was not followed. However, he maintains that there was no breach of the agreement between the parties.
SPEAKER 2
The Agent tries to present a five-fold argument in order to convince the judges that Boressia is not responsible for any breach of international law principles, justifying any such alleged breach by citing "necessity".
The judges seem more or less satisfied with this answers and arguments.
CHRIST v. NLU-O
APPLICANTS (CHRIST LAW SCHOOL):
SPEAKER 1
The speaker begins at a pretty confident note, presenting their arguments on the issue of violation of International environmental law by Boressia. He, however, seemed to be baffled when the judges question the applicability of Cartagena Principle in the present case. Moreover, the judges seemed to be convinced that the exception of good faith applied to Boressia in the present case, to which the Agent had no convincing answer. The judges, towards the end, seem not at all convinced of the contention of Aressia against Boressia, since in their view none of this affects the region of Aressia.
SPEAKER 2
Even though the judges seem to be agreeing with the arguments of, this Agent in the beginning, the Agent’s arguments became increasingly shaky towards the end, which led to him being subjected to sarcastic remarks by the bench.
Two contentions were raised by the Agent, one dealing with the violation by Boressia by the way of genetically modifying organisms and the second dealing with the violation by the way of refusal of return of the scientists. Unfortunately, the judges didn’t seem to be convinced of either.
RESPONDENTS (NLU-O):
SPEAKER 1
The speaker starts off on a low note. The judges sense the agents’ lack of confidence and start asking some basic questions, most of which were met with fumbled answers by the Agent which failed to convince the judges. During the course of his arguments, the Agent surprisingly concedes to the fact that his client was the polluter in the present case. This was received with a huge sigh of disappointment by the judges.
SPEAKER 2
The Agent seems to be doubtful about various aspects of his pleadings, including the facts. The jury expressed their doubts on various stages of the Agent's arguments, none of which were met with convincing answers. The judges, growing impatient with the sheer amount of time being taken by the Agent to answer their queries, ask the agent to directly move on to his other contention and conclude.
NIRMA v. AMITY
APPLICANTS (NIRMA):
SPEAKER 1
Speaker 1 from the side of the applicants comes forward with two issues in hand. With the help of the Stockholm Declaration and various other treaties he tries to convince the judge that Boressia is responsible for the breach of various principles of International Environmental law.
The judges raised various queries during the course of these arguments, mostly related to the applicability of authorities cited by the appellants. The Agent seems to be well prepared since the agent didn't face much problem in convincing the judges of his answers.
SPEAKER 2
The second speaker for the appellants raised the remaining two issues. In the first one he tries to convince the judges that the Aressia's actions, including their use of the mangrove forest, were justified in the light of the right to development enshrined under the Rio Declaration. The court was doubtful of the applicability of UNGA Resolution on the ICJ but the Agent was able to convince them of the reasons.
While arguing the second issue, the Agent cited Article 32 and 41 of Vienna Convention. Furthermore, in the light of the principle of estoppel he tries to convince the judges that the ambassadors of Boressia have waived their diplomatic immunity.
RESPONDENTS (AMITY):
SPEAKER 1
With the help of principles of Rio Declaration and the acknowledgement of "Sustainable development" principle by Boressia, this Agent tries to convince the judges of the innocence of Boressia towards any alleged violation of international law. Using various scientific principles, the Agent attempts to convince the jury that there are ways to improve evolution process with the help of science, which is what Boressia has been trying to do.
For the second issue, regarding the ambassadors of Boressia, the agent relies upon the principles of Vienna Convention in order to explain the State's immunity.
SPEAKER 2
The Agent, first, tries to convince the judges that Boressia's actions haven't adversely affected the population of Pink Bibo, by claiming that the bird is not endangered in the land of Boressia. The agent was able to give convincing authorities on the point when asked.
Moreover, they attempt to argue that Aressia's destruction of mangrove forests was against the principle of international law. They were able to rebut the point of "necessity" as raised by the judges successfully.
NUALS v. GNLU
NUALS (Applicant):
Speaker 1: Round 1 gets a good start by a seemingly confident first speaker for the Applicants. The agent crisply lays down the issues and the courtroom almost immediately engages into an intense questioning by the Bench regarding the context of the petition and the governmental concerns of Aressia. The Bench grills the Speaker on the hardlines of National Sovereignty in context of transboundary rivers. Alternate suggestions to the problem at hand are made by the Speaker, followed by an additional demand for Compensation for the measures adopted in contravention to the Treaty.
Speaker 2: The second Speaker begins with putting forth the applicants’ objection to the acts undertaken by Boressia in violation of the agreement. The agent is grilled on the purpose of the Treaty. The Speaker cites several cases and argues about Aressia’s greater economic dependency on the river Bhargavi, than Boressia. The judges demand ratified treatise to collaborate the Agent’s claims, but the agent fails to produce any. The agent justifies Aressia’s decision of constructing the pipelines in context of exercising sovereignty over the resources of their country, and also in terms of taking independent steps to develop their economy. The Bench seems adamant on the damage to mangroves being a concern. The speech concludes with the Speaker engaging in a short discussion on implied waiver of diplomatic immunity.
GNLU (Respondent):
Speaker 1: The first Speaker for the Respondents starts by stating the introduction of GM Pink Bibos being a measure to protect the endangered species. Treatises supporting such introduction are cited by the Speaker. There is a disagreement between the Bench and the Agent on the need for such introduction. The Speaker seems to have called in for some trouble over the word ‘replication’ of Pink Bibos. The Bench finds the Agent’s arguments repetitive and remarks on arguing more substantially.
Speaker 2: The second speaker takes forth by supporting and justifying the lifting of the ban on hunting as a matter of it being an internal matter, subject to national sovereignty of Boressia. The introduction of GM Pink Bibos much before the tripartite agreement was another defense given by the Speaker. The Judges disagreed with some of the contentions. The second Agent further argued that despite being sovereign, Aressia’s step to construct pipelines could not be justified for it affects Boressia. The Bench doesn’t seem much satisfied in the absence of case laws.
NALSAR v. NUJS
NALSAR (Applicant):
Speaker 1: The Round starts with the Bench taking on the Speaker on the matter of Jurisdiction and enquires about the source of authority under which the Court has been approached. The Agent seemed unsure. The agent proceeds to the issue of Boressia violating International Law by not sending back the three scientists. Judges grill about the relevance of domestic laws in an International matter. This issue is intensively discussed and the Speaker is grilled on diplomatic immunity, ignorance of law not being an excuse and absence of an extradition treaty. Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity was another essential point of discussion. The Speaker seemed unsure of the authorities and the law. The Round also witnessed some severe time mismanagement as the Speaker was left with mere 2 minutes for 2 issues. The last few minutes were all about the Bench questioning the Agent on how the introduction of GM Pink Bibos has proven to be harmful, and if the defense of necessity can apply in the instant case to justify Boressia’s acts. The Agent’s answers didn’t seem to satisfy the Bench, and the first speech was concluded on a not so satisfactory note.
Speaker 2: The second Speaker starts with the issue of holding Boressia liable for the damages caused to the Pink Bibos and the marine activities in river Bhargavi, contending the cross breeding with GM Pink Bibos to be the proximate cause for the same. The Bench questions on Boressia acting in good faith, and the Agent impressively retorts by citing several international conventions on the harms caused by breeding non native species with native ones. The Bench further questioned on the kind of liability arising from causing transboundary harm. The Agent answers with reasons. The Agent moves on to the issue of setting up of pipelines and defends the same on the lines of it being an internal matter, and the compliance with all the internal environmental safeguards. The discussion moves over to exercise of ‘due diligence’ by Aressia, and the Judges remark on the double standards of the Agent, as no amount of due diligence could save the mangrove forests from destruction.
NUJS(Respondent):
Speaker 1: The first Speaker begins with ruling out the very premise of GM Pink Bibos coming under alien species. The Speaker justified the introduction of GM Pink Bibos to be a protective measure under the global obligation of nations. The Bench questioned the Agent on Boressia’s failure to stop releasing Pink Bibos post Aressia’s objections. The Agent contended that the 17 year delay in raising objections by Aressia was symbolic of ‘implied consent’. This was not accepted by the Bench which further asserted that it might take time for the side effects to show up. The presence of ‘good faith’ was intensively discussed and countered by the Judges. The Agent was grilled on Boressia’s liability for conserving species outside its territory, to which the Agent gave an extremely dissatisfactory response of Boressia being a developing nation and its consequent inability to assess the damage. The Bench seemed discontent and unconvinced.
