brochure for saarc roundsaarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/pdf/third-saarc-brochure.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Justitia
Libertas
nMe a onva Sh Ad Aa RM C . R M . oN o t.f ino gr P
THIRD
PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON
SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION &
LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE, 2017-18
PROGRAMME
RULES
&
MOOT COMPROMIS
Organised by :
with technical support from
&
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, Greater Noida (U.P.)
MILAT (Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy & Training)
SAARCLAW (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in Law)
th th16 to 18 February, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The Third Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and Law Students' Conference 2017-18 is being organized by
Lloyd Law College with technical support from MILAT (Menon Institute
of Legal Advocacy and Training, Trivandrum) under the patronage of
SAARCLAW at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
There are two stages of the competition: The India Round and the SAARC
Round. Each country can select/nominate up to four teams to represent
their country in the SAARC Round. India can send maximum 8 teams
having regard to a large number of Law Colleges in the country. The India th thRound of the competition was held on 28 and 29 of October 2017. The
SAARC Round will be held for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, th thAfghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives from 16 to 18 February, 2018
at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.
A Conference of law students from SAARC countries will also be held th thalong with the SAARCLAW Mooting Competition from 16 to 18
February, 2018 at Lloyd Law College. The idea of the Conference is to
provide a forum for interaction among the law students of the South Asian
Region for excellence in legal education and professional development.
Understanding the legal system of each others' country will be mutually
beneficial in the context of professional development, trade in legal
services and law reform. The topic for the Law Students' Conference is
“Disaster Management : SAARC Cooperation”.
1
2
NAMING THE MOOTING COMPETITION
The reform brought about in Indian legal education by the pioneering
efforts of Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon during the last three decades through
the Five Year Integrated B.A.LL.B. programme under the National Law
School experiment is the inspiration for Lloyd Law College for sponsoring
the Mooting Competition in his name. Even after formal retirement from
service, as a founder president of MILAT, he continues to contribute to the
cause of legal education and professional development through the Menon
Institute of Legal Advocacy and Training (MILAT), over which he
presides. Lloyd Law College is proud to be associated with MILAT in
organizing the Mooting event for the benefit of law students of South
Asian Region.
ABOUT SAARCLAW
South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation in Law, SAARCLAW,
is an association of the legal communities of the SAARC countries
comprising judges, lawyers, academicians, law teachers, public officers
and a host of other law-related persons, duly registered with the SAARC
Secretariat at Kathmandu and which has been awarded the status of a
Regional Apex Body of SAARC.
It owes its origin to the desire of the members of the legal community to
establish an association within the SAARC region to bring together the
legal communities within the region for closer co-operation, developing a
better understanding, promoting exchange of ideas and dissemination of
information. It further aims at using and developing law as a source and an
instrument towards social change for development as well as for building
co-operation among the people of the region. SAARCLAW was thestablished in Colombo on 24 October 1991. The then President of Sri
Lanka, His Excellency Ranasinghe Premadasa inaugurated the
Association in the presence of a large gathering of the legal community.
SAARCLAW has persistently worked towards the achievement of its
objectives of bringing together the legal communities within the region for
closer co-operation, development of better understanding, promotion of
exchange of ideas and dissemination of information, and to use and
3
develop law as a source and an instrument towards social change for
development as well as for building co-operation among the peoples of the
region.
VISION
Harmonization of laws and policies for closer cooperation and
collaboration towards economic, technological, social and cultural
development in South Asia.
MISSION
a. To create a hub of the legal fraternity in the South Asian region.
b. To harmonize laws and policies in South Asia.
c. To exchange information, ideas and progressive judgments in order to
bring economic, technological, social and cultural development in
South Asia.
d. To enhance trust in South Asia for prosperity and strengthen the
SAARC region.
VALUES
SAARCLAW believes that connectivity through law can bring Prosperity,
Peace and Cooperation in South Asia.
