•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 79-minute read

XI NLS-Trilegal International Arbitration Moot 2018- Live Blog!

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

The XI NLS-Trilegal International Arbitration Moot, 2018-Live Blog!

Hello Guys, we're the Moot Court Society of NLSIU, and we're hosting the XI National Law School- Trilegal International Arbitration Moot 2018 on 18th-20th May 2018. A busy day awaits the teams, we'll start posting when the first round commences. Follow this live blog for regular updates!

Prelim Round 1


TEAM 23C v. TEAM 32R

Claimant Speaker 1

13:11 – The speaker lays out the roadmap and starts with her constructive arguments without any interruption from the judges.

13:14 – The judges start with their questions refuting the speaker’s arguments. The speaker holds her ground, not conceding at all. After reaching a deadlock, the judges ask the speaker to move on to the next issue.

13:17 – The speaker confidently lays out the case laws and corresponding facts in response to the judges’ request for greater clarity. She responds to further clarifications without any signs of hesitation.

13:20 – The judge dismisses the speaker’s arguments to which she quickly moves on to the next argument.

13:22 – The judges grill the speaker with a flurry of questions and do not seem convinced with the answers given by the speaker.

13:23 – The speaker requests an extension of 2 minutes and quickly completes her arguments.

Claimant Speaker 2

13:26 – The speaker starts by laying out the issues. Three minutes have passed and still no questions…

13:29 – The questions have begun and the speaker makes references to the factual matrix to strengthen her stance. The judges still do not seem convinced and continue disagreeing with the speaker’s claim.

13:32 – The judges dismiss the usage of case laws made by the speaker saying that the facts of the cases do not correspond.

13:34 – On a separate issue, the speaker looks to case laws again to prove her point. However, this time, the judges seem to be convinced with the speaker’s submissions.

13:37 – The speaker has moved on to the next issue but the questions do not seem to end. The speaker seems to love case laws as she makes reference to another case. The judges do not seem to buy this argument and press the speaker for further clarifications.

13:39 – The time has ended but the judges permit the speaker to respond to the questions posed. Multiple questions follow. Another case law is cited and is dismissed by the judges again.

13:43 – The speaker quickly moves on to summarise her arguments on the final issue but faces questions again. The questions seem to be never-ending and the fact that the speaker’s time has ended seems to be long forgotten.

13:45 – The judge gives a further extension of 2 minutes to summarise the arguments but the speaker is posed with pressing questions even during this extension period.

13:47 – Finally, the speaker concludes her arguments and heaves a sigh of relief!

Respondent Speaker 1

13:49 – The speaker commences with his submissions.

13:51 – The first question is posed and the speaker confidently and animatedly responds to this question.

13:53 – The judges prompt the speaker to move on to the next issue but the speaker says that he has two more submissions to make on this issue.

13:55 – The judges nod as the speaker concludes his submissions on the first issue and moves on to the next issue.

13:56 – The judges dismiss the speaker’s principal based argument by saying that it does not hold true in practicality. The speaker quickly moves on to his next argument.

13:59 – The speaker alludes to certain facts in the factual matrix. When the judges ask to be directed to the same, the speaker apologises saying that he does not have a copy of the factual matrix. The Claimants graciously hand over their copy of the factual matrix to the Respondents.

14:01 – The speaker tactfully responds to the judge’s question by referring to a case law and the judges seem to be convinced.

14:02 – The speaker seems to have conceded on one of the claims made which is quickly pointed out by the judges. The speaker quickly backtracks.

14:03 – The time has ended but the speaker continues with his submissions. Questioning from the judges does not seem to have ended and the ralley of questions and answers follows.

14:06 – The judges ask the speaker to quickly wrap up his arguments and the speaker summarises his arguments and concludes.

Respondent Speaker 2

14:07 – The speaker starts off very eloquently and assertively.

14:09 – The judges nod as the speaker makes his arguments. They seem to be impressed.

14:11 – The probing questions have begun but the speaker seems calm and composed in his replies.

14:13 – The judges are trying to unsettle the speaker but the speaker holds his ground. He justifies his claims by referring to numerous case laws.

14:17 – The judges seem convinced with all the responses provided by the speaker to the questions posed by them.

14:18 – The judges ask the speaker to move to the next issue given the shortage of time.

14:20 – The speaker uses case laws to substantiate his arguments but the judges cite case laws with conflicting judgements saying that they cannot rely on case laws and that the speaker needs to pursue another line of argumentation.

14:25 – The judges ask the speaker to quickly respond to the question and move on to the next issue.

14:27 – The speaker concludes his submissions, with the judges nodding in agreement.


TEAM 17C v. TEAM 27R

Claimant Speaker 1

13:02 The speaker starts confidently and outlines the issues clearly.

13:05 The Arbitrator has posed a question, and even after repeating it thrice, he is not convinced by the response. The Tribunal is concerned why this issue has even arisen.

13:09 The Arbitrator has pointed out specific articles and asked how they benefit their argument. 

13:12 With barely 3 mins left, the speaker has not convinced the Tribunal on any point. 

13:16 The Speaker ends, unable to complete any of her arguments or convince the Arbitrators.

Respondent Speaker 1

13:17 The Tribunal has asked the speakers to not waste any time on facts. Yet, the speaker continues to do so, even though briefly.

13:20 The speaker points out a major flaw in the Claimant’s argument. In one line, he wipes the entire claimant’s submissions. The Tribunal seems impressed, but they still question him on other concerns.

13:24 The Speaker is arguing on the basis of merits, where as the Arbitrators are looking for something else.

13:28 The Speaker seems well prepared and is able to convince the Arbitrators on all points so far. He is also referring them to the case study in order to prove his submissions. However, that backfires and the Arbitrator points out the ambiguity in facts.

13:31 The Tribunal continuously questions the Speaker, even on cases he has presented. But the speaker has so far answered all of them to their satisfaction.

13:34 The Speaker has been granted extra time to sum up his arguments, which he uses to his advantage.

Respondent Speaker 2

13:35 The Speaker starts by laying out his arguments.

13:38 However, the round quickly spirals down and the Arbitrators feel he is not representing his client but the other side.

13:42 Since he is unable to convince them, he requests permission to move on but the Arbitrators are insistent he answer them first.

13:45 The Tribunal appears unconvinced but amused at the submissions. They feel that the Speaker is questioning their authority and by that logic, there is no point in the entire Arbitration.

13:49 The Speaker concedes to the arguments raised by the Tribunal and moves to the last issue, with less than 2 mins left. The Tribunal continues to question him but they are not contented by the answer received.

13:52 Time has ended but the Speaker continues to present his arguments and briefly pauses to refer his notes.

Claimant Speaker 2

13:55 There is some confusion as to who is arguing which side but it is quickly resolved.

13:58 The Arbitrator points out a flaw in the usage of terms by the Speaker, which shows that she might lack clarity in understanding of issue. However, she quickly catches up and convinces the Tribunal with her submissions.

14:03 There are 5 minutes to go, however the Counsel is nowhere close to concluding. This bench, well aware of the law and facts, has spared no one with their grilling questions.

14:05 The Speaker is justifying issues that have not even been raised by the Respondents. The Tribunal points out the defect in the same.

14:08 The Speaker directs the Tribunal to their compendium but the Tribunal points out that the particular section is inapplicable to the present case.

14:11 The Tribunal grants four extra minutes to the speaker, same as the other side. However, the Speaker is stuck on one point and is unable to use her time effectively.

14:15 The Speaker has run out of extra time but has not convinced the Tribunal on her point.

14:18 The Tribunal is interested in knowing their prayer as there was confusion about their issues itself.

Respondent Rebuttal

14:19 The judges allocate 2 mins each to every team as they have already substantially exceeded the time. The Speaker uses this time well and points out several defects.

Claimant Sur-Rebuttal

14:22 The Speaker points defects in the arguments of the Respondent. However, the Tribunal points out that they cannot bring up any point which was not raised by the Respondent in the Rebuttal.




Claimant Speaker 1

13:03: The speaker has started out confidently by giving a roadmap of the arguments of the Claimants.

13:04: with the permission of the Judge, the speaker begins his first argument. The judges seem to be practising a very visible form of active listening and are hanging on to every word.

13:08: At the end of the Speaker's argument, the judge points out a provision and asks the speaker to explain his position given the existence of that provision. The speaker seems to be making an argument more based on logic than law.

13:09: The back and forth between the speaker and judge continues. The speaker is able to handle the barrage of questions with confidence but the judge isn't satisfied yet.

13:11: The judge finally allows the speaker to move on to the next argument. The speaker regains his lost poise but loses it again when he is forced to flip through the sheets on his table.

13:13: The speaker seems to be more sure of this argument and is explaining the links in the argument fluently.

13:16: The judge very pointedly interrupts and contradicts the speaker's statement. The speaker, to his credit, is unfazed and responds effectively.

Respondent Speaker 1

13:17: The speaker seems a little nervous as he starts his submissions and enumerates the respondents' arguments.

13:18: The speaker has pulled himself together and now brings the judges' attention to a certain provision.

13:20: The speaker's first argument seems to be based on the interpretation of one word in the fact sheet.

13:23: The judge asks for a clarification and then lets the speaker move on with his submissions

13:24: The speaker repeatedly needs to look into his notes which hinders the flow of his arguments. Despite this he is able to effectively handle the judges’ questions.

13:26: The judge, with subtle sarcasm, now asks a question with a smirk on his face. The speaker seems to be missing an obvious point here and the judge continues to direct him towards it.

13:28: Both the judges appear to be slightly sceptical of the speakers’ arguments. The speaker now acknowledges his bad habit of arguing using arguendos.

13:30: There is slight commotion in the room because neither the teams nor the judges seem to possess the guidelines the speaker is citing. The claimant team tries to jump to the rescue of the respondent but the judge asks the respondent speaker to continue his submissions.

Claimant Speaker 2

13:32: The second speaker takes over right where speaker 1 left. He seems to be slightly edgy in the beginning but soon regains his composure.