Speaker 2: The second speaker started with quoting a Jurist, and had to prove the acceptability of a jurist’s writings in the honorable ICJ. The Agent also cited the ILC Draft Articles, and was questioned on the Draft Articles falling within the ambit of Customary International Law. The issue remained unresolved. The Doctrine of Clean Hands was another point on which the Bench grilled the Agent. Unaware of the exceptions to the doctrine, the Agent pleaded acting in good faith. The Agent relied on the World Heritage Convention to defend their case. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention was cited to contend for the inadmissibility of implied waiver of diplomatic immunity.
ILS v. CNLU
ILS (Applicant):
Speaker 1: The round started with the Speaker straight away alleging and attempting to prove contempt charges against Boressia. Bringing in the much celebrated principle of ‘good faith’, the Speaker went on to engage the Bench on diplomatic immunity and was grilled about the relevance of express and implied waivers of the same. The point of interpretation of Treatise in a way that defeats the purpose of the Treaty was raised to support the Applicant’s claim of Boressia violating the tripartite agreement through their acts. The Bench intensively questioned the Speaker on the applicability of laws when two different countries are involved.
Speaker 2: The second Speaker started well with the issue of genetic modification of Pink Bibos and the subsequent harm caused, in the light of violation of customs. The Bench questions repeatedly on the ‘intention’ and knowledge of scientific facts being fulfilled condition precedent to making allegations against the Respondent. The Speaker proceeded to the issue of construction of pipelines being justified, and supported the same by terming it to be an ‘internal project within the territorial sovereignty of a nation’, which the judges retorted to by questioning the subjectivity of interpretation of such sovereignty. There was extensive demand for substantiation of reasons by the Bench, which seemed to render the Agent confused. Overall, the speech wasn’t a smooth one for the second speaker.
CNLU(Respondent):
Speaker 1: The first Speaker was grilled right away on Boressia’s intentions behind introduction of GM Pink Bibos. The Speaker kept harping upon the act being the ‘need of the hour’. The Bench further questioned on Boressia’s obliviousness to the possible harms of introduction of such species. Bringing up the issue of not resending the scientists released on parole, the Bench commented on the malafide intentions of Boressia. The Agent didn’t seem to have much to say, and the speech ended on a pretty dissatisfactory note for the first Speaker.
Speaker 2: The second Speaker started with putting forth the ‘necessity’ for introduction of GM Pink Bibos, and was questioned on the possible harmful consequences. The Bench further grilled the Speaker on the precautions taken by their country, and the Agent didn’t have much to say either. The arguments kept revolving around introduction of GM Pink Bibos being the ‘need of the hour’, and the Bench seemed dissatisfied with the Agent’s interpretation of the law.
TNNLS v. MATS
Applicants (TNNLS):
Speaker 1: The first speaker from the Applicants expeditiously put forth his arguments. While relying on the Cartegena Protocol, the applicant submitted that Boressia had failed to conserve and sustain Biodiversity. The Agent cited an article to establish the harmful effect of GM Pink Bibo, but the Judges deemed that the authenticity of the same was questionable. The speaker relied upon the landmark judgment of the Train Smelter case to establish the illegality of trans-boundary pollution. However, the applicants ended up exceeding their time by 2 minutes. The Judges seemed partially satisfied by the applicants’ submission.
Speaker 2: The submissions of the second speaker from the applicants’ had been intercepted by a barrage of questions that had been posed by the Judge. The judges asked as to whether the non performance of Risk assessment by Arasia defeated their claim against Boressia, the applicant seemed unable to justify his stance. The Applicants’ submitted that the applicants’ were not concerned about the environment but their concern is for the people. The Applicant further submitted that industrial growth is more important than environmental safety. The Judges don’t seem satisfied by the Applicants’ submissions.
Respondents (MATS)
Speaker 1: The crux of the pleadings of the first speaker from the respondents was that Boressia had not violated any International law by the introduction of GM Pink Bibo. The respondent stated that Boressia had followed proper scientific research and then only released such genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that there was no clear evidence as to the harm caused to Pink Bibo due to the allegedly carnivorous nature of GM Pink Bibo. The judges did not pose many questions to the Respondents, thus the level of their satisfaction could not be gauged.
Speaker 2: The Respondents while relying upon the fundamental tenets of International Environmental Law such as the Precautionary Principle stated that the natural gas extraction project is in violation of various Environmental Laws, both domestic and international. However, the judges stated that the Agent was unable to make them understand their contentions.
NLU Jodhpur v. Swing Team
Applicants (NLU Jodhpur):
Speaker 1: The first speaker from the Applicants’ had barely begun his pleadings, but he was interrupted by a barrage of questions at the very start. The Judge asked that if there are multiple protocols dealing with the same subject then which protocol ought to be followed, however the applicant could not provide a definite answer. However, the judges seemed to be partially satisfied as the applicant was able to answer most of the various questions that had been raised.
Speaker 2: The second speaker from the Applicants’ was greeted by the judges by an exponential rise in the quantity of the questions posed. The speaker failed to aptly address many of the questions posed by the judge. The judge remarked that the prior submissions of the speaker contradict the arguments put forth by him.
Respondents (Swing Team)
Speaker 1: The Respondents’ pleaded ignorance to a question raised by the judge on the Cartegena protocol. The Judge remarked that ignorance about the Cartegena protocol is unimaginable as the same constitutes the primary contention of Aressia. The speaker was unable to satisfy the judges in any regard.
Speaker 2: The Respondents’ second speaker was not well versed with the facts of the moot problem and pleaded ignorance when questioned. The Judge further questioned the respondent as to the existence of any provision under which the ambassador can be prosecuted, to which the Respondents’ pleaded ignorance. The respondents were found to be pleading ignorance on almost everything that demanded an iota of research.
SLS Pune v. Sastra
Applicants (SLS Pune):
Speaker 1: The Applicant initiated his pleadings by stating that Boressia owes a responsibility to preserve the Environment for its future generations. In light of this submission the Applicant further stated that there is continuous depletion of fish resources due to the carnivorous nature of GM Pink Bibo. The Applicant alleged violation of general principles of International Law. The judges seemed satisfied as the applicant was able to answer most of the questions posed.
Speaker 2: The Applicant submitted that the economic needs of Aressia makes the Alliance project a necessity. The Judges grilled the Applicant on the Italian Marines Case and were completely satisfied with the response of the Applicant. The Applicant was confident and was able to optimally satisfy the judges.
Respondents (Sastra)
Speaker 1:
The Respondents argued that it was not foreseeable that the offspring of normal Bibos and GM Bibos would produce such aggressive predators. The submission was countered by the judges but the Agent was able to adequately substantial his contention. The judges seemed satisfied with his contentions.
Speaker 2:
The Agent for the respondents’ submitted that diplomatic immunity is a part of customary international law and thus cannot be questioned. However, the submissions of the respondent were marred by drama as the speaker forgot the questions that had been raised by the judges. The judges nonchalantly ask the applicants’ to help out the respondents. The speaker was unable to effectively answer all of the questions posed.
LIVE BLOG FOR PRELIMNARY ROUND 2
SLS NOIDA v. ILS, Pune
APPLICANTS (SLS):
SPEAKER 1
The first speaker seems confident enough to begin his pleadings based on various principles of international law. But this confidence seems to be fading as soon as the questioning begins. The judges question the validity of the speaker’s arguments and ask for validating authorities in several others. The agent struggles to defend the applicant’s stand and ends up contradicting earlier submissions. The judges seem disappointed and ask the speaker to conclude.
SPEAKER 2
In the midst of one judge trying his best (and somewhat succeeding) to destroy the agent's arguments and another judge passing sarcastic comments about the speaker’s shaky arguments, the agent tries to convince the judges that the diplomatic immunity has been waived.
The courtroom seems shocked once the agent is led by the judges into conceding that an express waiver is required for such waiver. But towards the end, the agent finally seems to have regained the earlier stance and ends on a positive note.
RESPONDENTS (ILS):
SPEAKER 1
Seeming to have gained confidence from the brutal questioning of the opposing agent and previous failure to convince the judges of the same, this agent starts with pleadings strongly, citing various authorities to support them. While the judges seem to be happy with most of such arguments, they did not seem to agree with the fact that the state did not sanction the acts of the ambassador.
Having begun on a confident note, the speaker invites his co-speaker on a rather low note after being baffled by the final question of the judges.
SPEAKER 2
The second speaker was met with a fuming bench, angered on the ignorance and "mockery of the court" by the agents in the form of redrafting of issues to their own convenience.
The agent offered a nervous apology, which was initially rejected by the bench but later they asked the agent to proceed. Even after a rather unnerving exchange, the agent seems confident during the pleadings. Agent continues, answering further questions of the bench convincingly and concluding on an unexpected high note.