ABOUT LLOYD LAW COLLEGE
Lloyd Law College was established under the aegis of Satlila Charitable Society
(SCS) in the year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh
University, Meerut and is approved by the Bar Council of India. It imparts two
professional degree programmes, namely five year integrated B.A.LL.B. and the
three year LL.B. Lloyd Law College is located in Knowledge Park – II, Greater
Noida, India. The campus is spread over five acres of lush green area, with
excellent infrastructure, moot court rooms, fully-air conditioned classrooms
with smart-boards and a state of the art library. Highly qualified, dedicated and
experienced faculty is one of the strengths of Lloyd Law College. In the year
2014, Lloyd Law College organized the National Round of 'The Louis M Brown
and Forrest S Mosten International Client Consultation Competition', as well as ththe '30 Bar Council of India Trust All India Inter-University Moot Court
Competition'. The college also organized the 'International Client Consultation
Competition' (National Round)-2013 in association with Forum of South Asian
Clinical Law Teachers.
4
REPORT OF THE SECOND PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION & LAW STUDENTS'
CONFERENCE 2016-17
The India Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting rd thCompetition and Law Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 3 to 4 December,
2016 to select five qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC Round. It
saw participation of 32 teams from almost all states in India representing National Law
Universities and Central & State Universities and other leading law colleges. The
competition was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, Judge,
Supreme Court of India in the presence of Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon. The India Round
tested participants on various aspects of nuclear energy laws and policies in India,
including nuclear damages and liability. The top five colleges that qualified for SAARC
Round are:-
1. Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
2. Gujarat National Law University, Gujarat
3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
4. Nirma University, Ahmadabad
5. Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi
India Round : 2016-17
The SAARC Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting th thCompetition and Law Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 10 to 12
February, 2017. 16 teams from leading universities from SAARC nations participated in
the competition. The SAARC Round tested participants on various aspects of
international law including environmental damages, compensation and rights of
indigenous tribal communities under the international law. The final round was judged
by five sitting judges of SAARC Nations. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Kankanithanthri T. Chithrasiri, Judge Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta,
Rajasthan High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Bhansali, Rajasthan High Court and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Punjab & Haryana High Court. The winner &
Runner-up team of the SAARC Round after a stimulating session of mooting were
Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.
Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal.
SAARC Round : 2016-17
5
th thThe Law Students' Conference was held from 11 to 12 February, 2017 at Lloyd Law
College. It was an exercise aimed at promoting research, writing and presentation skills
of law students from SAARC countries. The conference witnessed participation from
16 teams from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Research papers were
submitted by the presenters on the theme 'Justice to Indigenous People'.
The winners of the Best Paper, Second Best Paper and Third Best Paper Awards,
respectively, were students from Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi, University of
Colombo, Sri Lanka & Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi
Law Students' Conference 2016-17
The India Round of the Third Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting th thCompetition & Law Students' Conference 2017-18 was held from 27 to 29 October,
2017 to select five qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC Round. It
saw participation from 40 teams from almost all states in India representing National
Law Universities, Central & State Universities and other leading law colleges. The
competition was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge, Supreme
Court of India in the presence of Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon. The India Round
tested participants on various aspects of Constitutional Law in India. The colleges that
qualified for SAARC Round are:
1. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
2. School of Law, Christ University, Bangaluru
3. SASTRA University, Thanjavur
4. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
5. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
6. Institute of Law Nirma University, Gujarat
7. CMR University School of Legal Study, Bangaluru
REPORT OF THE THIRD PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION
INDIA ROUND 2017-18
6
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MOOTING COMPETITION
The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-
18 will consist of India Round and the SAARC Round, along with a Law Students'
Conference to be held at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, India.
The SAARC Round comprising of participants from SAARC Countries, i.e., India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives will be th thheld from 16 to 19 February, 2018.
thThe Law Students' Conference will be held on 17 February 2018 on the topic
“Disaster Management: SAARC Cooperation”.
India which has over 1400 law schools can send up to eight (8)Teams to the SAARC
Round of the Competition while other countries in the region can send up to two (2)
Teams (on request of the respective national administrators, the SAARCLAW
Administrator may allow maximum four (4) teams from each SAARC country other
than India).
The objective of the mooting is to promote written and oral advocacy skills and
professionalism among students and to cultivate transnational ties among the legal
community for mutual benefit.
ARTICLE 1: Participation and Scope
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
thThe SAARC Round of the competition will be held at Lloyd Law college from16 thto18 February, 2018 among student teams from various colleges and universities
imparting legal education in SAARC Countries, provided that no institution shall
send more than one team to compete in the SAARC Round.
The SAARC Round shall consist of four rounds. The first round of the competition
shall be a Preliminary Round and the top scoring Eight (8) Teams in the Preliminary
Round will qualify for the Quarter-final Round.