13:34: The speaker pleads for the arbitrator’s forgiveness at his failure to find a particular document from within the mountain of papers on his table.

13:36: The judge has asked the speaker to read the issue he is addressing. They now ask the speaker to address the issue only with respect to the provision mentioned under it.

13:38: The judge provides the speaker with the leverage to address the issue with respect to whichever provision he likes. But the speaker, not one to back down from a challenge, states that he will fulfil the judge’s requirement.

13:40: It looks like the speaker has his arguments back on track and now very precisely responds to the judge’s questions.

13:42: The judge continues his questioning and the speaker is effectively engaging with all the questions. Both the judges seem to be impressed with the speaker and, surely, are now keeping up the questions only to test the speaker.

13:44: The speaker has finally begun his last submission. He seems to be on a roll and is explaining his arguments with great clarity.

13:49: After 5 minutes of uninterrupted speech, the speaker is finally interrupted and asked to substantiate his argument.

Respondent Speaker 2

13:51: The speaker starts confidently but is speaking, perhaps, a little too fast to be entirely coherent.

13:53: The arguments are presented by the speaker in a structured list format. Each of the links is substantiated simultaneously with the relevant provision.

13:55: The judges question the judge about a certain fact in the problem and ask him to clarify his interpretation of the same. The speaker’s response appears to be quite impressive going by the judge’s continuous nodding.

13:58: While speaker 2 continues his submissions, the blogger has spotted speaker 1 looking into the distance with a rather philosophical look on his face.

14:01: After some shuffling through his paper, the speaker finds the clause required to answer the judge’s question.

14:03: With a rather lengthy premise, the judge finally gets to the question he’d like to ask. The speaker responds with an increased rate of speech, possibly compensating for the time lost.

Claimant Rebuttal

14:07: Speaker 2 addresses the arguments made by the respondent in a very crisp manner and attempts to prove to the judges why the respondents’ contentions do not stand.

Respondent Sur-Rebuttal

14:09: The respondent, equally sharp, refutes the points made by the claimant by using law as well as by pointing out a certain flaw in the claimants’ argumentation.\

14:11: The speaker’s time is up and he stops speaking. But the judge decide to ask him one last question.

14:14: Three minutes after this last question, the speaker asks whether he could say 'one last sentence'.

Prelim Round 2


9R v. 10C.

Claimant Speaker 1         

15:29: The speaker has started with great poise and composure, she highlights the basic purposes of arbitration before moving on to a roadmap and then starts her first submission.

15:30: Barely 30 seconds into her speech, the speaker gets questioned by the judges.

15:31: The judge states that, perhaps, the speaker is unable to understand the question and reiterates it. The speaker seems to be a little flustered when asked repeatedly to state the authority she bases her arguments on.

15:33: Speaker is still unable to substantiate her arguments. The judges have launched a rather pointed barrage of questions and state that the speaker has not been able to provide them with any form of material substance that would prove the argument to them.

15:36: The judges do not seem pleased by the fact that the speaker is unable to provide them a certain authority. But this time the speaker provides them another provision that would help her case.

15:38: The speaker takes a visible deep breath and moves on to her submissions. But alas, she is interrupted again and is unable to point to the bench the provisions she is referring to.

15:39: She asks permission to approach the bench to ‘guide them in finding the provision’ but the judges deny this request.

15:41: The speaker finally moves on to the next submission with only two minutes left in her time. But she is again interrupted by the arbitrator.

15:43: The judges’ questions to the speaker have not been answered satisfactorily, but the claimants’ time is up. The judges’ grant the speaker a minute to answer the questions and summarize her submissions.

15:44: After a few more questions, the judges very graciously grant the claimant time to make her last argument, clearly cognizant of the time she spent answering their questions.

Claimant Speaker 2

15:47: Seemingly unaffected by the manner in which the judges questioned speaker 1, speaker 2 calmly introduces her submissions.

15:48: Speaker, ignoring the question of the judge, has begun addressing the ‘allegations’ made by the respondent instead.

15:50: The speaker alleges lack of evidence to substantiate her claims but the judges simply say ‘but the evidence is here!’ This makes the speaker begin a series of clarifications to convey the essence of her argument to the bench.

15:52: The speaker seems to have a very rigid argument structure because despite the judges asking her to address a certain argument, she asks them if she can move in order.

15:54: The judge provides the speaker with an arguendo wherein her contentions could be accepted, but state that the speaker’s current stream of arguments will not do the same.

15:55: The speaker states a fact on which she bases her arguments but immediately on that point the judges contend that the same fact in fact prove the opposite.

15:57: The judge doesn’t seem to be in a mood to mince words ‘Do you see the hypocrisy in this?’ The speaker seems visibly perturbed at this.

15:58: The speaker seems to have recovered from that stream of questions and moves on to the last issue. The judges don’t seem to have too many problems with her argumentation under this issue.

16:01: The judges grant the speaker a minute to conclude her submissions.

Respondent Speaker 1

16:02: The speaker has begun confidently with an introduction of both the respondent speakers. It is amusing to see both the respondent speakers mirroring each other’s seating position.

16:03: The speaker moves on to his first submission and is clearly laying down the links in his argument along with simultaneously substantiating the same. At this point respondent speaker 2 is trying really hard to supress a sneeze.

16:04: The judge asks the speaker whether the course of action chosen by the respondents was the best one in this case and provides him with an alternate method which could have been better.

16:05: The judge is calmly stating his reasons for not accepting the respondents’ arguments at its face and asks the speaker to substantiate the same better.

16:07: The speaker moves on to his next argument and his teammate vehemently nods his head in agreement.

16:08: The speaker also addresses the fallacies in the arguments of the claimants and provides them with alternate courses of action which is immediately rejected by the judge. The speaker responds but is unable to follow the question posed by the bench.

16:10: The bench seems satisfied with the speaker’s contentions for now. The teammates’ nodding continues.

16:11: The bench seems to have certain doubts regarding what the sequitur to the first contention made by the speaker is. The judge states that if the speaker continues his current line of argument, then the respondents should probably agree with what the claimant stated.

16:14: The judges are now having a hush hush discussion amongst themselves with a paper in between them as the object of their attention.

16:16: Judge addresses the speaker as such ‘those are very strong opinions. Don’t you think?’ and the speaker is now flustered as to how to reply to this question. It seems both the bench and the speaker have forgotten that the time is up.

16:18: The speaker makes his concluding remarks. The judges have another discussion in whispers.

Respondent Speaker 2

16:19: The speaker starts off with a booming voice and points out the issues he shall deal with.

16:21: The judges repeatedly ask for explanation but the speaker seems unable to provide the same. Unlike speaker 1, speaker 2’s submissions are accompanied by a liberal use of hand gestures.

16:23: The speaker seems to be on a warpath against the judges here because he continues to evade their questions about the actions taken by the respondents.

16:24: In a reversal of roles, the judge now refers to the fact sheet and points out a fact to the speaker which clearly goes against the argument of the speaker and implicates the respondents along with the claimants.

16:26: The speaker answers the judges’ long and winding question in one line. But despite the impressive, confident response, the judges ask him to provide them with an authority.

16:28: The speaker now makes reference to the claimant’s submissions and moves on to provide a counter for the same. But here the judge again points out that ‘it seems the hypocrisy goes both ways’ and points out why the speaker’s submissions were hypocritical.

16:30: The judge alleges that the speaker was mixing two completely different areas and makes a legal point about why it was not acceptable.

16:31: The judge now points out why the authorities the speaker used to substantiate his argument are not entirely applicable to this court. The judge also states that the facts on which the arguments are based are flimsy. The speakers’ submissions are becoming more and more passionate and he is trying his best to defend his contentions.

16:34: The judges point out that if not for a certain claim made by the respondent the argument would have been valid. In a rather simplistic save, the speaker retracts said claim and moves on to conclude his submissions.

16:36: The court bailiff is enthusiastically showing the time card urging the speaker to stop. The speaker is asked by the judge to conclude his submissions. The bench seems surprised at the fact that the respondents are not claiming any damages.

Claimant Rebuttal

16:38: The claimant refutes what the respondent has stated in an interpretation of a certain provision and has states why the respondents’ understanding of the provision is flawed.

16:39: The claimant poses a question to respondents that whether they would be willing to apply the same provisions to all issues instead of picking and choosing which ones to apply to which issue.

Respondent Sur-rebuttal

16:40: the respondent mentions a contradiction in the claimants argument and provides substantiation for the same.

16:41: The speaker uses the intention behind the drafting of certain provisions in the law to substantiate the basis on which he refutes the claimants submissions.

Court Room No. 6

32C v. 22R

Claimant Speaker 1

15:33: The claimant speaker lays down his roadmap clearly and with emphasis. He flusters slightly in the beginning but gets better as he speaks.

15:36: The judges have minor clarifications on facts. The claimant speaker seems to be slightly under confident but manages to satisfy the judges with his response.

15:41: The speaker gets comfortable as he moves on to arguing on law. The judges seem to be convinced with the arguments of the speaker on the first issue.

15:43: The judges put up certain questions to the speaker. The speaker seems to be too aggressive while responding. Possibly due to the law being his stronghold.

15: 44: The speaker seeks an extension. The judges graciously grant an extension and seem to be interested in listening to the speaker.

Respondent Speaker 1

15:47: The speaker lays down her roadmap effectively. She seems confident. The judges have a relatively more positive response towards her speech.

15:51: The speaker seems to have organized her speech properly. She continues to speak uninterrupted as the judges nod aggressively.

15:55: The judges have minor clarifications which the speaker answers confidently.

15:58: The judges conclude with one question on the element of bias. They seem satisfied with the response of the speaker.

Claimant Speaker 2

16:00: The speaker proceeds to the arguments directly. The judges ask him to draw a skeleton first.

16:02: The judges have a couple of questions on illegality of the investment. The speaker seems to be confident and has a good body language. The speaker however seems overly aggressive.

16:05: The judges analyze every precedent cited in great detail. They put up certain questions to the speaker.

