Room - A

Appellant

Speaker 1

The first speaker was interjected by the bench in the very first minute of his
speech. He tackled the first wave of questions with confidence. He was able
to raise his issues without having to even glance at his notes, which was
admired by the judges. However, the judges often disagreed with the
speakers reasoning and asked the speaker to move over to the next
argument. The Bench also asked the speaker to elaborate on the sources of
law.

Speaker 2

Before the speaker could advance his contentions, the bench raised many
theoretical questions which were answered satisfactorily by him. He also
mentioned several laws which were centered around the environment.
Clearly, the speaker was well-versed with the facts of the matter as he was
able to tie them up effortlessly with his arguments. The bench also asked the
speaker which book on International Law had he been referring to.

Respondent

Speaker 1

The speakers well- structured arguments caught the attention of the judges.
However, her excessive hand movements were looked down upon. Even after
the bench repeated the question, the speaker was unable to give an answer
that could satisfy the bench. She also tactfully avoided the next question
regarding intention by re-stating the facts and giving examples where the
intention wasnt an important factor. However, the speaker made up for it by
citing a multitude of cases which impressed the bench.

Speaker 2

The speaker couldnt match the confidence displayed by the other speakers.
She fumbled with her words every now and then. She was unable to draw a
connection between pertinent facts of the case. The bench then moved over
to question the protection of migratory species and when the speaker didnt
have an answer, the researcher was asked to answer it. When the bench was
still not satisfied, the researcher from the applicants side was asked to
answer the same. The bench was pleased with his prompt response. As she
was short on time, the other contentions flew away with the Red-wattled
Lapwing bird.
Room - B
Appellant

Speaker 1

The speaker started by explaining the time distribution of his team. The
judges were beginning to test the waters. One could just feel that the beat is
about to drop soon. The speaker faced some difficulty in understanding the
questions posed by the judges. The speaker made a submission to persuade
the judges only to face further questions. The judges slightly shook their
heads as they suspected the speaker of presenting modified facts. Moving
into the last few minutes, the judges still looked entirely unconvinced by his
arguments. The first speaker finished his address and it looked like the judges
were unsatisfied with his words.

Speaker 2

The second speaker took some time to set his wristwatch on the dais and
then began his address. He started on a confident note, articulate in his
speech, and managed to satisfactorily answer the initial questions of the
judges. He seemed a little more organized than his co-speaker. Questions
regarding balance between preservation of wildlife and exploitation of natural
resources were handled by the speaker with the judges looking somewhat
unconvinced.It seems as if the speakers excessive use of inferred facts and
assumptions werent to the liking of the bench.The bench finally looked a
little satisfied with nods going around here and there, as the speaker moved
to his next contention.The speaker tried to hurry with time running out and
started fumbling on his words, only to stop and collect himself before
continuing.

Respondent

Speaker 1

The speaker started by explaining the time distribution within his team. The
speaker looked very confident and spoke in a fluent manner to start off his
address. This speaker addressed himself as the agent, something which the
other team failed to do. The bench asked questions regarding what is
fundamental and what is not, and the speaker seemed to successfully
answer the questions. The judges immediately caught up on a point of law in
the next contention and the speaker evoked unconvinced responses from the
bench. The bench had a laugh on an ancillary point which lightened the mood
of the courtroom a little. The speaker wrapped up his address with the judges
looking somewhat satisfied by his replies.

Speaker 2

The speaker introduced himself as the agent and dove straight into his first
issue. The bench, having listened to most of his first contention, put up their
questions, and the speaker seemingly managed to clear their doubts. After
going at an issue for some time, the speaker suddenly remembered that he
had a case law to support his argument and quickly directed the attention of
the bench to said case law. The speaker had some problem conveying the
crux of his contention but quickly provided clarifications, drawing an
affirmative nod from the judges. The bench seemed satisfactorily convinced
by the arguments given by the speaker and with time running out fast, he
moved on to his last contention. The speaker concluded his submission and
the judges nodded as he took his seat.

