II Experience in the Philip C. Jessup Int’l Law Moot Court Competition

One year ago I was writing the first part of this post: see it here (Spanish version).

Today, I see myself recovering from one of the most wonderful moments of my academic life. Every time I think about what happened on Friday, and what we are going to do in the future, I feel this kind of comfortable sentiment that every tear dropped, every inhumane effort, every hour of lack of sleep have worth it. Everything for that moment in which we were sitting before the Court, and we take our hands waiting for the President to say the magical words… and suddenly, I saw myself surrounded by my team, crying like babies. 

If I learnt something from this (second) experience of Jessup is that LOVE ALWAYS WINSTiffany E-aRashmi DhariaGeorgia Beatty and Nin J. Jitwarawong thank you guys for being always there for each other; for being extremely supportive and patient, and for being lovely friends with the feet on the ground. I am so proud of all of you. After 5 challenging months meeting 7/7, you have already got my heart.

Thank you also to Sophie Schiettekatte, Felipe Silvestre and Charlotte S LH because, without you coaches, this would have been impossible! We learnt a lot from you, and you made us the better version of ourselves. You have dealt not only with your issues but also with ours; you have been there for us in the good and, most importantly, in the bad moments. You are inspiring humans and I admire you precisely for who you are and what are you doing.

I would like also to thank all that people that supported us since the very first time: primary to our families; they always believed in us and gave us breath to continue in the distance (I miss you so much, daddy, mommy and Andy); secondly to all the PhD Candidates, Professors and other academic staff that took their time to judge us during the training. We really appreciate it and we hope to have had fulfilled your expectations as students from Leiden Univ. It was an honour to have all your feedback.

Personally, I would never have imagined doing what I did on Friday, and I am truly impressed and grateful. Definitely, WE ARE A PINEAPPLE!

Now it’s time to start thinking about how a team of British, French, Indian, Thai, and Spanish people will represent HOLLAND in Washington (with all the respects to the Dutch people).

The Lotus dictum under consideration

Since the ninetieth century, a shift towards positivism is found under international law.[1] This paradigm embraces the absence of general international law different from the specific treaties concluded between independent States. Precisely, Dionisio Anzilloti’s decisions as a judge at the P.C.I.J. propagated this voluntarist approach in continental European countries.[2] One of the most remarkable dictum in this sense was the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”[3] where the P.C.I.J. expressed this idea of international law governed by States, either as subjects and objects of the law itself.

Put in its context, Lotus dictum may appear suitable in the international law realm of 1927. However, issues related to (i) sources of international law and (ii) international law subjectivity, among others, have evolved since then. Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how these arguments continue to be valid up-to-date in some of their statements, albeit at the same time they are outdated in others.

Continue reading, here.

 

 

[1] H. Scupin, ‘History of International Law, 1815 to World War I.’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (OPIL 2001), paras. 1-8.

[2] F. Lachenmann, ‘Legal Positivism.’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (OPIL 2011), para. 28.

[3] The Case of the SS “Lotus” (France v. Turkey) [1927], P.C.I.J. Series A No 9, at 18.