16:07: The speaker seems to have prepared well on the law as the judges seek clarifications on the speaker’s response to a question.

16:10: The judges have incisive questions on due process and successfully trap the speaker in a weak position of law. The speaker comes up with a good response with which the judges seem to be satisfied.

16:15: The judges have certain questions on transparency. The speaker seems to be uncomfortable and has gone aggressive again.

Respondent Speaker 2

16:18: The speaker starts off with a confident expression on his face.  His voice is too soft costing him a good impact on the judges. He lays down his roadmap.

16:21: The judges have minor clarifications to which the speaker responds comfortably.

16:23: The speaker sails through his well prepared speech without any interruption from the judges.

16:26: The judges lay down a proposition for the respondents to counter. They pose counter questions to the response of the speaker.

16:30: The judges have a couple of questions for the speaker which the speaker replies to comfortably.

16:33: The speaker seeks an extension of 1 minute to conclude his arguments. There haven’t been major interruptions by the judges.


Claimant Speaker 1

16:37: The speaker seems confident with the rebuttal. The judges have certain questions on his statement of the respondent’s arguments being a academic proposition.

16:38: The other speaker adds certain rebuttals to the ones made by the first speaker.

Respondent Speaker 1

16:39: The speaker lays down a structure for her rebuttals. She addresses all rebuttals one by one in three points.

The judges have bullet pointed feedback for both the teams on positions of law that the teams failed to address properly.


Team 33C v. Team 15R

Claimant Speaker 1

03:46 – The speaker seems to be confused. She starts off by saying “If the members of the tribunal are well versed with the facts, I would like to lay out the issues”. When the judges give her permission to do so, she follows by giving the facts of the case.

03:50 – The judges cite certain statutes declaring the speaker’s entire argument moot. The speaker seems rattled and is now talking in circles.

03:52 – The judges ask the speaker to refer to precedents but the speaker says she is unaware of any.

03:53 – The speaker’s answers to the judges’ questions seem unsatisfactory and the judges ask the speaker to move on to the next issue.

03:55 – The judges ask the speaker to use case laws to support her case but the speaker says that she is unaware of any.

03:57 – The time ends and the judges shake their heads in disagreement.

Respondent Speaker 1

03:58 – The speaker starts off by providing a roadmap and laying out issues. Before the speaker can start off with his substantive arguments, the judges start with their questioning.

04:00 – The judges ask the speaker to support his arguments with a case law which he manages to do satisfactorily.

04:03 – The judges try to rattle the speaker but he holds ground composedly and moves on to his next argument.

04:05 – The judges question the validity and importance of some of the authorities cited by the speaker but do not press on the same due to paucity of time.

04:09 – The time ends and the judges ask the speaker to answer the question and conclude.

Respondent Speaker 2

04:10 – The speaker confidently lays out her structure and gives a brief factual summary.

04:12 – The speaker continues making her point and the judges are listening intently. No questions so far.

04:14 – The questioning has begun. The speaker tries to deflect this by asking the judges if she could move on with her next line of argumentation. The judges deny this request stating “You are now in the woods”.

04:16 – The judges cite a case law of their own to invalidate the speaker’s arguments.

04:18 – The judges claim that the speaker’s arguments are contradictory to which the speaker clarifies her stance.

04:20 – The judges say that the speaker has conceded to one of her main arguments and the speaker clarifies again.

04:23 – The speaker requests to move on to the next issue due to the paucity of time. The judges ask if the speaker would engage on a certain fact given in the factual matrix and when the speaker says that she will not, they ask if this deliberate non engagement with a material fact was because it went against their case.

04:27 – The time has ended but the judges still have a very pertinent question to ask. The judges seem unconvinced with the answer.

Claimant Speaker 2

04:30 – “It takes two to tango.” The speaker starts off with her refutations of the respondent speaker’s submissions first.

04:31 – The judges take this quote to heart asking if it means that the claimants were at fault as well. For some strange reason, the speaker chooses not to directly engage with this.

04:34 – The judges ask the speaker to further clarify the basis of some of the allegation made by her.

04:35 – The judge finds an issue with the usage of a particular term by the speaker, and the speaker tries to justify this only to reconsider at the end.

04:39 – The judges question why the speaker has not claimed damage under certain heads following it with a “Is it because you’re a bad lawyer?”

04:42 – The judges are not satisfied with the responses of the speaker and ask for greater clarity. Even after clarification, the judges still look disappointed.

04:44 – An intense questioning session is ongoing and the speaker is in a spot. The speaker tries to deflect all of this and the judges can be seen grinning. “Counsel, you’re not clear.”

04:46 – The time ends and the judges seem amused.



Claimant Speaker 1

15:57 The Speaker starts by outlining the issues briefly and seems confident so far. The Tribunal is listening intently and has not raised any question so far.

15:59 The Arbitrator asks a question as to whether they concede to an argument or not, and demands a yes or no answer. The Speaker, unwillingly, concedes to it.

16:02 The Arbitrator questions the Speaker on the approach he has taken to defend an issue. However, the Speaker is not able to convince him and he feels that they are using this approach only because of convenience. 

16:04 The Arbitrators want the Speaker to back up arguments with facts, and when he presents one, the Arbitrator agrees but requires more judicial backing as well. 

16:06 The Tribunal grills the Speaker on his interpretation of an Article, and nods in satisfaction with the response received. The Arbitrator asks the speaker if he has any argument based on a specific case, to which the speaker replies in negative. The Arbitrator seems slightly disappointed but asks him to proceed.

16:11 The time has run out but the Tribunal grants the Speaker two minutes to answer a question posed. The Arbitrator seems satisfied with the answer. He exceeds the extension to which the Tribunal seem slightly annoyed. 

Respondent Speaker 1

16:14 The Speaker starts in a barely audible pitch, and is requested to be louder. Thrice. 

16:17 The Arbitrator asks how they respond to a particular issue to which she replies that she will get to it later.

Tip: Never do that, it might annoy the Tribunal. 

16:19 The Arbitrator asks what was Treaty in a particular case submitted by the Speaker, to which she is left dumbfound. The Arbitrator then clarifies that since they did not analyze it, they did not realize that it is inapplicable here.

16:22 Unable to convince the Tribunal, they ask her to proceed to the next issue.

Arbitrator, sort of annoyed, "I am super scared when you say generally followed. If it so general, it must be followed in cases. Can you give me any cases? "

16:26 The Speaker is granted two minutes in extension, to ensure equity. The Arbitrator asks for specific instances where a similar situation arose so that they can judge whether it applies in this case. 

Claimant Speaker 2

16:29 The Speaker starts confidently, however, the Tribunal points certain flaws in his arguments, which the Speaker is able to rebut satisfactorily. 

16:33 The Arbitrator seeks a clarification on the Speaker's stance. He seeks permission to move to the next issue. Hesitating at first, the Tribunal allows him to do so. 

16:35 Before he can lay down sub-issues, the Arbitrators seeks the Speaker's interpretation of a certain term. 

16:38 The Speaker seems to have substantial arguments but seems slightly hesitant while answering the questions. 

16:41 One of the Researchers seems overjoyed by the questions, for what reason is not obvious. The grilling continues, as does the constant answers. So far, the Speaker seems to be thorough with the facts and law. 

16:43 The Arbitrator seeks facts of a certain case, which the Speaker seems to know. On a different case, the Arbitrator shows that the ratio was different from that which can apply in this case.

16:45 The Speaker has run out of time and is requested to wrap it in 10 seconds sharp.

Respondent Speaker 2

16:46 The second counsel for the respondent begins by greeting the tribunal and introducing herself, followed by outlining her issues.

16:47 Within a minute, the Speaker is questioned by the tribunal. They are extremely interested in knowing how she can rebut the two issues raised by the Claimant?

16:51 The Tribunal poses analogies which the Speaker counters confidently. 

16:58 The Speaker is contending certain environmental issues, which the Arbitrator dismisses. 

17:00 The Speaker seeks permission to move to the next issue. The Tribunal requests her to limit it to certain aspects due to the paucity of time.

17:03 The Speaker is asked to wrap up in one minute. 

17:06 She is asked to conclude, twice. The Tribunal seems unconvinced and amused. 


17:06 The Speaker has a rebuttal for each issue, and the Tribunal seems to agree with him


17:08 The Speakers want to do sur-rebuttals for their own issues but that is not allowed by the Tribunal. This leaves them slightly confused. 

_________DAY 2___________


20R v. 10C

Claimant Speaker 1

11:40: The speaker starts out by highlighting the advantages and purpose of arbitration and then enumerates her arguments.

11:41: The speaker is immediately questioned by the arbitrator and is asked to clarify the basis of her claim. She uses an analogy to justify the basis.

11:43: She tries to show the arbitrators that there exists some common agreement between the two parties which should enable this proceeding to move in a certain direction.

11:45: The arbitrator seems to disagree with the threshold the speaker is using in her arguments and asks her to prove why should the threshold suggested by the arbitrator not be used.

11:48: The speaker is very calmly and effectively answering all the questions posed by the judges and does not seem to be bogged down by their repeated interruptions.

11:51: The speaker moves on to her next submission and uses two independent arguments to substantiate the same. She points the arbitrators to 'flag number 1 on the binder submitted' or 'the thicker binder' or 'the one in front of you' or 'right there!'.

11:53: The arbitrators have found out what 'right there' means and after reading the relavant provision proceed with their questions.

Respondent Speaker 1

11:55: In an extremely poised and composed manner, the speaker lays down the roadmap of the teams' arguments. He is moving through his submissions at a gentle pace and in a rather dulcet voice.

11:57: The arbitrator has now pointedly mentioned a provision that seeems to directly contradict the speaker's submissions and moves on to show the speaker how is argument is logically flawed. Taking cue from claimant speaker 1, the arbitrator also enumerates the time and cost benefits of arbitration and does some good PnP.

11:59: The speaker seems to have misunderstood the the arbitrator's argument and now moves on to clarify that 'Arbitrators do not come from mars'. I think he is still in the ManLachs Mode.