Room - C
Appellant

Speaker 1

The speaker tried jumping to the issues of the case directly which was not
appreciated by the bench.The speaker seemed hesitant in stating the page
numbers of the memorandum to which the judges objected. However, he
gathered himself and efficiently answered the questions. He wasnt
convincing enough with regards to his first contention. Moving on to the
second contention, the speaker fumbled while answering the initial questions.
The counsel seemed hesitant in stating the facts of the case which were
asked by the judges. After the time limit expired, another set of questions
were raised by the bench which the speaker had a hard time answering. The
speaker paused for several moments while answering the questions.

Speaker 2

This speaker dealt with the next two issues. The eloquence of speaker was
commendable but her arguments were not accurate enough as stated by the
bench. The voice of the speaker was too soft to be heard by the bench. As
she moved on, her way of speaking and her eloquence started degrading and
same was the case with the volume of her voice. The speaker was ignorant in
asking for extra- time to which the bench objected. The speaker had a hard
time answering the facts of a particular case. Overall, the speaker was
passive in her arguments and the bench seemed unconvinced.

Respondent
Speaker 1

From the very beginning, the bench started asking questions which were
easily answered by the speaker. The speaker was distinct and precise while
advancing his arguments. The fluency of the speaker was appreciable and he
was able to convince the bench by his answers. As the speaker proceeded he
got more and more confident while answering the questions. The speaker was
able to make a mark in the case as he was efficiently speaking and answering
the questions of the bench.

Speaker 2

The speaker was in a hurry but was confident about what she was speaking.
The speaker fumbled while answering the questions. She tried to bluff the
bench but was caught by the bench. The speaker was ignorant to some of the
facts of the case as pointed out by the bench. Despite all this, the speaker did
not lose her fluency as she proceeded further. This speaker failed to ask the
permission of the bench for the extra time to which the bench objected.
However, the speaker did not lose her momentum and she kept putting forth
her argument.

During the prayer for relief, both the agents of the respondent stood up
unlike the agents of the applicants.

Room - D
Appellant

Speaker 1

After being invited from one of the judges, the first speaker comes up to the
podium and starts with his facts and the issues presented.

Certain clarifications raised and addressed. But the answer doesn't seem to
have satisfied the judges too much.

The arguments advanced by the speaker were flooded with queries from the
bench, which seems to have startled the speaker.

Clarifications were sought regarding the liability of the respondents, about

the clean hands of the applicant, and how the applicant assumed that a
notice had not been served. The Speaker attempted to answer the first two
but conceded to the third as a mistake of the party.

Similar resistance from the bench was noticed regarding the second issue of
the applicants as well. Some questions regarding definitions were cleverly
twisted, not something that would fare well with the bench. Others were just
blatantly faffed about. The speaker had a clash with the judges.

After getting a small extension, the speaker summarized his points and
invited his co-counsel.

Speaker 2

Starting with issues, she provided a two-fold argument developing a causal

link in the process.

The constant interruptions by the judges seem to have startled her, and she
is now making arguments from the other side. Interesting approach.

The judges remind the speaker about her affiliations in the present round,
and then they go on to startle her a little more with their questions, which
continue to receive frivolous answers and arbitrary assertions.

Okay, this girl managed to wrongly define custom. Probably cursing herself
now for not carrying a dictionary. Or for competing here.

Does the bench need to direct the paras to be read here came a snide
comment. Seems fair. She anyways seems to be unaware what the custom
is. (get the pun? :P)

Speaker needs extra time to explain how she didn't waste the entire team
she was originally given. The bench seems reluctant, but also really curious
as to what exactly is she trying to say.

By the time we got to her prayer, it seems she was praying for mercy.

Respondent

Speaker 1

Composed speaker, begins laying down the case for the respondents.

Questions from the bench. Baffling answers. Judges seem completely

unsatisfied.

Asked to move on to the next contention. Keeps asserting the same

argument. She seems to have all the time in the world.

The bench has entirely rejected both her issues. Used a judgment to support
the argument, Questioned about the judgment. Failed to satisfy.

This speaker, to the relief of all that stands for logic and sense, comes to an
end.

Speaker 2
Starts off with trying to prove the acts under which the appellant is
liable.Tries to point out his cases with using the facts for his own benefit to
which the judge raised further questions. Tries to shift the responsibility of
making the report on the appellants.