MATS v. JGLS
APPLICANTS (MATS):
SPEAKER 1
The first speaker for the applicants, seemingly energetic thanks to the awesome lunch provided by the host college, starts with contending that introduction of Genetic Modifications is against the principles of International Law. The judges seem to have several doubts in the contention, which were all cleared calmly by the agent, citing various authorities in support of the answer. The contention was well received by the bench.
SPEAKER 2
Even in the midst of the grim and sleepy post-lunch environment of the courtroom, even the second speaker was subjected to various queries by the bench, which the speaker attempted to clear to the best of his abilities. However, the judges didn't seem too satisfied with some of them.
RESPONDENTS (JGLS):
SPEAKER 1
With the view of proving their client innocent of violation of the agreement between the parties, the first agent for the respondents began by explaining their interpretation of the agreement and their purpose of conservation of the species, which according to the facts they seem to have succeeded in. The judges raised various questions, which were calmly handled by the respondent, citing cases and conventions in support of their answer.
SPEAKER 2
Pretty much familiar with the problem by this stage, the judges come up with some amazing queries to test the research of the agents. The agent, however, successfully answers all the questions citing appropriate authorities. The judges seem convinced, rather impressed.
NLSIU v. NALSAR
APPLICANTS (NLS):
SPEAKER 1
Surprising for a courtroom with two of the best law colleges of the country arguing against one another, this court truly depicts the real ambience of a post lunch session. Even the court reporter is too sleepy to report anything spicy.
Some obvious questions on applicability of treaties and upon basic facts are asked by the judges, which were easily handled by the agent. Citing various authorities and principles, the Agent tries to convince the jury of the three issues in his hand as best as he can.
SPEAKER 2
From the various doubts raised by the judge during the pleadings of this agent, only one was hard enough to baffle the agent. Still, due the various authorities and convincing answers given by the agent on various queries of the bench, the bench seems pretty satisfied with the arguments.
RESPONDENTS (NALSAR):
SPEAKER 1
A very confident and seemingly experienced speaker tries to convince the jury of the flaws in the arguments of the opposing agents before coming to his own pleadings. When he does finally start with his pleadings, the judges seem satisfied with this sheer manner of presentation more than anything else.
The agent handles beautifully the few queries which the bench does raise, and ends at an amazing note leaving the court audience awestruck and, for a change, the judges baffled.
SPEAKER 2
The second speaker for the respondents seems equally confident. The first pleading goes without the jury batting an eye. The judges did try rebutting some points in the second issue, but they were again convincingly handled by the agent.
Probably one of the most sensational match-up of the preliminary rounds at this competition comes to an end with both the teams seeming pretty satisfied with their performances.
RMLNLU v. SLS Pune
Applicants (RMLNLU):
Speaker 1:
The primary argument of the agent was that the GM Pink Bibo is an invasive alien species however the agent could not answer the query of the judges as to how can a herbivore turn into a carnivore. The post-lunch judge seems to have run out of ideas and is questioning on “why is it a matter of pride and honour to stand before this court”.
Speaker 2: The speaker discredited the use of an article for establishment of extraction of oil causing damage to Pink Bibo as a source of laws does not include newspaper articles. The speaker stated that there is no trans-boundary pollution as the same has been committed by a private entity. However, the judge countered this argument by stating that the private entity had received the contract from the government. The speaker was not able to properly address the questions raised by the bench,
Respondents (SLS Pune).
Speaker 1:
The agent pleaded that the damages caused were unforeseeable. The judge countered the argument of the agent by stating that the enforcement of strict/absolute liability is not dependant on whether or not the damages can be foreseen. The first speaker from the appellants intervened to correct the respondents’ upon the seemingly wrong version of facts used by them in support of their arguments.
Speaker 2:
The speaker maintained the applicant’s stance that the diplomat has absolute immunity even if the diplomat commits a wrong outside his official duty. The speaker has maintained this stance throughout the proceedings even though judges have been trying to demolish their case. Everything seems to rest in place for the respondents’ second speaker.
GNLU v. UPES
Applicants (GNLU):
Speaker 1: The Applicant started off on the wrong foot as the judge keenly pointed out that their written submissions contain the word “Appellant” instead of “Applicant”. The Applicants cited the landmark Train Smelter Arbitration Case to establish the illegality of trans-boundary pollution. The judges questioned as to why Boressia had not enacted any law with regard to Cartegena, however the speaker was not able to answer the query raised. The Judges do not seem much satisfied.
Speaker 2: The Applicant manages to answer most of the questions posed by the judges. However, the researcher was seen speaking to the agent instead of putting the message across through the means of chits, and was subsequently rebuked by the Judges. The Judges did not seem satisfied at the end of the submission.
Respondents (UPES)
Speaker 1: The agent based off a contention from an article whose authenticity has been severely questioned by the judge. The agent admits the fact that the respondents have not done any impact assessment tests. The agent has not been able to justifiably answer any of the questions that have been put forth by the judge.
Speaker 2: The speaker seems to be unable to understand the questions put forth by the judges. The speaker’s inability to comprehend the questions inevitably leads to the dissatisfactions of the judges. The speaker pleads ignorance and the same has resulted in the weakening of his own case. Ignorance maybe bliss, but inside the ICJ, ignorance strikes you as painfully as a break up.
RGNUL v. ILNU
APPLICANTS ( RGNUL)
The researchers have been given the opportunity to state the facts. The respondent's researcher grabs the opportunity and eloquently presents their perception of the facts to which the researcher of the applicant acquiesced.
SPEAKER 1
The jury has harshly denied the first speaker for applicants the opportunity to state the summary of facts. When asked about the constituents of environmental law , the jury was dissatisfied with the speaker's answer and remarked that it appears as if the speaker does not have a clear idea of environmental law. The jury has raised concerns regarding the ICJ's jurisdiction to entertain the plea which is satisfactorily resolved by the speaker. The jury questions him about the sources of international law to which the speaker comes up with an unnecessarily elongated answer. The jury seems aggrieved about receiving roundabout answers rather than direct ones. On issue of environmental impact assessment the jury tries to unsettle the speaker which the speaker smartly manages to evade.
The jury is furious about the fact that the speaker is not clear with the chronological order of breaches and their repercussions and remark that their description of chronology is contradictory to their introductory statement . The jury has highlighted the loopholes by scrutnising every word.
SPEAKER 2
The jury has asked the speaker to focus on time as they puts forth their stance on Environmental impact assessment and duties and obligations. Upon rigorous questioning by the jury the speaker has conceded to adopting double standards and the invalidity of the EIA. The jury picks out references from the proposition and asks the speaker to provide a factual reasoning to back the assertion that only Arressian mangroves suffered damages i9n response to which the speaker beats around the bush. The jury has made an observation that the applicant’s perception of facts suffers from lacunae and that their conduct reflects that they wants their rights appeased but are not ready to fulfill their obligations. The jury has come up with practical question along with a reference to Arnab Goswami to lighten the mood. The Agent was unable to instantaneously decipher it and was interrupted in the midst of his prayer of relief multiple times.
RESPONDENTS ( ILNU)
SPEAKER 1
A rather smart agent begins the pleadings for the respondents. The agent tries to convince the judges that the purpose of preservation of the endangered bird, according to the facts of the case, was fulfilled by the impugned genetic modification. The agent is able to dodge most factual and legal queries of the bench, even if with a slight hesitation. The judges seem to be questioning the validity of each and every fact presented by the agent, which the Agent mostly seems to be handling well.
SPEAKER 2
The speaker began on a light note with the judges, but towards the end seems to have irritated them due to the excessive time taken. The arguments presented were well structured, clarifying all necessary aspects of the issues being handled. Some queries raised by the bench were satisfactorily responded to by the agent.
SWING TEAM v. NUALS, Kochi
Swing team (applicants)
SPEAKER 1
The jury has started by criticizing the definition of Migratory Species used by the applicants and enumerated the specific defects inherent in it. The jury employing it's sense of humor has made an off the topic remark that the entire world population is migratory stressing upon the fact that he believes in grass root example of Pakistani migratory goats. This is followed by a silence on the agent's side as they are unable to establish the basis of all arguments. The jury stresses on technical definitions and asks the agent to increase the volume of his voice. The Agent now confidently answers all questions citing articles and provisions, which the judges construe as partially irrelevant.
SPEAKER 2
The jury has bombarded the speaker with question which have left him dumbfounded as result of which the agent has pleaded ignorance thrice. the jury has asked the speaker to demarcate the references in the proposition that have led him to his assertion. The team does not possess hard copies of the treaties , seeing which in rare sight of brotherhood the NUALS team offered their own copies.