12:02: The arbitrator' questions seem to be bothering the speaker which is probably why he just said 'anyway, that takes me to my next submission' in a not-so-subtle evasion of the questions.

12:04: The arbitrator seems slightly annoyed and is now speakig in a low threatening baritone. Recognizing this, the speaker now addresses the arbitrator's concerns and points them to the case study to try and substantiate his claim.

12:06: The arbitrator seems to still be skeptical of the speaker's arguments and is asking him to provide them with other reasons to accept his argument.

12:08: The speaker has finally given up and moved on to his next argument. He seems to have recovered from the way in which the previous argument was dealt with and is explaining the links in this argument with clarity.

Claimant Speaker 2

12:10: The speaker dives directly into her submissions and starts addressing the consequences of the respondents' allegations.

12:12: The arbitrator is questioning the fairness of the speaker's argument and it seems he has detected a hint of hypocrisy here as he raises his eyebrows and points out the actions of the claimants to the speaker.

12:14: The speaker addresses the arbitrator's questions with a smile.Meanwhile, the time keeper has raised both her hands to show the the time left as ten without once looking up from her phone. She seems completely engrossed in the stopwatch. 

12:15: The timekeeper has looked up and now the blogger is sure she is not sleeping.

12:16: The speaker has moved on to her second submission and is now punctuating speech with liberal use of her hands. Using a sixth sense she has also confirmed that 'the arbitrators have a question here'.

12:18: She directs the arbitrators to a certain provision and has provided them with decisions clearer than 'right there'. At this point, impressed or perturebed, her teammate sneezes the most silent sneeze of the tournament.

12:20: The arbitrators seem to be listening very intently to the submissions and ask her a question about the authority she cites. On listening to her answer, the arbitrator resumes the skills he is showing by rotating his pen 360º in his fingers without letting the pen drop.

12:22: The claimant is now not mincing words and makes a pointed allegation against the respondents. Immediately cognizant of this, the arbitrator asks her two questions in quick succession.

12:24: The timekeeper has showed the 'zero' (seeming very relived) and the arbitrator asks the speaker to answer the two questions and then proceeds to ask her two more (much to the chagrin of the timekeeper).

 Respondent Speaker 2

12:26: The speaker starts by enumerating the two arguments she shall make in her submissions. Her manner is poised and she moves smoothly from one link to another and also effectively points out various provisions to the arbitrators.

12:28: The arbitrators have begun their questioning. The speaker calms then down by stating that she 'understands their concerns' and shall 'effectively handle' them here. 

12:30: The arbitrators do not seem to be satisfie and are now stating that the clause she is basing her claim on has certain problems. In a great show of active listening the speaker sees 'that the arbitrators have two questions which are....'

12:32: After summarizing the arbitrator's questions, the speaker has finally moved on to her answer. Here the arbitrator seems to indicate that the actions of the respondents leave scope for questioning their intentions and that the speaker needs to further convince them of her claims.

12:34: This time when arbitrator asks a question he states what was the 'first part of the question' and what was 'second part of the question', presumably, to indicate that the speaker need not summarize his question. Alas! it was not to be. The speaker mentions 'regarding the first part of the question which is..'

12:36: 'I see you're concerned' but I (speaker) seems to be evasive and unable to relive the arbitrators of these concerns.

12:38: The arbitrator on the blogger's right is now having a back and forth conversation with the speaker where the speaker says  'I see you're concerned again'. Meanwhile, the arbitrator on the blogger's left is engrossed in a reading of some documents on his table, presumably, having given up hope of his 'concerns' being addressed.

12:40: The arbitrator on the left seems to have gained inspiration and now begins his questioning punctuated by his pen rotating skill. Speaker 2 has broken has just create the world record for the higghest number of 'I see you're concerned' in a single speech.

12:42: The speaker finally admits that she would 'like to answer their question'. Relief from 'concern' doesn't seem so far for the arbitrators now. The arbitrators finally say 'thank you' as their question was adequately answered.

Claimant Rebuttal

12:43: She starts her rebuttal by paying her respects to the authority cited. She refutes the claims made by the respondents by citing some of these respected authorities.

12:44:The speaker mixes up Madam counsel with madam arbitrators and quickly corrects herself before moving on to provide counters to the respondents' questions.

Respondent Sur-Rebuttal

12:45: The speaker states that the interpretation the respondents provide for the words in the provision is the correct one and the claimants seem to be misunderstanding the intention behind the provision.

12:46: The speaker uses the statements made in a certain case in order to refute the final argument made by the claimant and reiterates the basis behind her contention before resting her case.

Claimant Speaker 1
11:45 – The counsel begins his arguments confidently giving a brief factual summary on the
request of the arbitrators.
11:47 – The arbitrators ask for the bare text of certain statutes which after the counsel offers
after going through his documents.
11:49 – The arbitrators want the counsel to argue the second issue first, perhaps to catch the
counsel off guard.
11:52 – The arbitrators press the counsel on certain factual nitty-gritties and the counsel finds
himself backtracking.
11:54 – The arbitrators are bombarding the counsel with questions and are actually
elaborating on the law for the counsel to help him understand what issue they want addressed.
11:56 – The counsel seems to have regained his composure citing authorities to strengthen his
11:57 – Unfortunately, this does not last long as the arbitrators’ questions find the counsel in
a fix.
11:58 – The time ends and the counsel is granted an extension to respond to the questions
posed and briefly summarise the submissions for the second issue.
12:03 – The counsel quickly lays out his broad arguments while tactfully answering the
arbitrator’s questions.

Respondent Speaker 1
12:05 – The counsel starts off by laying out her roadmap with great clarity.
12:08 – The arbitrators question the counsel’s usage of authorities and its validity. This
discussion has been going on for a good 4 minutes.

12:11 – The counsel finally moves on to her next submission but is immediately faced by
questions from the arbitrators.
12:14 – A discussion on another question has been going on for 3 minutes. Maybe, the
counsel could consider moving on to her next submission?
12:16 – Finally, the counsel proceeds to the next issue. She confidently puts forth her
submissions relying on case laws.
12:18 – The time has ended but the questions haven’t.
12:22 – 4 minutes have passed and questions are still being thrown at the counsel.
12:26 – The counsel finally concludes her arguments. Pretty long speech, huh?

Claimant Speaker 2
12:27 – The arbitrators ask the counsel to spend 2 minutes on explaining the facts of the case
to them.
12:28 – The counsel requests to present a certain part of the factual summary at a later stage
which is agreed to by the arbitrators.
12:31 – The arbitrators guide the counsel to the factual matrix and start asking probing
12:35 – The arbitrators state that there are multiple authorities which go against the counsel’s
claims and ask him to justify his stance.
12:39 – The arbitrators’ questions seem to be never ending and they do not seem satisfied
with the counsel’s answers.
12:41 – The counsel is asked to move on to the next issue and the time has ended already.
The speaker is given an extension of 3 minutes to summarise his submissions on the second
12:48 – The counsel finally concludes his arguments. This is going to be a long round…

Respondent Speaker 2
12:49 – The speaker lays out her structure and is immediately asked a question by the
12:52 – The counsel is being bombarded with questions who attempts to answer them in
12:54 – The questions do not seem to end, so much so that the counsel is having difficulty in
addressing all of them.
12:56 – The arbitrators accuse the counsel of hypocrisy to which the counsel clarifies her
12:58 – The counsel uses statutes and case laws and the arbitrators seem convinced with this
line of argumentation.
13:02 – The arbitrators ask the counsel to refer them to the factual matrix and the time has
13:03 – Issue 2 has been untouched so far and the counsel receives a 3 minute extension to
put out her case on the same.
13:06 – Extension time has ended as well but the counsel continues with her submissions.
The timekeeper must be feeling pretty useless at this point in time…
13:08 – The counsel receives another extension of 2 minutes to conclude her submissions.
13:10 – It’s over, people.

Courtroom 8
Team 15C v. Team 19R

Claimant Speaker 1
11:51 The Speaker starts confidently and presents facts in a manner that is convenient to their
side. So far, the Arbitrators have posed no question.
11:54 The Speaker is not frustrated by the barrage of questions from the Arbitrator and is also
directing them to their written submission. However, the Tribunal is not convinced by any of
his answers.
11:58 Disappointed, he seeks permission to move to the next issue. He seems slightly more
successful than earlier to convince the judges.
12:02 Spoke too soon, he is unable to back his arguments with authority.

Respondent Speaker 1
12:04 The Speaker outlines his course of action clearly and seeks permission to move to his
12:07 The Tribunal is questioning the Speaker on specific articles but he has managed to
solve all their concerns so far.
12:10 The Speaker is referring the Arbitrator to their compendium continuously. They seem
convinced and ask him to proceed to the next issue.
12:14 He seeks permission to address an issue not raised by the Claimant and is allowed to do
so. The Claimants seem confused.
12:16 The Speaker manages to finish his submissions within time, and has presented and
convinced the Tribunal on most points.

Respondent Speaker 2
12:17 The Speaker starts well but ends up fumbling. He is not clear about facts and is
answering legal questions on the basis of facts, which don’t make sense either.
12:20 He is evading the questions and is unclear to whether a certain set of rules is a
convention or statute. He in unclear as to whether a certain convention even binding on the

12:22 He is citing cases to back his arguments but he Tribunal distinguishes the current
scenario with that case.
12:26 The Tribunal is starting to get agitated now as the arguments are not even logical
anymore. He is not able to state any precedent from any country.
12:31 With less than 2 minutes left, the Speaker moves to the next issue unable to convince
the Arbitrators on the first one. Either he is unable to comprehend the questions being posed,
or he is simply evading them. For the fourth time. He has no idea about minimum standards
or principles or where is it derived from.
12:34 The Speaker has run out of time but not motivation. He is persistent, I’ll give that to
him. Graciously, he has been given an extra minute to summarize remaining issues.
12:38 It has been four minutes, but he has only covered one sub issue. Time management
classes should be held before every moot.

Claimant Speaker 2
12:38 This speaker is like a fresh breath of air after being suffocated for long. She is poised,
confident and has good mannerism.
12:41 She has managed to counter cases presented by both the Respondent and the Tribunal.
She is well versed with the facts.
12:44 There is a difference between being a good orator and having good arguments. This
Speaker has managed both.
12:47 There seems to be confusion about definitions of some words in every round.
12:50 Time is up but the Speaker has conveniently ignored the court bailiff. She is moving on
to her next issue.
12:54 The Speaker disguises their inference as the facts but the Tribunal has corrected her.
12:59 It has been nine minutes since time was up. It feels like nine months. The Court Bailiff
has given up as well.
Claimant Rebuttal
12:31 The Speakers split the time equally and counter the Respondent’s argument well.
Respondent Sur-Rebuttal

12:33 The Speaker falls short of time but manages to counter some of the rebuttals raised.


Court Room 4

32C v. 9R

13:45: the claimant has begun by giving a road map of the arguments and states that his proposition in front of the tribunal will be three fold.

13:48: The speaker is speaking in a very regulated manner and his articulation is impressive as he successfully provides all the logical links in his argument. However, after a certain question by the arbitrator the speaker seems a little fazed.

13:50: The arbitrator asks the speaker to reiterate a very categorical claim he just made and it seems that it wasn’t very prudent on the speaker’s part to be so undiplomatic. The arbitrator is now quizzing the speaker about his argument and is urging him to rethink what he is saying.

13:51: In an attempt to defend his argument, the speaker is turning more and more passionate but he is also cognizant of the fact that the arbitrators are not convinced of his arguments. So, he very subtly gives up and moves on to his next issue.

13:54: The arbitrator is repeatedly trying to finish his question but the speaker’s sixth sense tells him that he already knows what the question will be and so, interrupts the arbitrator thrice because he is ‘just coming to it’ while the arbitrator tries to convey the mysterious ‘it’.

13:55: The arbitrator on the blogger’s right states that he is ‘unable to follow the argument’ and he seems to imply that the argumentation is shallow.

13:56: The arbitrator seems to be losing patience and is tired of the speaker’s evasive manner. Now he is explicitly asking the speaker to ‘answer the question first’ and is aiding the speaker to reach what he thinks is an obvious conclusion.

13:57: The arbitrators ask the speaker to summarize his arguments. But since a summary implies reiteration, the speaker is forced to reiterate the shallow argument he made earlier and is faced with another barrage of questions.

13:58: The arbitrator has asked the speaker to conclude in 20 seconds. But the speaker continues his arguments. At this point the arbitrator vehemently asks him to ‘CONCLUDE!’

Claimant Speaker 2

14:00: The speaker states that he shall ‘jump right into’ his submissions and taking a cue from him the arbitrators have jumped right into their questions within the first 10 seconds of the speaker’s submissions.

14:01: It seems that the speaker is afraid of facing the same fate as speaker 1 did (i.e. Being forced to ‘CONCLUDE’). This is why he has started speaking at a rather fast pace.

14:03: In order to convey his question better the arbitrator is forced to mention that ‘No one is going to post selfies, right?’. The speaker is left flabbergasted at this (probably because he might’ve posted a selfie).

14:04: The speaker’s manner is getting increasingly impassioned and he is using his hand movements to try and make arbitrators convinced of his submissions.

14:06: The arbitrator reiterates the prerequisites needed to accept the argument and ask the speaker to show how those requisites were fulfilled in the present case.

14:08: The speaker’s arguments, seemingly coherent are still unable to convince the tribunal. Even the timekeeper seems annoyed who has now started fiddling with the time cards while looking at some person of interest outside the courtroom window.

14:09: The counsel has finally moved on to his last submission and, for some reason has also started moving back and forth, similar to the back and forth the arbitrators are currently engaged in.

14:11: The speaker seems a little flustered by the detours he is forced to take due to the arbitrators’ questions. So, it seems, he has decided to stick to a plain reading of the documents in front of him. This is getting slightly monotonous which is why the blogger and the timekeeper have decided to converse using eyebrow raises.

14:14: The arbitrator states that he fails to see the point of the speaker’s claims and goes far enough to state that the actions taken by the respondent represent ‘the whole point’.

14:15: The arbitrator, seeing the futility of his endeavour to make the speaker get to the point, asks the speaker to move on to his last issue.

14:16: The ‘0’ time card is raised and thus, the speaker attempts to complete his submissions by adopting an ‘eminem-esque’ manner of speaking.

Respondent Speaker 1

14:18: The speaker states that he shall be making three submissions and enumerates the same. He then begins his first submission.

14:19: The arbitrator brings the speaker’s attention to the argument made by the claimants and ask him to counter it.

14:20: The arbitrators seem to be actively listening to the speaker’s dulcet voice and have not had any significant interruptions yet. The speaker moves from one facet of his argument to another and elicits nods from the tribunal.

14:22: With respect to the speaker’s next submission, the speaker is asked to elaborate the basis on which he bases his submission by citing provisions which support his claim.

14:24: The arbitrators seem to be significantly less concerned with respect to the respondents’ arguments when compared with the claimants’. He is successfully able to prove that a particular case is not applicable in the present situation as it is not analogous.

14:26: The speaker has a rather curious way of attaching the phrase ‘members of the tribunal’ whenever his speech would require a comma.

14:27: The speaker is calmly and effectively handling the wave of questions that is now being directed at him. He clarifies what provisions he mentioning and the arbitrators now demand a copy of this provision.

14:28: The handing over of the documents happens quite amicably as both the arbitrator and the speaker’s teammate show their ‘arm-stretch’ abilities.

14:29: The speaker reiterates that he , in fact, does ‘understand this question but…’ which is ignored by the arbitrator as he proceeds to pose the question again.

14:30: The speakers’ teammate is determined to encourage the speaker and has been trying to do so with his consistent nodding.

14:33: With very little time left, the speaker has started his concluding remarks.

Respondent Speaker 2

14:34: The speaker thanks his teammate for handing over the floor to him and enumerates the issues he will be dealing with.

14:36: The arbitrators ask the speaker to skip the issue he is currently addressing because the claimants and respondents are in agreement on the same. The speaker looks visibly disturbed at this. To add insult to injury, the arbitrator also states that the authority he is citing has no precedential value for this tribunal.

14:38: The arbitrator tries to direct the speaker towards another issue which he thinks is key in the present case. Much to the relief of his teammate, the speaker agrees to address this issue.

14:39: The speaker seems to be deviating again in an attempt to stick to the order he had decided earlier. Seeing this the arbitrator asks him to address the issues which were addressed by the claimant and provide counter arguments.

14:41: The speaker seems to have agreed to an assertion made by the arbitrator which implicates both the claimants and respondents. The other arbitrator finds the agreement to this assertion ‘absurd’.

14:42: The speaker is ‘really sorry’ because he is unable to ‘follow questions’. The arbitrator states this is because when the speaker is asked to address one issue, the speaker jumps into another.

14:44: The speaker mentions the existence of a test approved by several authorities but the arbitrators ask him to ‘skip the chain of people’ and get to the test itself.

14:46: The speaker is asked to list out the facts the tribunal need to take into account. The speaker states one standard and then proceeds to explain to the tribunal how to use it. At this point, the arbitrator asks him to ‘just LIST the standards’.

14:48: When the arbitrator refuses to accept the standard stated by the speaker, the speaker, rather smartly, provides another argument independent of the same standard.

14:49: The time allotted to the speaker is up and he begins to state what he shall do in the rebuttal but the the arbitrators advise him to start with the substance and omit the frills to save time.

14:50: The arbitrators state that the speaker need not recite his prayer as they already have the same on record.

Claimant Rebuttal

14:51: The claimant starts his rebuttals in a very crisp manner and moves from one rebuttal to another with admirable efficiency.

14:52: The second speaker also has three rebuttals which he states with great brevity and point by point refutes the respondents’ submissions. He has successfully finished his rebuttal in one single breath.

Respondent Sur-Rebuttal

14:53: The speaker adopts a slightly slow pace and effectively states all the provisions that act against the claimants’ arguments.

14:54: The second speaker starts his rebuttal by point out why the allegations and arguments made by the claimants are contradictory and uses hand actions to add force to his rebuttal.

TEAM 23C v. TEAM 10R

Claimant Speaker 1
01:33 – The counsel starts off by laying out her structure.
01:36 – The counsel makes use of statutes and case laws to strengthen her case. No questions
so far…
01:37 – The first question is up and the counsel responds confidently. Multiple questions
follow but the counsel tackles all of them effectively.
01:40 – The arbitrators seem impressed by the composed demeanour of the counsel.
01:42 – The counsel seeks permission from the tribunal and moves on to the next issue.
01:44 – This appears to be a cold bench. The arbitrators seem to prefer to hear the arguments
of the counsel out.
01:47 – Questions have begun but the time has ended. The counsel asks for an extension of 2
minutes to conclude her submissions but the arbitrators ask her to use this extension to
respond to their question.
01:50 – The counsel quickly summarises her submissions and concludes.

Claimant Speaker 2
01:50 – The counsel puts out her roadmap and starts with her constructives.
01:53 – The counsel must be pleased with the fact that she has not had to deviate from from
her plan of action. No questions as of yet.
01:55 – We have our first question coming up. This seems to have caught the counsel off
guard. The judges do not seem convinced with the counsel’s arguments.
01:58 – The counsel wishes to move on to the next issue but the arbitrators won’t let her to do
so. They keep on pressing on the same issue.

02:00 – The counsel has moved on to the next issue. The arbitrators are listening to her
arguments intently.
02:02 – A few questions were posed which were dealt with satisfactorily.
02:05 – The counsel summarises and concludes her submissions.

Respondent Speaker 1
02:06 – The speaker starts very confidently, making an immediate impact on the arbitrators.
02:08 – The questions posed by the arbitrators seemed to have unsettled the counsel. A good
2 minute discussion ensues following which the counsel moves on.
02:12 – The counsel has regained her composure. She makes an analogy referring to one of
the arbitrators. Wide grins follow but the counsel is asked to move on to better arguments.
02:16 – There is some confusion regarding the compendium submitted by the respondents.
The counsel continues with her submissions.
02:18 – The counsel concludes her submissions well before time and hands over to her co-

Respondent Speaker 2
02:19 – The counsel starts off with her submissions.
02:21 – 3 minutes have passed and the counsel has already concluded her submissions on the
first issue and moved on to the second issue.
02:23 – The arbitrators do not seem convinced with the responses provided by the counsel.
02:25 – The arbitrators press the counsel on finer legal nuances and the counsel seems to be
in a fix.
02:26 – The arbitrators point out contradictory claims made the counsel, causing the counsel
to clarify her stance.

02:29 – The questions have unsettled the counsel who requests to move on with her
submissions which the arbitrators permit.
02:31 – The counsel concludes her arguments well before time as well.

Courtroom 5
Team 13C v. Team 21R

Claimant Speaker 1
13:54 The Teams spent 10 minutes in merely deciding order of proceedings. Time
management class please. Speaker is off to a good start. She has subtly placed the burden on
the Respondents.
13:57 The Tribunal seems impressed by her mannerism. She is polite, composed and not
frustrated by the questions posed. She is citing cases that are applicable in this case as well,
and the Tribunal seem awe-struck by them.
14:00 However, they have pointed out holes in it. It falls in a different bracket. The Arbitrator
is well-versed with the facts and the law.
14:03 The Tribunal is slightly agitated by the illogical persistence of the speaker. However,
she has not lost her calm and there is no sign of frustration on her face. The Speaker has
realised the futility and proceeded to present a different line of argumentation.
14:07 After confusion about who goes next, the Speaker has continued with her next issue.
14:10 The Speaker is well prepared and has cases to back every argument. However, the
Tribunal is always one step ahead. None of her individual grounds stand the scrutiny of larger
14:13 The Tribunal is asking hypothetical questions, to which the Speaker remains firm and
does not budge from her stand despite the Arbitrators barraging her with questions.

Respondent Speaker 1
14:16 The Speaker starts by citing the incorrect side. However, in one minute, she rebuts all
the arguments raised by the Claimants. The Tribunal nods in agreement.
14:19 The Tribunal agrees with them and says none of the cases cited by the Claimants are
applicable in the present case. However, the Speaker concedes to an issue raised by the
14:22 She has extremely solid arguments but lacks confidence. However, she makes an
incorrect assumption about citizenship and nationality which leaves the entire room in shock.

14:25 She attempts to back her assumption, but the Tribunal is not convinced. She is citing
irrelevant cases and has no authority backing for her assumption.
14:28 The Arbitrator directs the Speaker to a certain fact to distinguish between two words.
However, the Speaker is able to counter the issue raised.

Respondent Speaker 2
14:32 The Speaker’s booming voice fills the whole room, yet it is unclear as he is going at
the speed of 100 miles per hour.
14:35 The Speaker is reading definitions from Black’s dictionary which immediately
backfires as the Arbitrator points out the flaw in it’s applicability.
14:39 The Speaker has only dug a deeper hole for himself. The Tribunal directs him to move
forward to the next issue,
14:42 Déjà vu, his next argument is rejected as well and he is asked to move to the next

Claimant Speaker 2
14:44 The Speaker has started by clearly outlining her sub-arguments. She is confidently
answering all questions by the Tribunal.
14:48 She has authority for all her arguments. The Tribunal is impressed but will not let her
go easily.
14:53 It is a smooth round with very little going to and fro. She understands almost all the
concerns raised by the Tribunal and concedes where she cannot.
14:56 She is distinguishing cases wherever any contrary cases are coming up.
15:00 She is not flustered by the endless questions being thrown at her.

Claimant Rebuttal 

15:22: The Speaker raises two arguments for first two issues but one of them is rejected by the Tribunal due to irrelevance. The Second speaker repeats her main submissions in the rebuttals as well.

Respondent Sur Rebuttal

15:24: The Speaker makes certain assumptions in her Sur Rebuttals but manages to counter the rebuttals raised. 


Semi-Final Round 1

Team 7C v 23R

Claimant Speaker 1

12:43: The Speaker lays down the roadmap for the remaining speaking time. The judges listen intenty, and choose not to interfere.

12:48: The questions have begun, and the speaker receives the questions rather coolly. The judges seem a little troubled, but probably not as much as to be unconvinced.

12:53: The Speaker seeks permission to move on to the second submission. The judges seem satisfied with the first submission.

12:55: The judges disagree with the structure as laid out for the second submission, and request the speaker to begin with his third point first- a point that the judges seem to be "puzzled" with. The Speaker, acknowledging the discomfort, offers to avoid relying on this point altogether. Hopefully the other two points will suffice.

12:58: The judge seems unsettled with the speaker's argument over the nationaltity of the arbitrator in question. Still, the Speaker receives the questions confidently. 

13:01: The judge questions whether the speaker's arguments, taken individually, are sufficient to prove his claim, or if the arguments are to be taken cumulatively. Not satisfied with the speaker's arguably evasive response, the judge plainly states: "Counsel, Yes or no"....that must've hurt...

13:04: The systematic coherence of the speaker's arguments has now come under scrutiny from the judges. The speaker's calm and confident tone suddenly seems to fade away. With that, (luckily?), the time elapses.

Respondent Speaker 1

13:07: The Speaker begins by dismissing the allegations raised by Side Claimant, but does so with astounding tranquility. She lays down the roadmap for the coming twenty or so minutes of her time.

13:11: The judges begin to intervene. The Speaker responds rather calmly. After a minute-long conversation, the judges look satisfied with the Speaker's arguments, nodding subtly as she cites several cases.

13:14: The judge makes a notably animated expression as the speaker introduces her next argument- clearly anxious as to how the argument will be laid out. 

13:15: As expected, the judge grills the speaker, interrupting her constantly. Almost convinced that the questions can have no satisfactory answer, the judge continues to shoot questions at the speaker without allowing her to complete a sentence. Surprisingly enough, the speaker's tranquil voice and tone, persist.

13:21: Regarding the argument on nationality, the judge seems uncomfortable with an assertion made by the speaker, and confirms the same. The speaker, citing a case that mentioned the "assertion" in those exact words, leaves the judge positively surprised. 

13:23: The speaker cites yet another case, but this time, to more limited success. The analogy drawn by the speaker seems unacceptable to the judges, one of whom claims to be "lost" with this connection. A clarification has been sought. The judge smirks as the speaker further clarifies...that can't be so good..

13:25: The judge requests the speaker to wrap up as the time elapses. 

Respondent Speaker 2

13:27: Taking minimal time to introducing herself, the speaker doesn't waste a moment to express her concern regarding issues with the Claimants' side, including bribery, causing poverty and distress. 

13:29: The judges, not wasting time either, interfere with the speaker's arguments immediately. They want the speaker to be a little more specific with her examples. 

13:31: The speaker attempts the address the judges' concerns with reference to the fact sheet- the speaker's specificity now seems rather impressive to the judges. The participants on the claimant's side understandably don't look so happy..

13:34: Respondents state that the country being represented is introducing new polices to counter corrupt practices and strengthen law enforcement...the judge responds with, "So what". Understandably, the speaker is caught off guard.

13:37: Intrigued with an argument made by the speaker, the judge indicates his wish for the Claimants to address the issue in their next speech. Participants on side Claimant calmly smile in response, obviously trembling from the inside.

13:39: Disagreeing with the speaker's intention to address "several" more points, the judge urges her to wrap up given the paucity of time. The speaker does so, efficiently.

13:41: Claimants want to reschedule their allotted time for rebuttals. The judges ask the respondents if they are okay with this re-allotment, who in turn, reject the request. The competition was always intense....it's savage now.

Claimant Speaker 2

13:43: After a cunningly subtle death stare, the Claimant regains his serenity to begin with the penultimate speech of the round, before rebuttals.

13:45: The judge, dissatisfied already, points out an apparent contradiction in the speaker's assertions. The Speaker in response attempts to reconcile his statements.

13:49: The credibility of the bid in dispute has come under scrutiny by the judges, who want to know how much of the amount was given for "entertainment". The speaker fumbles, clearly not expecting such meticulous nit-picking. Although, what else did they expect...it's not prelims anymore.

13:51: The claimant seeks to rely on a case that the judge immediately realizes is a fundamental case relied on by side respondent as well. The judge seeks a clarifciation as to how both sides are relying on the same case, and so confidently. Raising an eyebrow at first, the judge seems pleased with the speaker's response...at least for now.

13:55: The speaker seeks permission to move on to the next submission.

13:56: The speaker confidently cites a few cases to substantiate his claim. The judge takes it upon himself to top this confidence, by showing to the speaker, how all of the cited cases are differentiable on material facts. The speaker fumbles, probably not expecting such legitimate judges. Once again though, it's the semi final...what do you expect..

13:59: The judges seem rather unsettled with the claimant's argument, that since everyone was breaking the (arguably obsolete) law, their violation of the same law is justified. 

14:01: The tribunal finds it "difficult to accept" that non-enforcement of a law for a long time, disallows the state from enforcing it suddenly. The speaker, however, sticks to his stand assuredly.

14:03: The judge seems now to turn a little aggressive, as if on a different plane from the speaker, altogether. A slightly unfortunate time for the twenty minutes to run out, the judge urges the speaker to wrap up in a few seconds. 

Respondent Speaker 2

14:06: The question of the intentions behind the provision of a "fancy meal" is being debated between the speaker and the tribunal. The latter does not seem convinced by the argument that an expensive meal amounts to a bribery in kind.

14:08: Realizing the shortage of time, the judge requests the speaker to follow a particular structure and refer to certain specific issues in order.

14:11: The judge explicitly states his disagreement with the speaker's interpretation of a particular text, and urges the speaker, passionately rather, to address his concerns. 

14:13: The constant interruption only proves to reinforce this disagreement. Now turning colloquial, the judge asks why the size of the meal should be a material consideration.

14:15: Concluding her submissions, the speaker ends her speech, urging the tribunal to rule in favour of Side Respondent.