Judges raised contention on how the whole situation was not foreseen. Brings
out several case laws to back his contentions. This man seems armed.

Judges raised questions on the liabilities of the parties. Also, the judges
question whether they are jointly liable or not.

Room - E
Appellants

Speaker 1:

The first speaker started on a confident note, addressing the moot problem
and the four issues to contend in the ICJ, the court of appeal in the present
matter out of which the first two were dealt with her.

The judges seemed very enthusiastic and a lot of cross-questioning was

witnessed.

The first question posed to her, which remained an important bone of

contention throughout her speech was regarding the jurisdiction of the
parties in this matter as the judges were not very happy with the argument
and reasoning put forth by the speaker.

The speaker went a bit downhill as regards both the arguments that she dealt
with, as the round progressed but was partially able to convince the judges
regarding her issues.

Speaker 2:

The second speaker was very firm and articulate regarding her court manners
and started her speech by noting that the last two issues on this problem
shall be dealt with her.

The judges time and again questioned her on the long-term measures
regarding the issues.

The bench was not convinced with her arguments and asked her to move to
the next contention, where the appellantmade certain claims however the
answer to which did not appeal the judge's attention, half-hearted as it would
seem, they were very encouraging towards the speaker giving her chances to
bring forth the arguments the appellants had to offer.
Respondents

Speaker 1:

The judges being well versed with the facts asked the respondents
directly to deal with their issues, and questioned the speaker a lot
about precautionary principles, which the respondents had repeatedly
emphasized in their submissions.

The speaker was also questioned on principles of international

conventions and treaties both the countries were a part of, and the
obligations it brought with itself.

Important questions were posed by the judges to the speaker.

The speaker when alleged the appellants to have broken certain

principles were crossed by the judges to have been unlawful
themselves, to which the speaker very tactfully dealt with and was
able to convince the judges.

But, as the end approached, the speaker was very confused and
couldnt answer the questions he was posed although he did a
commendable job trying his best.

Speaker 2

Questions such as responsibility and liability were posed and this round
was based more on practical approaches such as real-life statistical
data, in consonance with the moot problem were pin-pointed by the
judges.

They asked a lot of questions to the speakers on general applications,

acronyms, basic points of difference, which were handled confidently
by the speaker who tried to answer best to his knowledge, if not to the
best of judges satisfaction.

The speaker asked time from the judges a lot of times during his
course of speech for extra time to prove his arguments, where he was
asked not to read out but just show his general understanding on the
issue.

Room - F
The judges enter the courtroom among the hassle of the first day of this
competition. After a brief overview of the memos, they invite the first speaker
to take the podium.

Appellant

Speaker 1

The first Speaker of Team 27 seems quite confident with his conduct,
delivering his part with minimal hand movement, albeit with slight stutters.
The impressive part is how rarely the speaker seems to be referring to the
memo.

Okay, looks like the blogger judged too soon. As soon as he reached the
arguments advanced, he started reading out the entire thing from the memo
itself.

The judges seem to be well prepared to grill the counsel. A factual question
posed to the speaker, followed by a conceptual one.

The judges now start questioning regarding the jurisdiction of ICJ on the
matter, which received a quite exhaustive and rather impressive answer from
the counsel.

Some things to note about the speech. Firstly, for some reason, it lacked any
reference to any of the written submissions, including the memos and the
compendiums. Secondly, the amount of random historical and scientific
information it contains.

Times up. No request for the extension of time asked to conclude. Time
management was appropriate.

The blogger is really not having an exciting time on the field today. Well be
back with the second speaker in a while.

Speaker 2

The second speaker seems fluent with his language as well as the knowledge
on the memo.

He seemed to have been taken aback from a question by the bench, but he
managed to confidently reply to the question after just a little pause.

This speaker seems to be much less reliant on the memo than his teammate.
And has been referring to the written submissions time and again.

The answers clearly show how well versed the counsel is with the basics of
international law.

Okay, so apparently now the compromise passes from the bench to the
speaker. And our reporter finds it really offensive. Its okay Bhanu, it happens!