The second round of the competition shall be the Quarter-final Round and the top
Four (4) scoring Teams in Quarter-final Round will qualify for the Semi-final
Round.
The third round of the competition shall be the Semi-final Round and the top two (2)
Scoring Teams in Semi-final Round will qualify for the Final Round.
The fourth round of the competition shall be the Final Round and the top scoring
team in the final round will be declared the Winner, and the second team will be
declared as the Runner-Up.
The Organizing Committee reserves the right to skip any round/s, in case of any
eventuality, without prior notification.
There shall be a Committee of Judges in each Court. Each Court will have three
judges.
The Fourth and Final Round will have a Five Judges Bench including Sitting Judges
of the High Court/Supreme Court.
ARTICLE 2: Organization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
7
Each team will consist of two Counsels and two Researchers.thEvery participant ought to be a bonafide law student as on 16 February, 2018
pursuing law under the Three Year Scheme or Five Year Scheme from an institution
duly recognized by the Bar Council of India or is a bonafide law student of an
institution from a SAARC Country.
Each institute/college can send only One Team of such eligible participants.
In no case shall any team consist of more than four (4) participants. Their number
cannot be increased under any circumstances. The travel expenses of the participants
shall be met by their respective institution or by the participants themselves.
However, accommodation and local transport facility will be extended for the
duration of the competition between Lloyd Law College and the nearest metro
station.
ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility
1.
2.
3.
4.
There is NO Registration fee for the SAARC Round of the Third Prof. N.R.
Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18.
The participating teams are mandatorily required to send the complete registration
form via e-mail to [email protected]
No subsequent change in the team composition will be permitted.
Registration forms received after the deadline will not be considered for registration
except under justifiable circumstances as decided by the Organizing Committee.thFormal registration of the teams shall be done on 16 February, 2018.
ARTICLE 4: Registration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The moot proposition for the SAARC Round can be downloaded from
http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in
All queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be addressed to
[email protected] Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be entertained after 30
December 2017.
All clarifications will be uploaded for everyone's perusal without disclosure of the
identity of the teams which raised them.
ARTICLE 5: The Moot Problem and Clarifications
1.
2.
3.
4.
Each team shall submit soft copies (in PDF) of the Memorials to the Organizing
Committee of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting stCompetition & Law Students' Conference, by 31 January 2018 via e-mail to
Each team shall also submit five (5) hard copies of the Memorials to the Organizing
Committee of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
ARTICLE 6: Memorials
1.
2.
8
thCompetition & Law Students' Conference on16 February, 2018 by 06:00 p.m. IST
at the time of formal registration at the venue.
Memorials must be submitted on the standard international A/4 Size Page in
FontType: Times New Roman, Font Size: 12, Double Spacing. The Font Style of the
Footnote should also be Times New Roman, Font Size: 10 and should be single
spaced. Quotations from sources outside of the memorial of Fifty (50) words or
more in any part of the memorial shall be block quoted, italicized (i.e. right and left
indented) and must be single spaced.thThe citation should be in compliance with the 20 Edition of Bluebook. Speaking
footnotes or endnotes are not allowed.
No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College of the participant
and each team will be awarded a TEAM CODE and that number alone shall be
marked on the memorials. No team shall communicate their institutional affiliation
or identity to anyone during the competition. Disclosure of identity shall result in
immediate disqualification. The memorials of the Petitioner and the Respondent
must be differentiated by 'Blue Cover' and 'Red Cover' respectively and marked with
Codes.
Memorials for both sides should contain the following:
(a) Title Page
(b) Table of Contents
(c) Index of Authorities
(d) Statement of Jurisdiction
(e) Statement of Facts
(f) Summary of Arguments/ Pleadings
(g) Arguments Supported by the Authorities
(h) Conclusion / Prayer
The Title Page shall include:
(a) The Name of the Court
(b) The Year of the Competition
(c) The Name of the Case
(d) The Title of the Document (i.e., “Memorial for the Respondent” or “Memorial
for the Petitioner”)
The memorial shall not exceed more than thirty (30) pages. The following contents
are inclusive within the stipulated page limit:
(a) Pleadings
(b) Conclusions
(c) Annexure, if any
(d) Appendices and Footnotes
Any issue or pleading, not discussed within the above mentioned contents of the
Memorial shall not be included in any other section of the Memorial.
