For questions or comments, please contact .
|
Jessup Video Clips
|
Oralists should provide a “road map” or outline of each submission they will address. The road map provides structure to the argument and the legal basis for each claim.
|
|
When presenting an argument, oralists should remember the IRAC method – present the Issue, identify the Rule, describe the Application, and Conclude. It is important to keep this in mind even when being asked multiple questions from the bench.
|
|
The ICJ is a court of law so when answering questions leading with a point of law is always best.
|
|
A Jessup team's oral arguments are not limited to the arguments made in its memorial. Jessup teams should be prepared for questions from the bench that go beyond the scope of their memorial.
|
|
In the Jessup Competition, judges commonly ask why the ICJ has jurisdiction over a particular case.
|
|
Jessup judges often test an oralist’s ability to move from issue to issue while maintaining the structure of the road map and managing time. It is important to recognize appropriate opportunities to move the argument along and bring judges back to the road map.
|
|
If an oralist does not understand a particular question, simply ask the judge to rephrase the question or provide clarification. It is better to be honest with the Court about a misunderstanding than answer a question that he or she does not comprehend.
|
|
At some point during the oral argument, an oralist will have to transition to the next argument. An oralist should recognize when the first issue has been adequately addressed or when he or she has spent too much time on the first issue. At this point the oralist should make the transition or ask the Court for permission to move on to another issue.
|
|
Oralists are often asked multiple, and even simultaneous, questions which are followed by comments from the bench. This is called an “active bench” and it is important for oralists to stay calm, respectful, flexible and focused.
|
|
Jessup judges will often ask about a specific point of law or fact in the Compromis. An oralist should explicitly cite the point of law or paragraph in the Compromis that supports the oralist's argument. This demonstrates a mastery of the law and the facts.
|
|
An oralist often runs out of time before getting to the conclusion. When the bailiff indicates the time is up, the oralist should immediately stop talking and ask the President for permission to finish the point and conclude. If permitted, the oralist should finish the point, thank the Court and sit down.
|
|
The Compromis often contains apparent conflicts between arguments from oralists representing the same side. Oralists should be prepared to address such conflicts and inconsistencies.
|
|
A standard introduction from the first oralist includes names of both oralists, the side they represent, a brief outline of the submissions each Agent will make and the allocation of time. The second oralist should introduce himself or herself and briefly outline the submissions he or she will make.
|
|
When the first oralist is asked about his or her Co-Agent’s argument, the question should be answered briefly and the oralist should state that the Co-Agent will address the question fully. However, when the second oralist is asked about arguments from the first oralist, he or she is expected to answer the question fully with points made earlier by the Co-Agent.
|
|
In most Jessup Competitions, each team will receive their opponent’s memorials before the oral rounds begin. It is important to read these memorials to learn your opponent’s style and substance. Sometimes opponent memorials also reveal a line of argument or a source that your team has not yet discovered. Oralists may refer to their opponent’s memorial in oral argument.
|
|
A good rebuttal contains a few short arguments which are directly responsive to specific points raised by the Respondent. A rebuttal may not introduce arguments that are outside the scope of the Respondent’s main pleading.
|
|
The Respondents should always pay attention to the Applicant's arguments. If the Applicant's arguments are incorrect, the Respondent should dispute or clarify the facts or law and explain why the Respondent's version is correct.
|
|
Respondent oralists should specifically cite to Applicant’s arguments when presenting the arguments and setting up their road map.
|
|
A good surrebuttal contains a few short arguments which are directly responsive to specific points raised by Applicant during rebuttal. The surrebuttal may not raise points outside the scope of rebuttal.
|
|
|
|