Excessive reference to the compendium. Is this guy trying to make up for

the mistakes of his co-counsel?

Improper time management. An entire issue is left.

The speed just escalated. 2 minutes extension given for dealing with
compensation.

Firstly, the judges were reluctant but the court clerk intervened to say that
the bench may allow a maximum of 10 minutes extension. Hence, given.

Respondent

Speaker 1

Strong beginning.

Okay, lets change it to loud beginning. Which is getting louder. Judges

request her to be softer. You would hope there would be a change in the
volume now.

Man! My reporter is starting to wish this woman had a volume control.

Okay, now I think she needs an attitude control as well. Arguing with the
judges about the law is one thing, asserting that the judges have the wrong
knowledge of the law is another.Her body language clearly shows how
nervous she is.

Question. Embarrassing smile noticed on the speaker. Turns out the bench is
kind of aware of the law.A lot of reference to the law.

Logically answering the questions she knows the answers to. Stammering at
the unexpected ones.

Time over, proper time management.

Speaker 2

A confident speaker, with slight nervous stutters here and there. And were
back to immature overtures with the counsel pointing fingers at the bench.
No, not accusing them. Literally pointing a finger at them.

Using national judgments to justify a stance at the ICJ. Funny.

Shuffling through his documents as to figure out what to speak.

A question asked combining the factual timeline and the injury caused.
Answered referring to the same paragraph the judge posed the question
from. Judges still unconvinced.

2 minutes pause for a minute answer. Is this guy aware of the concept of a
clock?

Referring to the questions posed by the bench to the applicants.

Time over. The judges said thank you.Speaker still continuing. Do we now
need bouncers to get the speakers on the podium?

Room - G
Appelant

Speaker 1

The round started with an absolute conundrum. Two speakers simultaneously

approached the dais as both the teams thought they were the Applicants.
Once settled, the Respondents could be seen trying to figure out their
speeches, while the Applicants looked confident. This reflected in the calm
and composed demeanor of Speaker 1. However, the confidence was tested
quite early into his speech.

Questions of jurisdiction arose in every contention. Speaker 1, though a little

fazed initially, calmly tackled the questions from the Bench. The other team
members and the Bench seemed to be deliberating parallel. The factual
fabric being woven by the speaker was repeatedly hampered by questions
being fired at the speaker.

Extra time of 5 minutes was provided.

Speaker 2

The arguments of the second speaker seemed hesitant initially. This

hesitation later changed into confidence and the uhs and ums were
replaced by a firm stance and a beaming face.

The Bench also had a warm smile while questioning the speaker on every line
of her argument.

Her contentions were equated to assumptions and there was a brief moment
of absolute silence in the courtroom, while the Applicants and the Bench just
looked at each other.

The arguments proceeded along with the rise in the pitch of the speaker, till it
reached its zenith in her final contention.
The entry of the photographer in the room surely saw a change in the
postures and demeanor of all those present.

Respondent

Speaker 1

The first speaker urged ahead with his arguments as soon as he approached
the dais. This energy was manifested in his war of words with the bench.
Arguments were being shooted from both sides, while jovial remarks were
also supplemented to cut the heat of the situation. It seemed as if the
speakers favorite phrase, facts are silent on this issue, was being mirrored
by his co-agent, who was also silent on all issues throughout the course of his
speech.

The first speaker did not let the questions affect him as he continued with the
same energy and zest. His arguments proved to be more contentious than
the issue itself. His arguments ended when his time did, no extra time was
requested for.

Speaker 2

The speaker started off on a great note. Being the last speaker of the round,
it is safe to say that her speech was one of the most action-packed speeches,
quite literally. Her hand movements were in sync with the rise and fall in her
pitch to elucidate every contention.

There are various times that we think that speaking too much for too long will
not make sense. The second speaker proved us wrong. Her contentions, as
todays lingo says, were on point.

Citing almost 5 cases in 5 minutes of her speech, she painted a flowery

picture for her arguments. Maintaining her cool in the face of constant
questions from the bench, and answering each issue calmly seemed like her
forte.

No extra time was requested for.