The following shall not be included in the limit of Thirty (30) pages set out for the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9
(a) Title Page
(b) Table of Contents
(c) Index of Authorities
(d) Statement of Jurisdiction
(e) Statement of Facts
(f) Issues Presented
(g) Summary of Pleadings
Statement of Facts: The Statement of Facts shall be limited to the facts as stipulated
as well as to the necessary inferences drawn from the proposition. The Statement of
Facts must not include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative
statements, or legal conclusions. An excessive Statement of Facts shall be a 'Non-
Discretionary Memorial Penalty', but such violation may be taken into account by
the judges while evaluating the written submission.
Summary of Pleadings: The Summary of Pleadings shall consist of a substantive
summary of the “Pleadings”, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings
contained in the Pleadings Section. An excessive Summary of Pleadings shall be a
Non-Discretionary Memorial Penalty, while a Summary of Pleadings which is
otherwise improper shall not be subjected to a Memorial Penalty, but such violation
may be taken into account by the judges while evaluating the written submission.
The teams are to submit authorities supporting their contentions referred to in the
memorials at the time of oral presentation but at no stage they are allowed to
supplement the memorial in the form of annexure, compilation etc. which may
otherwise amount to exceeding page limit of the memorial.
8.
9.
10.
The memorials shall be assessed by a Committee of Judges and every memorial will
be marked out of total hundred (100) marks and the Team Memorial will have the
average total of both the sides (Petitioner/Respondent). The marking criteria and the
marks allocated to each category are listed below:
ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials
(1) Knowledge of facts and law (Maximum: 20 pts)
(2) Proper and articulate analysis (Maximum: 20 pts)
(3) Extent and use of research (Maximum: 20 pts)
(4) Clarity and organization (Maximum: 20 pts)
(5) Citation of sources (Maximum: 10 pts)
(6) Grammar and style (Maximum: 10 pts)
CRITERIA
10
The Preliminary Round
The Preliminary Round will comprise of two Stages wherein the teams will argue
from both sides, i.e., Petitioner and Respondent respectively. The organizing
committee reserves the absolute right to derogate from this rule in case of any
eventuality.
Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team
Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.
Two (2) members from each team will make oral presentations during the round.
Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to
how it wishes to allocate its 35 minutes among:
(a) Its First Oralist,
(b) Its Second Oralist, and
(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Surrebuttal (for the Respondent).
No single oralist shall plead for more than twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal or
sur rebuttal. Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the
competition. In exceptional circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to
permit a single oralist to argue beyond the twenty (20) minutes limit.
The order of the pleadings in each round at all levels of the Competition shall be:
Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent1 Respondent 2 Rebuttal
(Petitioner 1 or 2) Sur rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).
Each team may reserve upto five (5) minutes of rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a gesture
of courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether they
intend to reserve any time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral
arguments and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not
waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the
rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although the team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal
must be one of the two team members who argued during the team's main argument,
the team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible
members will offer rebuttal or surrebuttal.
A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's
memorial. The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the
Respondent's primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal
shall be limited to responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the
rebuttal, there shall be no surebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the
primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal.
The Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Rounds
The Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Rounds shall comprise of only One Stage
respectively wherein the teams shall argue from One (1) Side only, i.e., Petitioner or
Respondent after a draw of lots. No derogation is permissible from this rule.
ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
1.
11
Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team
Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.
Two (2) members from each team will make oral presentations during the round.
Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to
how it wishes to allocate its 35 minutes among:
(a) Its First Oralist,
(b) Its Second Oralist, and
(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Sur rebuttal (for the Respondent).
No single oralist shall plead for more than Twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal
or sur rebuttal. Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the
competition. In exceptional circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to
permit a single oralist to argue beyond the Twenty (20) minutes limit.
The order of the pleadings in each Round at all levels of the Competition shall be:
Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent1 Respondent 2 Rebuttal
(Petitioner 1 or 2) Sur rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).
Each team may reserve upto Five (5) minutes of rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a gesture
of courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether they
intend to reserve any time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral
arguments and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not
waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the
rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although the team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal
must be one of the two team members who argued during the team's main argument,
the team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible
members will offer rebuttal or surrebuttal.
A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's
memorial. The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the
Respondent's primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal
shall be limited to responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the
rebuttal, there shall be no surebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the
primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal.
No researcher from any team will be permitted to be present in the court room during
any of the rounds, i. e., Preliminary, Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final. The oralists
alone will be allowed entry to the court room in all the four rounds. No derogation is
permissible from this rule.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The judges would assign marks to each individual speaker out of hundred (100)
marks. The team score would be the aggregate of the total marks for oral
presentations of the 2 speakers. The following shall be the Marking Criteria and the
Marks allocated to each category:
ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations
12
Any dispute about the conduct of the Moot Court Competition shall be referred to
the Dispute Resolution Committee, comprising of the Chairperson, Member
Secretary and the three members before the end of the competition. In all matters of
complaint or dispute, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be
final.
ARTICLE 10: Dispute Resolution
(1) Knowledge of Law (30): Excellent (26-29 pts); Very Good (22-25 pts);
Good (17-21 pts); Adequate (12-16 pts); Poor ( below 12)
(2) Application of Law to Facts (25):Excellent (21-24 pts); Very Good
(17-20 pts); Good (13- 16pts); Adequate (10-12 pts); Poor (below 10)
(3) Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions (30):Excellent (26-29 pts); Very
Good (22-25 pts); Good (17-21 pts); Adequate (12-16 pts); Poor (below 12)
(4) Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10): Excellent (8-9 pts); Very Good
(6-7 pts); Good (4-5 pts); Adequate (2-3 pts); Poor (below 2)
(5) Time Management and Organization (5):Excellent (4 pts); Very Good
(3 pts); Good (2 pts); Adequate (1 pt); Poor (0)
ORAL MARKING CRITERIA
The language for the Mooting Competition shall be English.
All participants are expected to maintain the decorum in the Court during the
competition and are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal
profession.
Oralists, Researchers, or persons affiliated with the team, will not be permitted to
hear the arguments in any court room in which the team is not one of the contesting
teams whilst the team is still in the competition.
ARTICLE 11: Code of Conduct
1.
2.
3.
The winning team will be awarded the “Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18 Winning Team Trophy”.
The runner-up team will be awarded the “Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18 Runner-Up Team Trophy”.
The Female and Male Oralists receiving the highest marks in the Oral Pleadings of
Preliminary Round will be awarded "Best Student Advocate (Female)" and the
"Best Student Advocate (Male)" Trophies respectively.
ARTICLE 12: Awards
1.
2.
3.
13
Team receiving the highest and second highest marks in memorial evaluation shall
be awarded "Best Memorial" and the "Second Best Memorial" trophies
respectively.
The winners will receive "Certificate of Merit" and participants will receive
"Certificate of Participation".
4.
Each team of four (4) participants will be provided accommodation by Lloyd Law
College for the duration of the competition only. Students seeking for
accommodation are required to inform the Organizing Committee, through their
Registration Form, so as to enable them to make necessary arrangements.
ARTICLE 13: Accommodation
5.
The duration of each court shall not exceed its prescribed time-limit.
Team numbers and the side to be represented (Petitioner/Respondent) will be
decided by draw of lots at different stages during the competition. The scheme of
competition thus drawn out will be notified to the participating teams.
The organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in respect of the
side to be taken by the competing teams, in case it becomes absolutely necessary due
to withdrawal of any team/teams at the last minute, or if the competing teams had no
opportunity to argue the other side of the problem.
Each team is expected to be ready with written briefs and oral arguments to argue
from either side of the case. The court will follow its own procedure within the
accepted norms and judicial practices, and in case of doubt or dispute in the matter of
procedure or facts, the decision of the Presiding Member of the Committee of
Judges of each Court shall be final.
ARTICLE 14: General Section
1.
3.
4.
2.
All communication by the teams pertaining to registration, travel, moot proposition,
Clarifications or otherwise shall be made to Organizing Committee on
ARTICLE 15: Official Communications
14
RULES & REGULATIONS FOR LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE
The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference,
2017- 18 aims at promoting research, writing and cognitive skills among law
students of SAARC countries. It is also expected to facilitate a network amongst law
students for mutual benefit and to encourage them to maintain brotherhood in the
profession.thThe Law Students Conference will be held on 17 February, 2018 on the topic
“Disaster Management: SAARC Cooperation”.
ARTICLE 1: Objective and Organization
1.
2.
From India: Eight Teams from India Round will participate in the Law Students'
Conference.
Other than India: Two Teams each from every SAARC country will qualify for
participation in the Law Students' Conference upon registration with the Organizing
Committee. On the request of the respective national administrators, the SAARC
Administrator may allow maximum four (4) teams from each SAARC country other
than India).
