The Willem C. Vis competition hosts moot court teams from around the world. The participants are required to write two briefs for the competition. Claimant's briefs are submitted first. Students are then required to submit a Respondent's brief. The Respondent's brief is in response to a Claimant's brief they receive from one of the other participating schools. Students then travel to either Hong Kong or Vienna to participate in the oral argument rounds.
Reasons to include it in moot court rankings:
1. The Vis competition is nearly identical to the Jessup competition, which is used in the moot court ranking systems. Both Vis and Jessup competitions require Claimant's and Respondent's briefs, and both competitions have oral argument rounds. Both competitions hand out awards for best team, best oralist, and best briefs.
2. The Vis competition requires both brief writing and oral argument skills, which are the skills involved in moot court competitions. The briefs submitted for this competition are written in the style of a moot court brief; they involve a fact section and an argument section. The issues in the brief involve not only procedural issues of arbitration, but substantive CISG issues as well. The teams are also required to participate in oral argument rounds. The rounds include preliminary rounds and elimination rounds.
3. This competition does not fall under any other law school activity, and the points should be awarded under the moot court ranking system. As stated above, the competition involves both briefs and oral advocacy. Although the problem involves procedural arbitration issues, the format for the problem is not in the typical arbitration competition style. ADR teams do not submit briefs. The written advocacy skills required for brief submission fall under the moot court category.
Additionally, ADR arbitration competitions also typically involve witnesses and evidence. There are no witnesses or evidence admitted in the Vis competition. The oral arguments consist of two-member teams that present legal arguments in front of a three person panel. The participants present arguments that last for fifteen minutes on each side (Claimant and Respondent) and involve rebuttal and surrebuttal. The participants also take questions from the panel. This is more in the style of moot court than ADR.
The competition is not a trial team competition either. There are no opening or closing statements and no direct or cross examinations. Since the competition most closely resembles the format of a moot court competition and since there is no other law school activity that the competition falls under, the points for the competition should be awarded under the moot court ranking system.
1. what makes you term the teams hosted, "moot court teams"
As a former Vis East participant, I interacted with many of the competitors (i.e. competitors from Harvard, Georgetown, Loyola LA, Fordham, Florida Coastal, UF, etc.) The competitors from the teams all told me they were members of their school's moot court program.
Even Wikipedia considers it a moot court competition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_C._Vis_Moot [Ranker's note: the Wiki reference was indeed a joke.]
2. worldwide competition actually makes Vis less desirable for a NCAA-like ranking of my own that focuses on head-to-head among American law schools
The competition includes a number of U.S. law schools. The numbers fluctuate, though this year’s Vis East had 19 American teams, and Vis Vienna had 51. You can find more information about the exact school names and other countries at:
7th Vis East: http://www.cisgmoot.org/7thVisDocs/7th_Vis_East_Teams_2010.xls
17th Vis Vienna: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/moot/participants17.html
3. in making the case for Vis resembling appellate advocacy, would a team's submission of two briefs -- one on each side -- be a point in favor of Vis?
Briefs are the form of written advocacy submitted in moot court competitions. The inclusion of two briefs - one on each side - is exactly like the Jessup competition, which is included in your ranking system.
4. Where certain programs already complain that a moot court program's rank will depend in large part on its funding -- which is actually a stupid talking point on their part because it argues against incentivizing law schools to increase funding for moot court -- should we include results from a competition that requires expensive travel to Hong Kong or Vienna, perhaps disadvantaging already-strapped programs?
The Vis competition does require international travel. However, the majority, if not all, moot court competitions include travel. In addition, it gives moot court teams the opportunity to think out of the box regarding funding. For example, there are several teams at the competition that get funding from private corporate sponsorship.
If the expense argument is included in your ranking system, then the argument could be made that other U.S. competitions, which require teams to travel from one coast to the other or travel to multiple regional competitions, should not be included.
5. Jessup has six superregionals of 24 teams each, for a total of 144 teams from U.S. law schools competing without the necessity of springing for costly international travel; by these measures, please explain if "The Vis competition is nearly identical to the Jessup competition which is used in the moot court ranking systems."