Claimant Rebuttal

14:15: Picking up several points in turn, the speaker attempts to rip the Respondents' arguments to shreds.

14:17: The judge interrupts to correct the speaker's pronunciation of a particular word, ruthlessly killing the claimants' buzz.

Respondent Sur-Rebuttal

14:19: The speaker attempts to portray how each particular case-law questioned by side Claimant, is in fact applicable.

14:21: The time for sur-rebuttal runs out, concluding along with it, the Semi Final Round.



Semi-Finals 2

15C(Applicant) v. 1R (Respondents)

12: 45 The judges begin by asking whether a consensus was reached between the two sides regarding the order of the issues. There isn't agreement in this regard. The judges then decide unanimously that the teams should present the first two issues first and then the remaining two issues. The speaking order would be Speaker 1(Applicants), then Speaker 1 and Speaker 2(Respondents) followed by Speaker 2(Applicant) and then Speaker 2(Respondent), and finally rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.

Claimant Speaker 1

12: 49 The speaker is interrupted by the arbitrator before he has been able to build up a flow. The judges want him to address the merits first. The speaker calmly attempts to answer the question and is immediately faced with further questions from the judges. The speaker guides the arbitrators with a composed head and the judges seemed convinced.

12: 52 As the speaker continues with his arguments, he is interrupted almost instantly with more questions. He tries to answer the first question on two levels. His answer to the next question with reference to the timeline is rejected by the arbitrators and he makes an alternate argument. The arbitrators and speaker go back and forth on the issue of reasonable apprehension. The judge asks whether that is the only argument the claimants have on that issue and speaker attempts to present alternate submissions.

12: 57 The speaker moves to the next issue after asking whether the judges have any questions on the first issue. After a brief moment of continuity, the speaker is asked more questions which he replies to using caselaws. Further clarifications are sought by the judges based on facts and the speaker doesn't appear to have any problem in answering them.

13: 02 One of the judges has a problem with the submission being made by the speaker. He tries to trap the speaker by twisting the argument made by him. The speaker smiles and states that his submission is quite different from what the judge inferred. The arbitrator asks whether it’s possible to give up nationality at all to which the speaker responds in affirmative and continues by differentiating based on standard. Another judge asks which caselaw best supports the standard purported by the claimants. The speaker responds and is further questioned on the facts of the case. The arbitrator follows it up with another pointed question to which the speaker has no response. For the first time in the round, the speaker looks troubled. He is asked to move to his next submission as he has no further arguments. He is asked to summarize as he is out of time. After a few more questions and answers, the speaker finishes.

Respondent Speaker 1

13: 08 The speaker begins with explaining the issues he will be dealing with and the time distribution flawlessly. He lays down a roadmap of his first issue and is interrupted by a question from the arbitrator.

13: 11 The judge asks the speaker to move to his first submission. The respondent address the argument made by the claimants and attempts to counter them. The judge isn’t convinced and clarified the stance taken by the claimant and asks for a policy based answer to the claimant’s points. The judge asks about the drafting history which the speaker isn’t aware of.

13: 12 The judge asks about the presupposition of the submission made by the speaker before he makes his argument. More questions are asked about the relationship and bias of the arbitrators. There is a flurry of questions but the speaker doesn’t seem fazed and keeps answering the questions in a cool manner without once cutting off the judges. Finally, the judges seem to agree with the respondents and permit the speaker to move to his next argument.

13: 16 The speaker tries to take down the arguments made by the claimants by referring to the facts, and is asked where exactly those facts are located. The speaker who seems to know the case sheet like the back of his hand swiftly guides the judges to the relevant paragraph. As the speaker is using authority to substantiate his contention, he is asked about the value of the authority and tribunal mentioned, to which he responds accordingly.

13: 20 To answer the next questions raised by the judges, the speaker uses the judge’s own arguments in his favour. The speaker successfully differentiates the facts of the present dispute from the general issue of citizenship and bias in arbitration. He is asked a long and complex question as soon as he is finished with his point. The speaker in his usual demeanour that he has maintained throughout answers the question with ease. He is asked about the standard for disclosure and standard of disqualification. He is asked to go to the authority backing his contention. His co-counsel flips through their notes as he continues to address the constant inquiries of the arbitrators. They aren’t too convinced with his argument and seek further clarifications which the speaker provides swiftly. The speaker is asked to conclude and he gives the floor to his teammate.

Respondent Speaker 2

13: 27 The speaker begins and is interrupted rather quickly by the judges who want to understand the case being made by the speaker. The judges ask whether the argument being made is jurisdictional or merits-based. The speaker has some problems with understanding what the judges are looking for, but ultimately clarifies his stance which is a merits-based approach.

13:31 The speaker addresses the issue of investment by making the claim of illegality. The judges want to know whether illegality is the only angle he is challenging the issue from. After the speaker’s response, the judges want him to go to the facts which he accordingly does. The arbitrators seem to be putting pressure on the speaker, but he waits patiently. He falters a bit in his brief answer and is instantly asked another question on his authorities. The co-counsel looks for the same as the speaker continues.

13:38 The speaker refers to the preamble of the convention and is questioned about its persuasive value. The judge further asks whether it is the investment itself which was illegal as it wasn’t made in accordance with law. The speaker responds by referring to the relevant paragraph of the case brief. One of the arbitrators seems unconvinced with the response made by the speaker on a question of reinvestment and applicability of the treaty. The speaker guides the judges by referring to different articles from the treaty. The judge asks for authority on the answer of a question raised by him and the speaker promptly mentions the relevant statute but more questions follow based on the meaning of ‘usage’.

13: 44 The judges realize the overshoot in the time limit and grant another minute to the speaker to summarize. The judges nod in agreement as the speaker concludes.

Applicant Speaker 2

13: 46 The speaker starts confidently, introducing the issues to be addressed by her. The arbitrators ask why the speaker wishes to argue about jurisdiction when the respondents haven’t made a claim under it. The speaker answers by saying that they want to point out the failure on part of the other side in differentiate between admissibility and jurisdiction.

13: 50 The speaker talks about inequality in bargaining power and answers the questions raised by one of the arbitrators promptly. The judges have a problem with the speaker making arguments that do not address the points raised by respondents. The judge asks a question about the relevance of conduct and illegality and the speaker gives an answer that the judge isn’t satisfied with. The judges keep asking questions and the answers don’t seem to convince them much. Finally, the judge tries to assist the speaker by asking her about a relevant case. The speaker recognizes the case being referred to differentiates that from the present matter.

13: 56 The speaker talks about the evidence being prima facie and not clear and convincing. The judge attempts to grill the speaker with a new question. The answer doesn’t seem too satisfactory to the judge as he shakes his head in disagreement. The speaker seems to be little flustered due to the continuous inquiries being posed by the arbitrators. She doesn’t seem to back down and keeps answering the questions with the confidence she began with. The judges, finally seem to be in agreement and ask for some authority that the speaker is quick to provide.

14:01 The judges smirk as they try to trick the speaker into conceding illegality, to which she smartly responds to by saying it’s an arguendo and their initial contention remains intact. After a brief pause, the speaker moves to the next issue. She deals with a few quick questions and poses her argument with a renewed energy. The judges intervene eventually and ask the speaker who appears to be mixing different actions together, to address and analyse them one by one.

14: 05 The speaker makes claims of corruption and harassment and follows them up with a relevant precedent that the judge asked for. The judges ask more questions about expropriation and due process. With time running out, the speaker answers the questions being raised by the judges with the clear conviction in her arguments. The speaker realizes she’s out of time and asks permission to sum up her submission. On being granted the same she begins her summary and answers a few questions raised by the judges.

Respondent Speaker 2

14: 11 Responding to the claims of the applicant, the speaker refers to the relevant paragraph in the case brief. The judge gives the benefit of doubt to the respondent in the absence of some facts as he asks the speaker to continue. The judge asks whether there is a necessity of a request of a warrant and whether the lack of the same excuses the absence of due process on part of the respondent. The speaker’s answers lead to the judges asking more questions about due process and a warrant. After all questions are answered, the speaker is asked to move to the next allegation.

14: 17 There is some confusion regarding the facts related to the appeal. The judges seem to have caught the speaker off-guard as they point to a line in the fact sheet that contradicts the claim made by the respondents. The speaker regains his stability after a few problems and continues to answer the plethora of questions the arbitrators have. The judge refers to the sections of a clause and raises a question about violation based on arbitrariness of a law that was made. The speaker refers to the case-brief and clarifies that there was no actual violation. The judge asks about reporting of leakage and how it isn’t arbitrary to expect compliance in the absence of notice. The speaker refers to one of the reports and the judges quickly point out that it was in fact a report of the inspection officer. The speaker again refers to the facts and multiple court cases. The judge states that the respondents have “shot themselves in the foot” by making that claim. The speaker refers to the rationale used by the judge in the very judgement. Even though the judges don’t seem entirely satisfied, the speaker is asked to conclude.


14:25 The 2nd speaker raises rebuttals in relation to non-performing assets and judiciary of Napertania.  and legitimate expectations. The speaker moves on to make arguments related to the preamble of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and the ICSID convention. The third contention relates to solicitation.


14: 28 The speaker addresses the rebuttals of the other side in the order in which they were made. He first addresses the contention relating to the judiciary of Napertania and the persuasive value of its judgements. He then moves on to the matter of change in regime and the Global Economic Crisis. Thirdly, he raises the point relating to information of regulatory framework and legitimate expectations. Judge interrupts to cross-check some facts after which the speaker concludes with the point of onerous reporting requirement being one of many violations made by the claimant

14: 32 After what was a gruelling, tense, and closely contested round with all four speakers showcasing performance worthy of a semi-final, the teams leave the room for the judges to do the extremely difficult job of deciding which was the better team.


C13 v. R15


Everyone’s seated in the ballroom of the Taj hotel and we are ready to begin the final round of NLSTIAM 2018!  

Applicant Speaker 1

19:00 The speaker begins with the issue relating to the appointment of a ‘biased’ arbitrator.