NUALS, Kochi (respondents)
SPEAKER 1
The first speaker has started confidently and the judges are satisfied with their opening statements. The jury has again started tickling the speaker with illustrations on the migratory question. The respondent's initial answers do not seem to be helping his cause. They finally succeeds in establishing their point and satisfying the jury. The agent amazingly dodges all the questions by linking everything to the facts and taking the conventional defenses of sovereignty.
The speaker is running out of time and the jury has denied an extension . The speaker has impressively summarized his arguments in just 2 mins.
SPEAKER 2
The agent has confidently started by dodging the most controversial questions and made a request to answer them at the end but the jury is persistent on the question and keeps revolving around it. Her confidence seems to be shrinking as the merits of the case do not seem to be on the respondent's side in her contention. The speaker is vigorously citing authorities from interpretations of international conventions and emphasizes on the principles of international law to which the jury responds by pointing out contradictory opinions from other authorities.
The judges do not seem to arrive at a consensus over the issue resulting in a split bench. As time runs out, the jury enquires whether the facts of the case fall under recognized exceptions . The agent's answer seems to have satiated the jury's expectations exhaustively.
NLUO v. NLUJ
APPELANT (NLUO)
SPEAKER 1
The round started with the judge inquiring about the moot proposition to which the speaker gave a satisfactory explanation. This was followed with the issues of violation of international environmental law. The speaker contended that the burden of proof lies on Borressia. The speaker made several references to support his argument on this issue and the judges seem satisfied. Coming on to the second issue, the speaker brought in the Vienna Convention, attempts were made by the judges to rattle the speaker, but the speaker held his ground and eloquently delivered his arguments.
SPEAKER 2
The speaker began by stating that Arresia had not violated any International Law to which the jury questioned him on the rights and obligations of a sovereign country. The speaker responded that the country can undertake any activity which is necessary for its development, economic or otherwise. The bench questioned that what "necessity" meant and whether there was any case or authority to back their statements. The judges further questioned the speaker on the crux of his argument to which they were given a satisfactory answer. Due to paucity of time, The speaker was then asked to conclude his arguments but the judges did not appear to be convinced by him.
RESPONDENT(NLUJ)
SPEAKER 1
It was stated that Borressia has not violated any International Law and had followed the principle of sustainable development. Reference was made to the Rio Conference. The judges questioned whether the speaker knew how ICJ proceedings are carried on to which the speaker did not have an answer. On the second contention, the jury asked what construed a natural phenomenon. the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer to it.
SPEAKER 2
The judges began by asking whether there was anything which shows that there was an increase in pink Bibo. they also inquired about the basis for implementing a tripartite agreement. Additionaly, they questioned about the migratory nature of the dolphin. The speaker in his arguments stated that Aressia had not conducted any environmental impact assessment which was agreed upon. When questioned about the diplomatic immunity by the jury, the speaker made a reference to the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations and the judges seemed satisfied with it.
SASTRA v. GLC
SASTRA (Applicant):
SPEAKER 1:
A not so impressive start for team Sastra. The first Speaker despite highlighting several international protocols and conventions couldn’t convince the judges about Boressia violating International Law. There was repetition of points regarding the alternative steps that could have been taken by the Government of Boressia, which seemed to render the judges pretty disinterested. After a small engagement upon the main objection to introduction of GM Pink Bibos, the speech concludes with an unimpressed look on the Judges’ faces.
SPEAKER 2:
A rather perplexed speaker and an even more obfuscated Bench. A series of questions and unsatisfactory answers was what the entire speech boiled down to. One of the few clear points of discussion was the difference between ‘development’ and ‘sustainable development’, followed by a vague contention regarding the conduct of Boressian ambassadors. The Judges repeatedly demanded specific page references to authorities.
GLC (Respondent):
SPEAKER 1:
A much expected question by the Bench regarding the Article of Jurisdiction marked the starting of the innings for the Respondents. The Speaker contends the introduction of GM Pink Bibos to be a subject of Boressian sovereignty. The next few minutes witnessed a discussion between both sides of the Bench on the difference caused in the genetic configuration of both the species and the predatory features being inherent or acquired. The Bench seemed to be on a lookout for more case laws than pacts and treatises.
SPEAKER 2:
The second speech was a good example of team work gone wrong. The second speaker eulogizes Aressia’s failure to come up with alternate means of development but fails to really suggest any. The Researcher supplements a case law that contradicts the very contention of the Agent. The Speaker further attempts to circumvent the Boressian Government’s responsibility by brushing off the genetic modification as a natural issue.
NUJS V. KIIT
NUJS (Applicant):
SPEAKER 1:
The first Agent begins with seeking damages for the losses incurred by Aressia and alleging the violation of the ‘precautionary principle’ on Boressia. The Agent responds to the Judges' questions in a slightly self contradictory context. But the ball is back into the Agent’s court as several Treaty provisions are beautifully linked with the specific terminology of the moot problem by the Agent. The duty to prevent transboundary harm is discussed. The judges put forth how dominative and recessive behavior of mutation is natural, and this is artistically handled by the Speaker. The speech ends on a pretty good note and the Bench seems satisfied.
SPEAKER 2:
Begins by contending that Boressia has breached international obligation. The Bench wittingly retorts that the Applicant equally shares the blame with the Respondents, given their pipeline plan which would lead to the destruction of Mangrove forests. The Agent was quick to counter and cited relevant acts concerning the violated principles. The Speaker managed to retain poise throughout the speech but seemed to be a little unclear.
KIIT (Respondent):
SPEAKER 1:
The Agent strongly contended that issues concerning preservation of wildlife must be dealt with strictly, hence the deviance from other plausible alternatives by Boressia. The arguments took a scientific discourse as the Agent brought in several technicalities of breeding native and non native species. Towards the end, the first Speaker seemed to have gotten a bit muddled up in their own stance.
SPEAKER 2:
The Speaker started with establishing the necessity for introducing genetically modified species. The Bench grilled on the interpretation of the keywords mentioned in the tripartite agreement. The Agent seemed to lack substance and kept harping on the ‘need of the hour’ argument, while contending that the GM Pink Bibos weren’t the actual cause of the resultant harm. Finally, a few constructives were laid down by her regarding the deforestation of the mangrove forests, as a consequence of the pipeline project taken up by Aressia. But the Bench kept asking for inputs to support their argument regarding seizure of another nation’s activities, which the Agent failed to convincingly present.
CNLU v. TNNLS
CNLU (Applicant):
SPEAKER 1:
The second prelim started with a little confusion between the issues given in the moot problem and the ones dealt with by the Applicants in their memo. The first Agent started by citing the Vienna Convention that makes it mandatory for parties to a Treaty to follow the Treaty. The Bench questioned if the tripartite agreement in the instant case was a ‘Treaty’. No clear response from the Speaker to that. The Bench further went on to grill about what entities could be a party to a Treaty, to which, again, the Agent couldn’t give a direct answer. Several of such questions regarding difference between customary law and customary international law, and the principle of pacta sunt servanda were put forth by the Bench, which the Agent couldn’t convincingly answer either. In the final course of the argument, the Speaker contended about the Diplomat waiving his diplomatic immunity by not sending the scientists back, so as to justify Aressia’s jurisdiction. Judges seemed highly unconvinced.
SPEAKER 2:
The second speech is an instance of unawareness and ignorance about anything that needs ‘research’. Quoting the ‘International Law Commission’, the agent failed to understand a simple query raised by the Bench- If there can be Articles to an Organisation, at all? The Agent was further questioned on there being any international Conventions to transboundary harm, to which the Agent answered by mentioning the Cartagena Protocol, 2003. On being asked if the protocol can have a retrospective effect or not, the Speaker just brushed past the question. The Agent seemed clueless about the facts of the cases cited. Overall, the judges were rendered discontent and unconvinced by the end of the speech.
TNNLS (Respondent):
SPEAKER 1:
The Bench seemed to be in a mood for some preliminary grilling and the round started with the Agent being unable to answer why exactly was the Agent was an Agent and not the Agent. Further they seemed extremely confused whether their country did internal risk management or did not, before introducing GM Pink Bibos. The Bench questioned on several alternate steps that could have been taken by Boressia, but the Agent seemed to be lacking clarity with what the facts were and what they were to contend.
SPEAKER 2:
The Agent was grilled on whether Corporations have diplomatic immunity or not. The Agent distinctly answered that diplomatic immunity is only given to ratio personae, and seemed pretty confident about it. The Bench engaged the Agent in a discussion about waiver of Diplomatic Immunity, which led to whether the Constitution of Aressia was a relevant authority at all, before the ICJ. The Speaker further went on to discuss the issue of Aressia’s liability for destruction of World Heritage Mangrove Forests, despite the fact that they were within the ambit of Aressia’s territorial sovereignty. World Heritage Convention and International Environment Conference were cited by the Speaker in support of their arguments.