While Vis does not have regional qualification competitions, the number of teams competing is substantial - Vienna has over 200 teams, and the HK competition has approx. 70 teams. (See above re: travel cost argument).
6. Your argument that Vis and Jessup are nearly identical was supported by your following observations: "Both Vis and Jessup competitions require Claimant's and Respondent's briefs, and both competitions have oral argument rounds. Both competitions hand out awards for best team, best oralist, and best briefs." To clarify, Jessup requires two briefs per team?
Yes
With Vis, does any particular round find all advocates' oral arguments consisting exclusively of a significant period of uninterrupted time presenting an argument while answering disruptive questioning from a panel of judges?
Yes. Vis requires a total of 15 minutes for each side.
And Jessup is exactly like this?
I believe Jessup requires 30 minutes for each side.
Is likening Vis to Jessup, which apparently is atypical of most moot court competitions, a supportive argument?
Yes, because you include Jessup in your ranking system.
While Vis seems to be like most other moot court competitions in that it presents awards for things like good oral or written advocacy, this is not unique to moot court -- I'm guessing mock trial and even arbitration competitions also give out these consolation prizes.
It is my understanding that oral advocacy is rewarded in most competitions. However, best BRIEF awards are unique to moot court.
7a. Beyond the existence of fact and argument sections, and of oral arguments, please discuss the form and substance of the written and oral arguments, i.e. how closely they mimic those of real-world appellate advocacy.
The written briefs use the IRAC method and argue legal interpretation of the law. The oral advocacy arguments are also similar to real-world appellate advocacy in that they argue legal interpretation.
7b. You reference that the issues in the brief involve procedural issues of arbitration. This is a strike against including the competition, and could be a very big strike indeed; so a discussion is in order as to what's required in a brief with respect to discussion of procedural issues of arbitration. How else does Vis relate to arbitration?
Similar to arguing procedural issues in any types of appellate advocacy, the rules of procedure applicable to Vis are procedural arbitration issues. The arguments included in the briefs involve the legal interpretation of these arbitration procedures.
7c. You reference CISG as if it's a good thing. Since I don't recall that in law school (or moot court) I ran across this at all, I should simply state that I didn't encounter it enough for it to sink in, unlike the UCC. (Brief internet research reveals "The CISG is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the uniform international sales law of countries that account for three-quarters of all world trade." Sounds substantive. Of course the presence of substantive issues does not differentiate Vis from mock trial or arbitration competitions.)
The CISG is primarily used in private international law. Similar to the United Nations documents used in the Jessup competition, which deals with public international law, the CISG governs private international contracts. Substantive legal issues are dealt with in any competition (i.e. moot court, ADR, Trial Team). However, the difference in moot court competitions is that appellate advocacy focuses on arguing the legal interpretation of the law.
7d. The existence of preliminary and elimination rounds doesn't make it more like moot court, and less like other competitions I don't count -- at least in any significant respect.
I agree.
8. Stating that ADR competitions don't require briefs, might make Vis less like an arbitration comp. But does this in itself warrant inclusion as a moot court comp?
It does not in and of itself warrant inclusion in the moot court competition category, but it is a strong indication that the competition is more like a moot court competition and less like an ADR competition.
Do mock trial comps require written arguments?
Written arguments (i.e. motions in limine, etc.) are not briefs. Appellate advocacy is distinguished by the type of written submission required: the brief.
Here are my preliminary thoughts on this Vis thing:
- Historian Chittenden invokes the name of Jessup quite often. Arguing something (Vis) is like an exception (Jessup) - as distinct from the rule - is a risky advocacy technique. It selects one narrow path to the destination - that is, the thing you're advocating on behalf of better be as compelling as the thing that justified creation of the exception. Might as well focus on how Vis is like every other moot court comp.
- Wisely, Historian Chittenden also argues this. Vis is like most moot court comps: Both in writing, and through verbal jousting, students argue law and policy, instead of fact.
- It could even be superior to most comps in certain respects, e.g. argument, or at least writing, on both sides of the issue.
- The fact that a lot of American teams participate is cool, but not dispositive. (A number of American teams compete in trial ad too; it doesn't excuse that particular activity.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment