Chaitanya Safaya’s comment has bought my budding dilemma to a sharp focus.
For the last month, the most popular post on my blog has been my post about the new 2009 Jessup problem. It’s getting a lot of views, and I suspect I know what people want.
They’re looking for insight into the law and facts of the problem.
That’s my dilemma.
Under the rules and regulations of the Jessup, teams are meant to work through the problem themselves. They are expected to think and play around with the facts and the law themselves and come to a coherent argument on what the law should be.
I don’t want to help people subvert those challenges, and find easy answers (that may well be wrong!) in my analysis of the facts of the problem and the legal avenues down which I take that analysis.
I don’t want to do their thinking for them.
On the other hand, I’m not a competitor. I’m not bound to the rules of the competition. Neither am I officially affiliated with any team this year in any capacity.
I’m a lone wolf who looks at the Jessup problem because it intrigues me to learn something new about the boundaries and limitations of international law, and the cracks in the law that are highlighted by Jessup.
There are other people out there who could benefit from a third voice thinking about the problem and I’m sure I would gain a lot from discussing aspects of the problem with all those who visit, and like Chaitanya Safaya would be willing to share their own insight, research and benefit. I’m thinking of practice judges, coaches and others like me who enjoy the challenges that the Jessup brings.
The question for me boils down to this:
Does the act of blogging the Jessup problem, the law, the facts and their interaction, undermine or otherwise diminish the true joy, challenge and value of the Jessup?
Is it in harmony with the true spirit of a great mooting competition?
My own inclination is that I would be just another secondary source. One amongst many. That I specifically deal with the problem, can be balanced if I don’t deal with particular facts of the Compromis, just the law. Teams would then be free, even if they read this, to decide whether and how they should use the information.
Does that sound about right? What do others think?