The 2009 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Competition was a lot of fun. The competition also highlights the incredible advocacy talents that are out there in the world. The future of international law looks very sound to me.
The Final Round was between the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia vs. University College London, United Kingdom. The case was, The Case Concerning "Operation Provide Shelter". The competition is run by the International Law Students Association. The competition continues to grow every year and this means that the competition gets tougher every year.
I am proud of the students that I worked with (coached) in this competition.
Here is a short clip of the Final Round.
20 comments:
For those of us that still admit to being one-time lawyers the case is really starting to get interesting in terms of the legal precedents that might be established. It is also interesting because the case highlights the dysfunctionality of the legal system as a whole.
you wrote this over at the Spruiker's...... is the doctrine of precedent an integral part of the civil law system?? Im still working on Mongolia
They Seek Him Here...
No, it's not an integral part of the civil law system.
However, I guess if I had taken the time to elaborate on that particular point, then I would have continued with the idea that there are no pure systems left in the world of law. I do not, for example, think that the common law system is pure common law.
I guess that my point would be that the legal traditions that developed into the carefully delineated systems we knew (or some might still claim, we know) no longer exist individually but rather as developing hybrid systems.
In Indonesia, the Bankruptcy Law, can trace its roots to a lot of common law provisions.
Returning to precedent in Indonesia specifically. The Constitutional Court under the leadership of Jimly CJ handed down a considerable number of decisions that referred to previous interpretations held in other cases.
The Constitutional Court also used obiter dicta to point out how it might decide certain matters if those matters were to ever come before the court.
Hard to tell if you are the lawyer I was referring to with your current pen name. But, if you are, then I hope all is well with you and yours.
they seek him there...
yep its me. All is still going well, thanks a lot to your inputs. Today I got quite a bit of mileage out of the Blackberry story (most students have them) - particularly RIM's rejoinder that Indonesia might want to control smuggling of fake Blackies....
Lawcristo...
Cool bananas!
Lawcristo...
Just an aside, "It's me" doesn't really help because now I will have to go back through all your comments and try and work this out.
I am sure you said at one point in time you were not a lawyer and had not studied law. They fella I am thinking about was a lawyer, has an LLM, and was part way through a doctorate in law.
Not that it matters though. I enjoy the challenge of your comments.
Which reminds me. I owe you a comment on something, overlapping decisions or something.
Glad that you got some yardage out of the BB story and press releases. The rejoinder is not going to be enough for an immediate Indonesian government back down. However, it is more likely that the government will set a time line along the lines of, "OK, you can import the new models but you have to promise to set up an after sales service center by X of 2010."
Never seen / understood the fascination with the BlackBerry though.
Im with you on the (un)worth of BB. But I do see many people bring the things out of their pocket and within minutes make some cocksure statement or other about Mr X based on either his CV, his facebook account or some email -enviable?
I do not have an LLM. So I am not he.
At the moment Im looking at my edited version of the Radmacher case for a conflict of laws class on Monday....
the civil-criminal overlap thing will be worth waiting for.
Oh, and the other thing Im doing right now is avoiding the four Immigration officials who are paying their friday visit - sitting in the dark. Ever had the pleasure?
Lawlutmonte & Same Guy LLM...
The overlap piece / comment might be a weekend gig for me. I am a little busy writing and editing other work-related things at the moment (just popping in here to respond to any comments).
Nope. Never had the pleasure. I have to say, it was sometimes a struggle but my immigration stuff was always up-to-date and in order. So, there was no need to hide from them when they came around.
Nah, getting into and out of the country on a KITAS and doing other immigration related matters was not always as simple. Always doable but rarely simple.
Ok. take yer time.
I have all the documents too, but you know, those guys interpret things a little differently
Law...
Soft copy?
rob[dot]baiton[at]gmail[dot]com
Saves me looking for them elsewhere.
Thanks.
Thanks for the email address. I will note it well.
I think you missed my meanings in the last post - I meant I have a KITAS etc (documents), and by "those guys" I meant the Imigrasi.
I have decided to turn on the lights and show them what they wanted - of all things - my passport.
Law...
Was not suggesting that you were in the country "illegally" or that anything was amiss. Rather, I was just saying that in my case and with all my documents in order there was never a problem with the immigration people coming to the office.
The immigration folks never ventured to where I lived either.
The only time I had issues with immigration were occasions where I was definitely on their turf and much more vulnerable to their "discretion".
As you Jessups might well agree...
Suhartoism, and not our Eastern culture, is the reason why our candidates’ debates were so lame. It is an insult to our intellect to tell us that debate is not part of our culture. Quality shadow puppet performances should convince us all of that. Not only is debate part of our culture, it is an ancient part at that. But as long as the generation of New Order leftovers is still in power, what we see is the best we can get.
Anonymous...
I would much prefer you to adopt a pen name so that I can distinguish you from the other anonymous posters who comment here.
However, thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
The presidential and vice-presidential debates are lame because the candidates are lame.
I agree that Indonesia has a rich history of debate and can hold her own in any forum. The Jessup proves this as do many other competitions that Indonesians do very well in.