ARTICLE 2: Participation
1.
2.
The Law Students' Conference is open only for Presenters, who may act as
Researchers in the mooting. However, during the oral rounds of the mooting
competition, no researchers will be permitted to be present in any of the court rooms.
No derogation from this rule is permissible.
Two Presenters from each participating team in the SAARC Round is required to
submit one research paper individually and participate in the Law Students
Conference.
Each presenter shall contribute one Research Paper being the original works of the
Presenter.
Both the Research Papers will be presented during the SAARC Law Students
Conference by the respective researchers/presenters.
The research papers selected by the committee of experts after peer-review will be
published in a Collected Volume by Lloyd Law College.
ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
All Presenters shall submit their Abstracts to : [email protected] latest by 11:59p.m. IST on 05
January 2018.
The Final Paper (SOFT COPY) shall be submitted by email to [email protected] latest by 11:59 p.m. IST on 04
February, 2018.
......................................................
ARTICLE 4: Abstract and Paper Submission
1.
2.
15
thThe Hard Copies of the research paper shall be submitted on 16 February, 2018 by
06:00 p.m. IST at the time of formal registration at the venue.
3.
The oral presentation of the research paper shall not exceed Fifteen (15) minutes per
presenter. Presenters exceeding the time limit will be liable to a penalty of Two (2)
marks per minute(s) exceeded.
ARTICLE 5: Paper Presentation
The research papers will be assessed by a Peer-Review Committee and every
research paper will be marked out of total hundred (100) marks.
The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each category are listed below:
ARTICLE 6: Assessment of Research Paper
1.
2.
(1) Content, Proper and Articulate Analysis ( Maximum: 30pts)
(2) Extent and use of Research (Maximum: 20 pts)
(3) Clarity & Organization (Maximum: 30 pts)
(4) Citation of Sources (Maximum: 10 pts)
(5) Grammar, Language and Style (Maximum: 10 pts)
CRITERIA
The paper presentation shall be assessed by a Presentation Committee and every
presentation will be marked out of total hundred (100) marks.
The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each category are listed below:
ARTICLE 7: Assessment of Paper Presentation
1.
2.
(1) Clarity and Articulate Analysis (Maximum: 30 pts)
(2) Extent and use of Research (Maximum: 25 pts)
(3) Organization and Style (Maximum: 20 pts)
(4) Etiquettes (Maximum: 10 pts)
(5) Elocution and Oral Delivery (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)
(6) Time Management (Maximum: 5 pts)
CRITERIA
16
All research papers must be accompanied by an abstract not exceeding 200 words.
The body of the manuscript shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 12 and in 1.5
line spacing.
The footnotes shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 10 and in single line spacing.
Submissions must be made in the MS Word (.doc/.docx) format and the citations
must conform to the 20th Edition of Bluebook.
Co-authorship is impermissible. No deviation from this rule is allowed.
The prescribed word limit is 5,000 words exclusive of footnotes.
All queries shall be made only to [email protected]
All submissions shall be made via e-mail to :
[email protected] within the prescribed time period.
The subject of the email shall be “Submission for SAARC Law Students
Conference, 2017-18 (Title of the manuscript)”.
The submission should be accompanied by a plagiarism report/similarity test report
(one page indicating the percentage of similarity).
The submission should be accompanied by a Cover Letter which must include the
following details:
(a) Name of Author
(b) Contact Details – Address and Mobile Number
(c) Name and Address of Parent Institution
(d) Course currently being pursued/Current year/Semester
(e) A declaration that the research paper is original and authored solely for the
purpose of the Third Prof. N. R. MadhavaMenon SAARCLAW Law Students'
Conference, 2017- 18.
No indication shall be made in the research paper for identifying the
Institution/College of the participant or name of the participant. No
presenter/researcher shall communicate their institutional affiliation or identity to
anyone during the conference.
..............................................................
ARTICLE 8: Guidelines for Paper Submission
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The presenter scoring the highest marks in paper assessment and paper presentation
cumulatively will be adjudged the Winner and shall be awarded the “Third Prof. N.
R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference, 2017-18 Best
Presenter Award”.
