The compromis for the Phillip C. Jessup Moot 2009 was released on the 30th of September, kicking of another Jessup season.
Today I found the time to read the compromis and form a first impression, as well as to map out the issues that seem to lie embedded in the declarations, so that the mish mash of facts can be honed towards a target.
The compromis sets out the dispute between the neighbouring states of Alicanto and Ravisia, and concerns a military operation undertaken by Ravisian forces, first under a UN peacekeeping mandate and then unilaterally, to enforce the peace in the Northeast province of Alicanto, which, under the threat of ethnic strife and religious factionalism, threatened to break down into genocide.
My initial impression is that its factually simpler then the previous year, and organised in a way that’s easier to get your head around. There are no obvious bits of detail where the strict text of the compromis might become a binding limitation, though there are certainly areas where this straitjacket could emerge.
My first impressions are that it looks like a mishmash of Afghanistan (ethnic Hazara / Pashtun clash, religious fundamentalism, women’s rights), Pakistan (Colonialism, Dead PM, Northwest Frontier Province, religious fundamentalism, foreign armed intervention, perverted peacekeepers) and the Balkans (genocide, humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping forces, expiring mandates).
In the midst of all of this is a weird issue of the obligation of confidentiality in international law and the internal procedure of the UNSC / SG to be referred to the ICJ as well which I imagine has interesting implications aspects that are not immediately obvious. Certainly I don’t have a clue where to even start with this one.
Overall it looks to be a promising problem, with depth and variety in the problems in terms of legal analysis, even if it does look factually familiar.
The ICSID Blog 
I am sure you would have worked on this one by now, but in case you havent, for the last issue of the jessup comprimis about the power of the ICJ to disclose evidence lookup the 2007 decision of the ICJ on Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Bosnia v. Serbia)
RGDS
Chaitanya Safaya
[…] 2009 : All In? Chaitanya Safaya’s comment has bought my budding dilemma to a sharp […]
Dear Chaitanya Safaya,
Kindly send me your e-mail address or any other means to contact you on the my mail address [provided above]
Thank You
LOL!!! I dont know how to react to this one.
P.S. Dear student since you havent given your email despite the “[provided above]”….. here’s mine: chaitanya[dot]safaya[at]gmail[dot]com
hey guys hope you are already doing hard research work and before i forget if you have any commentaries on the jdgmt in Bosnia v Serbia please i will be glad. you can send to my email or this spot. thanks
I have decided to leave your comment up unchanged (well except for combining your two comments into one). However I feel obligated to remind you of the Jessup Rules which prohibit outside assistance to teams.
2.4 Outside Assistance to Teams
2.4.1 General Rule
Each Team must research, write, edit, and develop its own legal and
factual arguments without the assistance of persons who are not
members of the Team.
Dear Mtalib
I take full responsibility for the mess at hand. You reminding me of the rules makes me feel a bit guilty. Due to certain reasons I am no longer taking part in Jessup as a team member from my Law School. But You see I still want to contribute to Jessup some how, I just dont know how.
I think I might have a solution. Even though ILSA prohibits outside assistance it has however introduced the system of team advisors. The rules have consolidated Coaches and faculty advisors into the term team advisor. As per the rules a :
“Team Advisor” means an individual, such as a coach or other advisor, who at any time during the competition year has responsibility for organizing, advising, or training a Team, whether or not a member of the faculty of the institution represented by the Team.
So I could still assist the like of “student” and “gumisiriza” and all they have to do is register me as a team advisor for their team while registering with ILSA. What a team advisor can do is specifically provided for in the rules
Rule 2.4.3
…Team Advisors may provide advice to a Team, provided such advice is limited to:
(a) general instruction on the basic principles of international law;
(b) general advice on research sources and methods;….
What’s you opinion. do you think I could advice them if they register me as a team advisor.
RGDS
Chaitanya Safaya
CS, there’s no issue of responsibility so don’t be hard on yourself.
I believe that you’re well placed to advise a team and help them if you are officially listed as a team advisor. That would work and I believe complies with the Jessup Competition rules.
I would caution you though as many teams will not like their advisers working for more than one team because it can cause conflicts later. You should clarify this with the teams.
I hope it works out okay either way and that you’re able to give someone the benefit of your experience and insight.
I recently stumbled upon what ILSA calls as absentee coach or a remote coach where the only contact between the coaches and the teams is via the internet.
http://www.ilsa.org/pubs/fojnlcurrent.pdf [see Page 31 on an article about the working of the system in russia]