Patience they say is a virtue. I am confident (some might say the eternal optimist) that there will be a time, and that time will be soon, where the next generation of Indonesian leaders will come to the fore and the current crop of leftovers will fade into history as footnotes to an interesting past.
Ive finally got back to Prita...
Would you please care to expand a little on the parenthesised below?- its from your blog.
The question of whether Prita has defamed Omni is a different question to the one being discussed here with respect to legal interpretation and "the making of laws from the safety of the bench"
Are you suggesting that in this instance the Judges were "making law" - in the common law sense of the words?
Lawcil...
You could have also returned to this issue in the relevant post :D
Would I care to elaborate? Not really! As I want to watch Part 7 of Band of Brothers ;)
But here goes.
Yes, I was referring to making law from the bench in the common law sense of things. If you are worried about the civil vs. common law issue.
Then, I suggest that you read my earlier comments on the arguments that the pure systems / traditions of law that may have existed in the past, at least in my mind, no longer exist today.
The obvious Indonesian example of this is the bankruptcy Law, which draws heavily on the common law.
So, once again, yes. I am suggesting that through the discretion to interpret, and perhaps under the weight of public expectation in this case, the judges have erred in their interpretation.
Or, they have simply ignored the bigger picture of ensuring a stable system, by ignoring a very clear intent of the parliament to see the ITE Law come into immediate effect on its enactment.
Where the bench seeks to change the rules of the game as those rules have been determined by the parliament is indicative of making law rather than interpreting it.
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that all instances of law-making from the bench are wrong. I am, though, saying in this case that irrespective of whether you are pro or contra on the ITE Law, the intent of the parliament in this case was not that the Law would remain unenforceable until such time as all the subsidiary legislation was in place.
This is where I believe the bench has erred and this is also why I believe it needs to be overturned on appeal.
The "problems" with the law relate to the criminalization of defamation, particularly whether it should or should not exist in Indonesian law. Simply, should Indonesia make defamation a purely civil matter? This is one for the parliament and not for the courts.
This is why I suggest that the case to which I refer, namely; the decision, does not require any definitive statement as to whether Prita defamed Omni or not. I am focusing on the technical aspects of statutory interpretation and whether the discretion to interpret in this instance has been used "properly".
The reality is that the decision does not only impact upon defamation law, but all laws in Indonesia. I accept some will say precedent is not part of the civil law (blah, blah, blah, and I have answered that statement somewhere else). Nevertheless, I think that is a little naive, and it would not stop lawyers worth their salt from applying the same general argument in other cases against other laws.
If I need to elaborate more, then lemme know :D
What about those documents on the overlapping cases, soft copies?
Thanks, is all I can say. Nice Nun joke.
I realise you are out of my legal league - I certainly appreciate all your answers - but unfortunately then tend to suggest further questions/observations eg would you say it is true that there is hint of retrospectivity in the parliament's view/intention. And did I not read somewhere that the civil law system is not without such hints - although not quite as flagrantly as with comman law??
I did understand fully what you were getting at in your Prita blog - fully. But again thanks for emphasising it.
As for the soft copies - I might be out of my debt here - but you will note that it concerns the recent Bank Bali decision. I took that extract from the Globe. Im happy to stay on alert for anything more in the "common" media.
stars and stripes for Indonesia Raya!!
Lawpil...
It is not about leagues. I am not in or out of anyone's league. It is a much more simple scenario of there are things I know and there are things I know not.
How does a parliament provide a hint of retrospectivity? I am not sure what you mean (or at least it is not jumping out at me). Where the Indonesian parliament intends something to be retrospective then it tends to explicitly say so (tax and other financial legislation).
In any event, the Indonesian criminal law does not lend itself to retrospective application. The Constitutional Court cleared this up in the terrorism case.
The parliament's intent seems pretty clear to me. However, if at some point in the future they decide that they have made an error then they can go back and fix it with an amendment or a re-write of the law.
On the soft copies, I guess I will have to go look for myself. Doesn't help that I am sometimes a real lazy bastard when it comes to writing for fun rather than work. The Kid takes priority at the moment and then work and then any "real" research that I have to do for a blog post.
For example, someone asked me to write about the KPK today and some pending arrest warrants. Sounds like fun, but also sounds too much like hard work. I thought about writing from the hip and then thought; although not many people read my musings, those that do deserve a little bit more than that.
I will keep an eye on the BB overlap thing.
What I meant by retro (no need to elaborate if I am grossly wrong) was that the parliament wanted the law enforced before the fine details were implemented. This happens in most countries Im sure where regulations come later (del leg) - but this, I would agrue, is a tad retro - especially if the intention of the law is not "subsumed" in all regulations, or to try to put it another way, if future regulations would tend to exonerate when the "parent" law would find guilt or v-v. Im not sure that there are mechanisms here to review such things??
Btw for some light relief why not listen to the Rio Febriani Stars and stripes version of Indonesia Raya?? Has does it make your blood? boil?
Lawpil...
If we are looking at Article 27 of the UTE Law then it requires no subsequent subsidiary legislation to become effective.
The question then becomes in light of the Tangerang decision, this: "does the decision also apply to the whole of the legislation or just those articles that require further implementing regulations to have proper effect?"
Post a Comment