The speaker explains the situation that her client is faced with and the ‘injustice’ she has suffered. The speaker moves on to list three cases to support her contention relating to the relationship between the adjudicatory authority and arbitrator and the requirement of a neutral third party to uphold the high standard of impartiality. The judge asks what is the factual basis of the claim made by the speaker. The speaker responds by saying that even if the claim is based on a rumor, it’s still enough to satisfy her argument. She cites authority to support her submission as the judges listen patiently. The speaker reiterates the point of the neutrality of the third party. She also mentions that the principle of natural justice saying that justice must seem to have been done would be violated due to the apprehension of impartiality arising from the possibility of the rumor being true. The questions from the judges are brief and are elaborately handled by the speaker, whose confidence appears to be unhinged.

19:08 The judge ask a question related to the power of the party and the speaker has an answer ready for it which she delivers without any hesitation. The speaker asks whether the arbitrators are convinced with her submission and one of the judges states that he isn’t. He has a problem with the absence of any facts which clearly show that there was any bias due to the mere fact that the two attended the same university.

19:11 The speaker moves on to the next submission relating to the disqualification of Ms. Annie as an arbitrator. The speaker lays out two grounds on which the disqualification which should be taken both individually and cumulatively. She further explains the standard required to prove the claimant’s contention. She provides caselaws and conventions to support her assertion and moves to the first ground. The first ground is of nationality; The speaker invites the arbitrators’ attention to a paragraph in the case brief. However, before she could complete, she was interrupted by a judge who asked her whether she drew a distinction between citizenship and nationality. The speaker in her usual confident manner gives a detailed and comprehensive answer to the question.

19:16 The speaker is faced with a question from a judge who has been silent thus far, and she seems to be ready with an answer backed by both logic and substantial authority. She further clarifies the reliability of her authorities. The judge asks a factual question as to the long period of 30 years that has passed since the High School days of Ms. Annie. The speaker maintains her composure and continues to answer the different questions that are coming from a bench that has been relatively silent so far. The judge asks a question based on the personal opinions of an arbitrator and the speaker answers them well enough.

19:22 The speaker moves to her next argument relating to the non-disclosure of circumstances by Ms. Annie. With less than two minutes of extra time remaining, the judge asks another question and the speaker wraps up her submission after answering the same.


Respondent Speaker 1

19:25 The speaker begins by introducing himself and his co-counsel. He goes on to layout the roadmap of his submissions and moves to the first in the structure. The speaker points out the claims made by the applicant and explains the requirements they need to fulfil. The speaker states that the article of the ICSID convention cannot be done away with. The judge intervenes with a clarification based on the convention. The speaker clarifies by stating that their argument is based on article 58 and the judges seem to be in agreement. A judge instantly asks a question following this and the speaker attempts to answer the same. He falters with his words but regains his stability and uses the same authority relied on by the applicant and seems to have satisfied the arbitrators on this point.

19:30 The speaker addresses the rumor but is interrupted by the judge who asks him to go back to the previous claim. He asks a pointed question related to article 58, and the speaker instantly answers the same. The speaker cites a caselaw having similar facts to substantiate the point of attending the same university not inducing bias. As the judges don’t have any further questions, they ask him to move to the second issue.

19:33 The speaker brings up the requirement of manifest lack of bias to disqualify an arbitrator which establishes a higher standard than the one proposed by the claimant. The speaker moves on to using the facts to prove that there is no perceived bias on part of Ms. Annie. The judge asks a question relating to nationality and citizenship. The speaker answers by differentiating between dual nationality and dominant and effective nationality. The judge mentions the second world war and how attached a person is to his/her nationality regardless of citizenship. The speaker clarifies that his contention is based on Ms. Annie’s affiliation which lies with United Kingdom in the present case. He also cites a case having synonymous factual matrix and substantiates his argument. He answers another question based on the facts which he seems to know inside out.

19:40 Another question from the judge leads the speaker to move to his next submission related to the ‘brother’ and ‘clout’. The arbitrator asks a simple question relating to the brother-sister relationship, which is answered by the speaker by referring to the requirement of a high standard.

19:43 To counter the claim of the blog post written 30 years ago, the speaker takes the example of the Bombay High Court where a judge reversed his own judgment one year later. The arbitrator mentions supreme court and Madras High Court judgments, challenging the test that the respondents are relying upon. The speaker calmly answers the questions and is faced with a different issue. The question is about a continuing duty of independence and impartiality. The speaker mentions the time freeze of the case brief which the judges smirk at and call an ‘easy way out’. With just one minute, remaining the speaker summarizes his argument in a concise manner.


Respondent Speaker 2

19:49 The speaker wastes no time and directly moves to the issues she’ll be dealing with. She starts her first submission by stating the relevant facts. She lays out the two-level structure of her submission. Before moving to her first argument she clearly clarifies a doubt a judge had relating to estoppel. She talks about the standard of proof mentioning monopoly over evidence and incentives of potential corrupt actors. A judge asks about the applicability of certain facts to which the response is a vehement yes. She continues with her clear and crisp demeanor and guides the bench to the relevant facts in the case study.

19:54 The judge asks a question about the one-month advance notice and the speaker has an answer ready. While answering a follow up question, she is interrupted by a judge who inquires about any authority which favors her claim. The speaker answers the question to the apparent satisfaction of the judges. The judge asks whether the flight ticket qualifies as a bribe and the speaker answers in the affirmative.

19:58 The speaker cites a case to support her claim relating to certain ‘red flags’ of corruption. After she includes more authority, the judge ask a brief question which she quickly and effectively deals with. She moves on to the facts of the case, but her time runs out. She asks for an extra 30 seconds to complete her argument which the arbitrators graciously grant.


Applicant Speaker 2 

20:01 The speaker begins with mentioning the relevant facts of her issue. She talks about the fair and equitable standard given in the BIT. To respond to the allegations made by the other side, the speaker lays out her structure of arguments to follow. Moving to the first, she invites the attention of the bench to the convention and mentions the corresponding facts to prove her point. She moves to the second point of burden of proof lying on the respondents and the standard of the same being high. She mentions another ICSID decision to strengthen her argument and continues to explain the logic of her claim. She seems to have the bench spellbound as they have been silent so far, listening patiently. Finally a judge intervenes seeking a clarification, The speaker has no problems in dealing with the same. There is a follow up question by another judge. To answer the same, the speaker differentiates between the present dispute and the Uzbekistan case.

20:10 The speaker now starts with the claim of no violation of any law and solicitation by her client. She points to the absence of any fact which could go against her client. She justifies the appointment of lobbyists and payment of heavy fees to them in least developed countries as there is a lack of experience in that area. The judges remain silent as the speaker continues explaining each of her point and stating sufficient authority to cement her arguments, leaving little room for challenges.

20:14 The speaker goes on to the argument of lack of locus on part of the respondent, as there was participation in the allegedly illegal activity by the respondents themselves. She mentions a very pertinent caselaw. Her time appears to be running out and the judges ask her to the next issue. The arbitrator instantly asks a question which the speaker deals with easily by explaining the violation of minor laws unrelated to the investment. Moving to her final submission, she talks about the fair and equitable standard, asserting that the responsibility of the respondents is high based on customary international law. She proposes an alternate interpretation of a treaty to answer a question posed to her.

20:20 She cites a professor to support the contention of requirement of due process even in a case of illegality in the actions of the first party. She asserts that due process was not followed by the respondent in not giving due notice. The judge asks a fact based clarification which the speaker promptly responds to. With very little time remaining, the speaker is faced with more questions which she attempts to answers. She finally seeks permission to move to her final submission which is about judicial misconduct, denial of security and harassment of her client.


Respondent speaker 2

20:26 The speaker presses the issue of the larger picture as she paints a factual picture to base her arguments on. The judge interrupts with a question about oil spills. She answers it and moves to her submission. She talks about the balance between environment legitimate expectations and state’s actions in its own interest. She comes to the snap audit and talks about probable cause and the substantive correctness of the snap audit. She mentions a case having analogous facts to strengthen her claim of lifting the corporate veil in the larger public interest.

20:30 She then moves to the search and seizure conducted. She states that the facts don’t conclusively establish the absence of a warrant, and in any case, it would still not make the search unjustified due to the chance of evidence being destroyed. Not being questioned on the issues, she moves to the next submission related to the alleged due process violation. She answers the questions of the judges almost impeccably and moves to responding to the next contention.  

20:35 Addressing her own submission regarding the violation of kerosene regulations by the claimant, the speaker is questioned by the judges about the same. The speaker answers all questions to the judges’ conviction by elaborating on the rationale and facts on record. She moves on to the concluding submission.




Applicant Speaker 1   

20:37 The speaker has four points of rebuttals. The first relates to certificates of nationality and citizenship and residence not proving nationality. The next point relates to effective and dominant nationality and how it doesn’t come into the picture as the issue is not between UK and Napertania. The third point relates to the chairman deciding within 30 days. And finally the fourth point dealt with obligation to disclose on part of Ms. Annie.


Applicant Speaker 2 

20:39 The speaker begins with the point of environmental protection and cutting down of leakage to under 5%. Her second point is about hiring of inspecting officer and filing of compliance reports. Her third and final point relates to wrongful tax payments and tax incentives given by the oil ministry.


Sur-rebuttals Respondent


Respondent Speaker 1 

20:42 The speaker addresses all the points raised by the applicant in the order in which they were raised. He first asserts that the test relied upon by the other side wouldn’t apply. He then moves to the point of dominant and effective nationality argument citing the same judgment he did before and also basing it on the ICSID convention. Finally, he counters the point of chairman deciding not in 30 days but in more than 6 months.


Respondent Speaker 2 

20:45 The second speaker deals first with the compliance report, secondly with how sustainable standards weren’t followed and finally with how the regime change made relooking into all investments necessary.

20: 48 With all the arguments completed, the judges will now deliberate on the round. It’s safe to say that everyone is awaiting the results with both eagerness and anxiety alike.


No comments yet: share your views