Amity v. Christ
Applicants (Amity):
Speaker 1:
The respondents argued that the respondents are negligent in not researching about the offspring of normal Pink Bibo and GM Pink Bibo. They further submitted that the ambassador acted under the colours of his state and by petitioning the Supreme Court he has waived his diplomatic privileges. The judges appreciated the sound research by the Applicants.
Speaker 2:
The speaker came out with an argument that seems to be different from rest of the herd. The agent has drawn a parallel from a similar situation arising in another International scenario (Using vague words to protect them from plagiarism and to foster their intellectual prowess). The agent has been able to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by the judges.
Respondents (Christ)
Speaker 1:
The judges are impressed by the agent for citing the laws of Boressia which are para material to the laws of Bangladesh. The case boils down to the basic principles of breach of contract with the maxim pacta sunt servanda holding tall as it is one of the basis of international law.
Speaker 2:
The agent has been able to substantiate his arguments by reference to the customary international law. The agent has been able to confidently display the plethora of authorities that has been researched upon by them. The judges state that not returning the Scientists prove malafide intent of the respondents. However, the respondents’ have stated that the alleged offences of the scientists aren’t crimes under their domestic law.
LIVE BLOGGING FOR QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS
SLS, Pune v. RGNUL
APPLICANT (SLS,Pune )
SPEAKER 1 :
The hearing started off on an excellent note with the speaker presenting his opening statements with commendable mannerism and poise in flow of his brimming confidence. The jury straight away questions him upon the direct facts and reasons for approaching the court trying to confuse him between "rule" and "statute" in respect of international conventions.
The jury did not seem particularly satisfied with the "authority" under which they have approached and further questioned him on the issue of the "act of necessity" and the principle of treaties going "hand in hand" and the bone of contention in a similar India-Bangladesh issue to which he at first does not take a clear stance and fumbles with questions on every assertion but immediately regains his composure and answers the questions regarding conventions mentioned in the facts cleverly which has won him an appreciation for the research they have come up with, as the jury keeps smiling candidly. The jury has asked the agent to answer the previous which he has smoothly dodged as the judges keep listening to him calmly. The agent fumbles in the segments dealing with the lack of scientific certainty and relevance of laws giving freedom to conduct experiments and marginally manages to convince the jury.
SPEAKER 2:
The speaker gracefully starts by backing up the issue of violation of international law as previously stated and the jury seems to have an affinity towards the manner in which the firm statement was presented. Dissecting through the deliberations on the assumptions on the conduction of a certain treaty rather than certain assertions, the jury seemingly desperate to stump up the speaker's arguments demanded a clarification on "necessity" and stressed upon the burden of proof on the speaker to diffuse the allegations on EIA to which the speaker presents an elaborate account of interpretations of the nature of sovereignty to justify his stance. It seems the jury is content with the answer.
The jury has objected on the relevant amount of time taken by a nation to extract resources and become developed, coming up with frequent follow-up questions that leave the speaker stumbling in his speech.
The jury seems dissatisfied with the case laws submitted in regard to the extradition issue and attempt to confuse the speaker, but the speaker goes on. The argument presented by him was indeed satisfactory.
RESPONDENTS (RGNUL)
SPEAKER 1:
The speaker is asked about the article he has resorted to while approaching the court and he accepts that there were alternate methods. He cites portions of the propositions and rightfully covers all the issues. The jury appreciated his display of specific research and citations and he seems statistically well versed. He presents impressively strong points on the question focusing on investment of efforts in preserving the endangered species instead of preserving water bodies and amalgamates it with the bigger issue of sustainable development that has left certain judges smirking. The speaker maintains the momentum of his speech without hesitation.
The speaker requested for some time to summarize his arguments. In spite of certain discouraging gestures on the part of jury the speaker does not give up and goes ahead with his attempts to convince the judges that seem to have worked in his favour.
SPEAKER 2:
To shed off the burden of proof from their shoulders the speaker starts by listing the issues which are to be given adherence. the speaker in his seemingly overconfident deliberation stated that he subscribed to the argument of appellant about extracting resources, yet there were certain obligations to be met under the customary law of environmental protection. The speaker asserts that that the responsibility would be same in criminal and environmental matters in response to which the judges exchanged expressions of discontent among themselves. The irrelevant point on morality about no party having absolutely clean hands has been ignored by the jury. The speaker while dealing with the contention of diplomatic immunity was asked by the jury to be careful about his choice of words and focus upon legal arguments in response to which the speaker consumed more time in citing cases and pleaded before the court for some time for consultation with their nation about certain aspects.
The agent does seem to be coming up with counter arguments to reply to the teasing remarks and amused expressions of the jury. He summarized his arguments with fewer constructive.
NALSAR V. CHRIST
APPLICANTS(APPLICANTS)
Speaker 1
The agent for appellants seems very calm yet confident his conduct. The questioning began as soon as his pleadings started, but he wasn't shaken or baffled. He tried to handle every doubt of the jury in the best possible way.
However, the judge seems determined to make the speaker stumble. Even while the agent tries his best to maintain his composure, he has clearly lost his calm and seems to be a little stressed now. Some logical fallacies can now be observed in his submissions.
While the agent struggles to regain his stance, the grilling continues with the judges now questioning the jurisdictional values and authorities cited by the appellants. The agent now seems to have been puzzled beyond repair by the constant interruptions of the jury, so much so that he ends up contradicting his own arguments. When pointed out, the agent tries to cover it up smartly, though in vain.
While concluding, the speaker seems to be confused regarding the relief sought in the issues presented by him.
But the one thing for which the speaker really should be given credit is for maintaining his composure even before a jury burning with questions on his every submission.
Speaker 2
The second speaker is also met with equally grilling jury as the first one. However, he was not able to defend his stance as well as his co-agent.
The learned judge seems to be looking to grill the agent on a logical fallacy in his argument, AND HE FINDS ONE!
The agent now realises he couldn't fool the body of learned people who are sitting on the elevated bench for a reason. He has clearly panicked and is now uncertain of even his correct arguments. THE JUDGE SEEMS TO BE ENJOYING THIS! A weird form of sadism has appeared to have taken over the bench.
Even though the agent makes several attempts to regain his position, the judge is too sharp (and seemingly too determined to mess with the agent) to let anything slip by.
The agent ends on a really disappointing note, leaving his pleadings incomplete due to the dearth of time. His request for an extra two minutes is met with a vicious rejection by the bench.
RESPONDENTS (CHRIST)
Speaker 1
The pleadings for the respondents begin with the agent trying to build a good rapport with the judge, having learned his lesson from the brutal grilling of the opposing team.
FAILS! The judge, looking for an opportunity as always, leaps up with questions on the part where the counsel claims to have done "extensive research" within two years. Brilliant arguments presented by the learned judge, who seems to be well prepared to take the case of each and every agent, corners the agent into conceding with him.
The judge, pretty happy to have pointed out the flaws in the arguments of each and every counsel as yet, has a very valid doubt, "Why would tourists be interested to see Pink Bibu's Jaws?"
Thanks to the little jokes and remarks made by the judges from time to time, the mood of the courtroom seems to be very light, for everyone accept the agents, who appear to be sweating hard and fumbling out of nervousness.
The agent somehow still manages to conclude his arguments and bring his ordeal to an end.
Speaker 2
The judge seems to be enjoying himself at this stage, after a long day's work. He makes the courtroom laugh with this reference of Hunger Games and remarks like "You're protecting the kennel and not the dog".
The agent seems to have some fundamental flaws in the his arguments, which were sarcastically pointed out by the bench several times. The agent tried his best to cover them up but the jury was not to budge.
The agent tries his best to maintain his composure and receive the direct ridicule of his submission by the bench with a straight face.
At this stage, when the judges are clearly bored and just messing around with the agents, it is hard to judge what argument did satisfy the judges and what didnt. Lets wait for the results.
NLSIU v. NLUJ
With every rise in the level, the standard of the Bar and the Bench rises. But none beat Legally India ofcourse! The temperature in the Courtroom is already soaring with this elimination face off between the two brilliant teams.
NLSIU (Applicant):
SPEAKER 1:
This round of the quarter final begins with the first Speaker arguing on the violation of the Cartagena Protocol by Boressia. The Bench seems to be trying to confuse the Speaker with the relevant Articles of the Rio Declaration and the Vienna Convention for the Law of Treatises applicable in the instant case. The Agent confidently steers clear with an assertive submission. The Precautionary principle and the Convention for Biodiversity turn out to be other two significant topics of discussion. The Speaker further highlights the damage being done by the Respondent nation. ‘Quantification of such damages’ becomes a hot point of discussion. The emphatic efforts by the Agent to enunciate the graveness of the loss caused to the Aressian ecosystem are heart touching. The judges too seem peaceful and contended. A good speech, we could safely say.
SPEAKER 2:
Confidence is the key to success. The second Speaker made a fluent start, citing a wrong Article of the VCLT with utmost faith and belief. But the Bench seemed to be more confident of the incorrectness of the same. (Confidence is the key to the Benche’s success, it seems!) The Agent smoothes into accepting the injury to the Mangrove Forests being serious but manages to convince the Bench about the argument for Aressia’s sovereignty- an intimidating citing of authorities there. The defense of ‘necessity’ and the primacy of ‘sustainable development’ lead the course of the arguments in the next few minutes. Procedural aspects of Due Diligence are intensively questioned upon by the Bench. The presence of ‘Parole Agreement’ and the justification for detention of the Boressian ambassador’s passport witness some fiery discussion. The Agent eventually runs out of time, and the judges seem to show no mercy so as to give an extension.
NLUJ (Respondent):
SPEAKER 1:
For the first Agent for the Respondents, the task seems to be an uphill one. Amidst intense and merciless grilling, the Agent has a hard time trying to convince the Bench which seems dissatisfied by their argument of the GM Pink Bibos being a part of the Tripartite agreement. Boressia’s failure to alternatively resort to ex situ conservation is put forth by the judges. The Agent manages to bring forth an interesting defense of Force Majuere but the judges aren’t too satisfied. All in all, the discussion preserves the sanctity of logic, while the Bench seems a bit discontent about the Agent’s take on the second issue.
SPEAKER 2:
The second speech followed a fairly predictable discourse. The much expected questions regarding the Doctrine of Clean Hands, lack of scientific knowledge on the part of Boressia, and the fault of Boressian Ambassador in not signing the affidavit were posed to the Agent. In context of the Respondent’s submissions, the relevance of Domestic Laws in an international dispute was challenged by the Agent. Important Articles of the VCLT were intensively discussed. The mood of the Coutroom seemed to abide by the dress code. And going by the number of people present in there just to witness the two stalwarts argue gives a mini final feel. (we like to talk about the Environment in an Environmental Law moot. We’re lame.)
ILNU v. Amity
Applicants (Nirma):
Speaker 1:
A barrage of questions backed with unquestionable logic shakes the arguments of the Applicants’. The Applicants’ are unable to satisfy the Judges about the definition of “Migratory Species” and how Pink Bibo fulfils its criterion. The judge who seems to be very obviously irritated asks the agent to proceed further. The speaker then proceeds to argue that the increase of Pink Bibo is only in the Borresian region, however the judge points out a contradiction in their submissions as if the Pink Bibo is indeed a migratory species then there cannot be an increase in one region without a simultaneous increase in another region. The judge seems unhappy with the knowledge base of the applicant.
Speaker 2:
The submissions of the agent for the Applicants’ started on a chirpy note as the judge made the applicants’ argue issue number five before addressing the fourth issue for no apparent reason. The judge states that their preliminary finding is that the diplomat did a criminal wrong and any further arguments must not seek to negate this preliminary finding. The Judge observes that the applicants’ have come to the court with unclean hands. The judge further remarks that the speaker should not attempt to mislead the court. The agent seemed to have difficulty in answering all the questions and the subsequent cross questions put forth by the judge.
Respondents (Amity)
Speaker 1:
The atmosphere of the court room has started to heat up. The judges’ are fuming in anguish as none of the speakers so far have been able to successfully answer their questions. The judge seeks evidence to substantiate the fact that Borresia had undertook steps to control pollution, but to his further dismay the speaker only provided him with baseless political statements. The agent somehow managed to disappoint the judge further as he was not in possession of the Rio Declaration and other treaties which were essential to the instant case. The Judge has now begun to be downright rude, and in an emphatic exclamation of emotion, the judge states “Let the convention go to hell”. The judge seems to have claimed supremacy over all forms of International Law. It seems that the agent is not having a good day at court as he unwittingly calls some of the observations of the judge as “irrelevant” for which he is vociferously rebuked. The agent has been unable to answer a lot of questions posed by the judge. Thus, it is obvious that the judges are dissatisfied, as they have been throughout this particular court proceeding.
Speaker 2:
The judge expressed displeasure with the attire of the speaker. After which the Judge contended the supposedly “irreversible damage” caused to the mangroves, however the speaker pleads ignorance. The Judge is now obviously disgruntled as the agent is pleading ignorance to the facts of the case and asks the agent to proceed with the next issue. Through the constant grilling of the agents, the agents lack of knowledge with respect to even the cases that the agent has cited has been brought out. The Judges have thus been, disappointed and disgruntled throughout the proceeding.
RESULTS FOR THE QUATER FINAL ROUNDS
The teams from RGNUL, CHRIST UNIVERSITY , NLU JODHPUR AND ILNU have qualified for the semi-final rounds.
LIVE BLOGGING FOR SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS
ILNU v. RGNUL
APPLICANTS (ILNU)
The atmosphere of the court seems to be a bit tense; we're yet to figure out whether past or present. An expectedly tense environment can be observed in the courtroom, as the teams, both buried under the weight of all the documents and books that they are carrying, wait for the judges to arrive.
10.35 a.m.- The judges enter the hall, albeit 5 minutes late. It grows unusually silent with slight voices of one of the team members echoing around from time to time.
10:36 a.m.- The round commences with the first speaker of the applicants approaching the dais.
SPEAKER 1
10:37 a.m.- First minute, First question! "Why do you call yourself agents?" the judge enquires. The semi-finalists seem to be prepared for this question and satisfy the bench.
10.38 a.m.- Brutal questioning regarding sources of international law and the applicability which confused a seemingly confident speaker into saying literally anything in order to try defend HER stance. The bench come right back at her with a question on reparations. The agent seems to fumble and exhibits early signs of strain.
10.40 a.m. The questioning comes to an abrupt end, the judges convinced that she won't be able to answer this line of questioning anymore.
10:42 a.m.- A confusion regarding the page numbers arises and the speaker, probably nervous after a cruel round of questioning, is unable to clear the same till a clearly irritated judge asks, "Roman two or normal two?"
One of the judges is feeling too hot in the air conditioned court room, which might just cause further trouble for the contestants.
10.43 a.m. - The bench refuses to be bound by the Rio Declaration or any other convention for that matter, calling them "political documents with no legally binding effect". The speaker seems out of words when the researcher comes to her rescue. Finally, cases are given to satisfy the jury of her answers.
10:45 a.m. - While the speaker continues with her submissions and two of the judges with their queries, one of the judges concentrates on the memorandum of the team more than the oral submissions.
The speaker doesn't seem to be satisfying the currently involved judges of her answers and seems to have forgotten the basic factual premise provided for the competition.
10:47 a.m. - The questions by the jury guide the speaker to the "Precautionary Principle", a matter in which she seems to be well prepared. The tone of confidence seems to have returned in her voice as she slowly regains her stance using the principle.
5 minutes remaining
10:50 a.m. - The battle between the judges and the speaker becomes much more intense as she seems unsure of whether her client, Boressia, is a signatory in a particular convention. The agent seems to have assumed her ratification through a statement in the factual matrix which says "the countries have ratified almost all international treaties and conventions.
The judge points out the word "almost", which the seemingly irritated and clearly strained speaker has nothing to say to. This leads to a vicious grilling by the judges.
10:51 a.m. - The judges, though not still convinced, as the speaker to proceed further.
The opposition, involved in a silent but deep discussion as the speaker continues with her pleadings, seems to be getting ready to face the wrath of the jury.
Time up. 1 minute extension allowed by the bench.
10:53 a.m.- Even in the extended time the judges seem to notice some fundamental flaws in the arguments of the agent which they just couldn't let slip by. With an implicit extension of a couple more minutes, the speaker concludes.
SPEAKER 2
10:55 a.m. - After a shaky performance by the first speaker, the second speaker comes forward with the permission of the bench, attempting to save the day. Starts off with a claim of Right to Development, to which the bench rebukes, "How can you claim the right to development if you dont give that right to Boressia?"
The speaker tries to handle the query with the help of a UN Resolution, the applicability of which is further questioned by the bench.
10.56 a.m. - A minute confusion is observed in the court when the speaker seems to have forgotten the page number he was referring to. The judge quietly points out the correct page number and the submissions continue, with the speaker beginning to claim that Aressia has fallen in a pit dug by Boressia.
10:59 a.m. - The speaker manages to grab the attention of the judges with an absurd and unsubstantiated claim, "Pink Bibo is already extinct". When he tries to defend it by saying "this is what actually makes sense", the clearly frustrated judges remark," There is no question of sense in international law."
11:00 a.m. - The judges have now started making sarcastic remarks about the excessive flaws in the applicants' arguments. Pointing out an inconsistency between the presentations of the speakers, the judge says, "the co-agents need to sit together and decide on their stance." A tense courtroom hardly reacts.
5 minutes left. Speaker asked to directly move on to the next issue.
11:02 a.m. - The speaker raises a point regarding "research visa", which does manage to grab the attention of the judges but only to invite further grilling on the topic. The judges ask about the law and applicability of the same related to the research visa. A confused speaker is again rescued by the researcher's chit.
11:06 a.m. - The agent has now clearly panicked and starts defending his arguments using Indian precedents in the International Court of Justice. The judge points out the lack of applicability of the precedent against which the speaker tries to put a logical argument but fails miserably, only to be further grilled by the judges.
A faint smile can be observed on the face of one of the judges on the bench, clearly enjoying breaking down every single argument of the agent.
11:10 a.m. - Clearly frustrated with unfounded arguments being presented by the speaker, the judges ask him to move on to the prayer.
11:11 a.m. - Judges seem to have doubt on even the prayer of the applicants, for which the agent invites his co-agent to answer. But she fails to satisfy the bench, yet again.
RESPONDENTS (RGNUL)
SPEAKER 1
11:13 a.m.- As the counsel begins by asking a time of thirteen minutes to argue his contentions, the opposition can be seen busy in a discussion about something of grave importance.
11:13 a.m. - Even though the speaker is clearly nervous in anticipation, having witnessed the grilling of their opposition team by the same bench., he begins with a tone of confidence. The first few queries were beautifully handled by the agent, getting an opportunity of pointing out factual fallacies in the oppositions arguments at one point of time, too.
Light voices can still be heard echoing in the courtroom, the opposition still busy in a deep discussion, ignoring their surroundings and the fact that they are sitting in the courtroom. Both the judges and the speaker ignore the voices and move on with the submissions.
11:16 a.m. - The bench seems to have exhausted all their questions on the first team itself, and let the speaker go on for an unusually long time without a single interruption.
The speaker is speaking as fast as he can, expecting a question at any point. But the bench is still quiet, to his delight.
11:21 a.m.- FINALLY A QUESTION!
And the agent screws up at this. He is led by the jury into conceding that the Impact Assessment was not required, astonishing the court.
2 minutes left
11:24 a.m.- The counsel makes the mistake of bringing the doctrine of foreseeability into his arguments, to which the judges seem to have so many doubts. The agent makes an attempt to defend his stance by limiting the scope of the doctrine.
Time up. A request for extension was met with an immediate rejection by the jury.
SPEAKER 2
11:29 a.m.- The speaker begins on a negative note, confused by a question raised by the jury even before his pleadings begin. But seems to be well prepared, since he was able to brilliantly clear the jury's doubt as soon as the question was clear to him.
The judge is clearly bored by this time. After checking his watch and scratching his eyebrow, he gets back to reading the memorandum of the team instead of focusing on the oral arguments.
11:31 a.m.- First time in this round, the third judge asks a doubt. Though the question was unusually long and confusing, the agent was able to convincingly answer the same.
11:32 a.m.- To the surprise of all those listening to him, the agent cites three paragraphs of a judgment without having to refer to a single piece of paper. This was certainly enough to grab the attention of the judges but also enough to invite a confusing question from them.
11:34 a.m.- After the agent answers the first question, quoting whole paragraph of a judgment in the process, the judges subjected hum to further queries. Even though the speaker clearly fails to provide them with satisfactory answers for some of them, his confidence didn't budge.
11:37 a.m.- The agent is asked exactly the same question as their opposition, which he did answer satisfactorily. The jury smiles and rewards him with another question. (This speaker really needs to be less impressive)
11:42 a.m.- While the speaker continues knocking almost every query of the bench out of the park, the researcher tries to pass a chit to the speaker, which the speaker ignores. Why would you need a chit when you have memorized all the relevant judgments and conventions?
11:44 a.m.- The agent finally refers to a document. Now he appears to be a mere mortal like the rest us!
Time up. Extension of one minute granted to conclude.
NLU JODHPUR v. CHRIST UNIVERSITY
Applicants (NLU Jodhpur):
Speaker 1
10:40-The first speaker for the applicants began presenting his arguments in his usual calm and composed demeanor. However, it had barely been a minute since the applicant had started building his case that the judges began to pose pertinent questions about the fundamental edifice of environmental law i.e. the precautionary principle. The judge questioned whether Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a customary international law to which the agent replied that it is not a law but it can be applied on a case to case basis. He further stated that the threshold of EIA differs with respect to developing and developed economies. The judges, then without specifically accepting the argument of the agent proceeded to question the agent upon other basic concepts with regard to the difference between custom & customary international law. The agent was successfully able to answer the same however the calm and composed manner with which he had initiated his arguments seemed to have been a tad bit shaken. The agent tried to create a fabricated distinction between GM Pink Bibo and normal Pink Bibo by stating that the two aren’t the same species and thus, the normal Pink Bibo are still endangered. However, the judges did not seem convinced with the argument as they termed the same as baseless and an attempt to mislead the court.
10:54- The agent sought to rely upon scientific principles by citing the landmark Nuclear Tests case. However, when questioned by the judges upon the scientific principles underlying “Genetic Modification”, in particular, the shift made from manual sequencing to automated sequencing the agent pleaded ignorance. The judges then began to question the agent with respect to the relief that is claimed by him, drawing a distinction between reparations and damages as reparations are meant to restore the status quo. The judges pointed out by reference to the moot proposition, that the applicants’ state has demanded damages while the agent is pleading for reparations. The counsel sought an apology and stated that he wished to claim damages only.
11:04- The agent has finally concluded his arguments after taking two extensions from the bench. There is an awkward moment at the end because in his hurry to leave the podium, the agent drops his written submissions.
Speaker 2
11:10- The second speaker walks up to the podium, a podium which through the course of this moot has seen the best of minds crumbling before the intense scrutinizing gaze of the judges. The agent is being grilled upon Article 38 of the Statute of International Court Justice and the fact that the agent must prove that everything that is relied upon by the agent fits within the spectrum of Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice. The appellants are not in possession of the bare text of the treaties that they’ve cited and the same is being supplied to them by the respondents who’ve acted as good Samaritans. The bench is raising pertinent jurisdictional and substantive questions. The agent is fumbling as he tries to find the material which he needs to answer the judges.
11:26- Only when the second time extension has been granted by the bench to the agents does the bench remark “Now you are telling us what we want to know”. The Bench has been extremely liberal with regard to the time limits.
Respondents (Christ University)
Speaker 1
11:32- The agent for the respondents’ is determined to substantiate her arguments well within the allotted time as she puts off the judges from asking questions by stating that they must let her complete her argument before questions are posed. The agent seems to have the jury hooked to every word that she says. The agent submits to the court certain technical documents for their consideration, however, the bench before accepting them asks as to under what Article of the Statute of International Court of Justice can these documents be accepted. The agent states that the same is acceptable under Article 34 of the Statute of International Court of Justice but upon perusal of the purported Article the Bench finds that the same states that the court can itself order committees to generate such reports, thus such an action has to be necessarily initiated by the court itself. The agent cleverly replies that if the court finds that the reports that have been cited by the agent are irrelevant then the court is under the liberty of ordering the constitution of such committees which would generate the data that the court may need. The judges seem impressed by the quick thinking displayed by the agent.
11:55- The submissions of the agent have ended in an abrupt fashion. The judges seemed to have stopped the practice of awarding time extensions, a practice which was so liberally followed by the judges with the applicants’.
Speaker 2
11:55- The unfaltering nature with which the second speaker of the respondents has initiated his arguments cannot be matched with any of the speakers that have gone before him. The judges grill the agent as to why should they entertain the respondents’ request due to the “Doctrine of clean hands”. The Judges make a slippery slope analysis about the arguments of the respondents’ and display to the respondent’ the issues which would be created if what the respondents’ state would indeed be termed as law. The mood of the court has lightened for all but the agent. The agent is further being grilled upon whether or not the judgments of ICJ are binding upon itself and if they can form customary international law, to which the agent has given satisfactory answers.
12:14- The judges have abruptly cut short the submissions of the respondent without providing them more time. The judges have secretive conversations among each other behind the cover of a book. They might want us to believe that they do not want to disclose the opinion that they’ve formed about both the teams, however, the Organizing Committee knows that they are making “special plans” for the after party.
THE TEAMS PROCEEDING TO THE FINALS OF HNMCC, 2016 ARE RAJEEV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA AND CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE.
LIVE BLOGGING FOR THE FINAL ROUND OF HNMCC, 2016
CHRIST UNIVERSITY v. RGNUL
After a two day hustle between aspiring lawyers from 23 different colleges of the country, we are finally here. The respected judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court have graced the crowd with their presence. Two of the best teams in the competition this year, one from Christ University, Bangalore the other from RGNUL, Patiala are here to fight the final battle.
APPLICANTS (CHRIST)
SPEAKER 1
The first speaker approaches the bench, looking confident enough to handle the bench of five learned judges of one of the important High Courts of the country.
The speaker introduces the problem and asks for 15 minutes for dealing with the first three issues.
Moving on to the first issue, the speaker expresses that by introducing genetically modified species of Pink Bibo, Boressia had violated various treaties and conventions of international law, including CBD, 2002 and the Cartagena Protocol.
He further explains that CBD was enacted in order to protect the biodiversity, according to principles of cooperation among nations. The grievance of the applicants is clarified in the present case in front of the Hon'ble Bench, which was that since reverting to original state was no more possible. Hence, Boressia needs to be held liable to Aressia.
With the help of various legal and logical arguments presented by the agent for the applicants, they tried to show the bench how Boressia had violated their duties as granted by International Law by not taking any steps towards the risk assessment or prevention and by ignoring the precautionary principle.
The judges seem satisfied with the legal arguments presented by the speaker, to his delight.
At this point, the judges sought to assess the knowledge of the agent by asking him the nature of precautions which could have been taken by Boressia.
The agent attempted to satisfy the query with the help of Rio Declaration, to which Bangladesh (Boressia) is a signatory that puts a mandate on the nations to be careful of the interests of their neighbors and hence imposes a duty to consult on the same. Since in the present case no notification was provided to Aressia regarding the introduction of genetic modification in the Pink Bibo species, he contended that Boressia was in violation of his client's rights.
The judges do not raise any further queries regarding this submission, perhaps satisfied with the presentations of the speaker.
The speaker now gives his further arguments, referring to the Survey conducted on Genetic Manipulation And Regulation. He claims that, according to this survey, the harms were much greater in intensity than the probable benefits. He further claims that there were alternate methods present in order to raise the population of Pink Bibo in the region, which would have been realized if Boressia would have invested a little more time into research on the matter.
Raising the case of Pulp Mill, adjudged by the ICJ, the agent argues that ICJ has realized the importance of estimated impact assessment in various cases through research works from around the world, and not performing such assessment by Boressia is hence a violation of the international law principles.
The jury, at this point, had a doubt about the contention of the speaker regarding the fulfillment of the necessity of the EIA, which was clarified by the agent with the help of various international law authorities, that according to their contention the EIA was "inadequate", since it was a mere study that was performed but had no effect on the actions of Boressia whatsoever. The judges seem impressed with the promptness and the knowledge of the Agent.
The bench was not curious as to how merely providing damages to Aressia solve the issue of Pink Bibo. The agent clarifies that apart from damages, which would help compensate for the economic loss to Aressia due to Boressia's actions, they also request the court to adjudge that the genetic modification of Pink Bibo must be stopped.
The agent exceeded his time by a couple of minutes, and asked for an extension from the bench. An extension of two minutes was granted within which he was asked to conclude.
SPEAKER 2:
The second speaker for the applicants’ has approached the podium. He shall deal with the remaining two issues from the side of the Applicants’ i.e. the natural gas pipe-line and the issue of diplomatic immunity.
He begins his submissions by first arguing upon the issue relating to the natural gas pipe line. The applicant’ first elucidates the “Clean Hands doctrine” with the help of which he states that the respondents’ i.e. Boressia cannot approach the ICJ as they themselves are at fault. The Applicant’ states the procedure of Environmental Impact Assessment that is being followed by Arresia under its own domestic laws. The agent further contends that as the report regarding the construction of pipe lines had been made public, the same is in complete satisfaction the UN Environmental Protection Rules.
The Bench then raised a doubt as to the sufficiency of the EIA carried out by Arresia. However, the agent was able to satisfy the bench’s concern by stating that the as the project is in compliance with the national laws of Aresia on EIA, the same is sufficient precaution. The agent cited the Rio Declaration which stated that all countries will not be able to uphold the same standards of EIA and thus, concessions are to be given to developing countries. The agent further reassured the bench that in the event that even after the carrying out of the EIA harm is caused, the same can be mitigated.
The agent stated that harm that might be caused by the setting up of the pipeline must be weighed in light of the social & economic utility of the pipeline. Furthermore, the agent urged that there has been no damage to the nation of Boressia as the pipeline is within Aressian region under the sovereignty of Boressia and causes no Trans-boundary harm, the court is free to make further inquiries on its own regarding the impact caused by the pipeline if the court feels that the data presented by the Applicants’ is not sufficient. The agent also argued that Arressia’s economy has been crippled due to Boressia and the pipeline project shall ensure that the economy has some hopes of revival; he forcefully reiterated his contention that the economy is more important than the environment.
The speaker then moved on to the second issue relating to diplomatic immunity. The bench posed a hypothetical question wherein it sought to know as to what would be the consequences of the diplomat signing the affidavit in good faith, stating that he cannot make the scientists come back. The agent stated that in such an event the diplomat shall no longer be a representative of his state and therefore diplomatic immunity would stand as waived. Agent was asked to quantify the damages demanded by Aressia.
The Bench seemed satisfied by the handling of the questions by the Agent. The Agent answered every question with great panache exhibiting impeccable knowledge of the facts of the instant case and the law applicable. The agent was able to interconnect the facts of the case and the law applicable with ice cold impenetrable logic.
RESPONDENTS (RGNUL)
SPEAKER 1
The mood of the finals seems to have shadowed over the confidence of the speaker, as he is clearly nervous while walking up to the dais to present his pleadings in front of the Hon'ble Judges.
He begins his pleadings on the first issue, stammering out of the sheer pressure of the finals gripping his throat, trying to defend Boressia in the matter of introducing genetic modifications to Pink Bibo. He takes the defense of necessity, claiming that immediate steps were required to save the bird from becoming extinct. He justifies the need of a chemical resistent GM Pink Bibo by claiming that pollution and chemicals were the major reasons for the reduce in its population in the first place.
The judges, at this point, have several doubts. First they raise a question regarding the EIA, which wasnt handled very well by the agent. They further move on to questioning Boressia's method of "preserving" the species by introducing genetic modification in the species. An initially baffled agent tries to maintain his stance by explaining the judges that since the basic features of the species remain the same, alien species can be introduced under principles of international environmental law.
The speaker here quotes a "some famous science journal". We seriously doubt the applicability of this source in International Court of Justice.
However, the speaker is finally able to convince the judges with the help of the Gulf of Mine case and moves further.
While arguing the second contention, the speaker tried to rebut the submissions of the applicants by claiming that the avoidance of precautionary principle by Boressia was only a baseless allegation, and so was the claim that the disadvantages of Pink Bibo outweigh its advantages. The judges smile at such furious rebuttals by the agent of his oppositions arguments.
Towards the end of his submissions, a very interesting argument was presented by the agent, saying that lifting the ban was not a violation of the convention of International Species of Flora and Fauna, since they weren't aware that the species were endangered.
The speaker, who began at a nervous note, ends on a positive one.
SPEAKER 2
The second speaker from the respondents’ has relied upon the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India in the International Court of Justice. As the Hon’ble Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court are presiding over the bench, the agent seems to have forgotten the fact that he isn’t arguing before a Constitutional Court and is actually (hypothetically) in front of the ICJ.
The agent was unable to understand the questions posed by the bench and he left them unanswered. The agent further argued that the mangroves are a world heritage site which would definitely be damaged by the construction of the pipeline. Furthermore, the mangroves provide a habitat of Pink Bibo and thus the construction of the pipeline would also further endanger the species. The agent alleged that the other party is building stories in regards to EIA.
The agent further argued that there are other ways in which he can improve his economy like the formation of small scale industries. The agent further stated that the applicants’ have violated Article 5 & 6 of the UN Convention of Water.
Furthermore, the agent stated that the diplomatic immunity of an ambassador is inviolable and the respondents’ are misdirecting the Court in regard to the waiver of immunity.
The judges do not seem satisfied with the submissions of the agent.
With this we come to the end of the 8th Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition, 2016.
Results:
Winners: Christ University, Bangalore
Runners Up: RGNUL, Patiala
Beat Speaker: Lakshana Radhakrishnan, NALSAR
Best memo: NALSAR, Hyderabad
Best researcher: Vibha Oswal, ILS Pune
We, on behalf of the entire organizing committee of HNMCC, 2016, would like to thank all the participants and the learned judges of the various rounds for helping us make this event a huge success. And now, it's time to PARTYY!!