The presenter scoring the second highest marks in paper assessment and paper
presentation cumulatively will be adjudged the 'Runner Up' and shall be awarded the
“Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference, 2017-
18 Best Presenter (Runner Up) Award”.
All selected research papers will be published in a collected volume by Lloyd Law
College and their authors will receive certificates.
All presenters will be awarded 'Certificate of Paper Presentation'.
ARTICLE 9: Awards
1.
2.
3.
4.
17
ANNEXURE ON DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTIES
The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an integral part of
the Official Rules of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18.
The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to ensure a fair and
supportive contest in the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18 by providing
means for ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the Official Rules.
ARTICLE A1: Aims
1.
2.
Cheating or use of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited and if indulged in,
shall result in disqualification of the team.
Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in
disqualification of the team.
Teams are not allowed to carry any electronic gadget inside the Court Room.
Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if indulged in,
shall result in disqualification of the team.
ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct
1.
2.
3.
4.
Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a disqualification.
It shall be the discretion of the Organizing Committee to decide on any violation of
the provisions of the Rules and Regulations during the rounds and whether that
violation entails penalty point. If a participating team, member of the Bench or the
time keeper wishes to claim a violation, the Bench shall inform the Organizing
Committee of the claim made and shall not considerate as a part of their
deliberations unless directed to do so by the Organizing Committee.
ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)
1.
2.
.
Delay in the submission of the memorials, use of incorrect font or font size, use of
font of inconsistent size, or improper line spacing, failure to include all parts of the
memorial, or inclusion of an unremunerated part, substantive legal argument
outside of approved sections of memorial, improperly formatted index of
authorities, excessive length, failure to include necessary information on the
memorial cover, inclusion of any identifying mark, character or text in the memorial
shall result in imposition of penalties.
ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials
1.
18
Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be in proper
dress code. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and 'White
Shirt', 'Black Blazers' and 'Black Neck Tie'. Failure to follow dress code shall result
in imposition of penalty.
ARTICLE A5: Dress Code
The participants are required to comply with the rules formulated by the Organizing
Committee at all times during the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW
Mooting Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18
Total points collected by a team shall be reduced by the penalty points imposed for
the violation of rules specified by the Organizing Committee for each round in
which the violation took place.
Each penalty point shall be imposed for each violation. One penalty point imposed
shall reduce one mark from the score of the team. However, the total number of
penalty points awarded against one team shall not surpass 10 points.
If the number of penalties increases from Ten (10) in numbers, the team can be
debarred from the competition. An opportunity of being heard by the Organizing
Committee can be offered to the team on request. The Committee shall decide
whether to debar that particular team from further participation in the competition or
reduce the marks from the total score obtained by that team.
ARTICLE A6: Non-Compliance with the Rules of Organizing Committee
1.
2.
3.
4.
19
th thIMPORTANT DATES FOR SAARC ROUND (16 to 18 February, 2018)
DATES FOR REGISTRATION
DATES FOR MEMORIALS
DATE OF COMPETITION
SCHEDULE FOR SAARC ROUNDthFRIDAY, 16 FEBRUARY, 2018
Date of Announcement of Competition
Last Date for Registration
th29 October, 2017
th05 November, 2017
Release of Moot Problem for SAARC Round
Assignment of Team Codes for SAARC Round
Last Date for Clarification on Moot Problem
Submission of Memorials (SOFT COPY)
for SAARC Round
Submission of Memorials (5 HARD COPIES)
at Reading Room, Lloyd Law College
th29 November, 2017
th15 January, 2018
th30 December, 2017
st31 January, 2018
th16 February, 2018
Preliminary Rounds and Quarter-final Rounds
Semi-final Rounds and Final Round
Law Students' Conference
th17 February, 2018
th18 February, 2018
th17 February, 2018
Registration of Participants at Lloyd Law College
Draw of lots & Exchange of Memorials, followed
by briefing
Dinner at Hotel Qube
03:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m.
06:30 p.m.
07:30 p.m.
thSATURDAY, 17 FEBRUARY, 2018
Reporting of Teams & Distribution of badges
at Lloyd Law College
Group Photo of Participants with Chief Guest &
other Guests
08:30 a.m.
09:30 a.m.
20
Inaugural Ceremony
Tea
Preliminary Round Stage I
Exchange of Memorials for Preliminary Round II
Lunch
Preliminary Round Stage II
Tea
Results & Exchange of Memorials for Quarter-final Round
Quarter-final Round
Results of Quarter-finals & Exchange of Memorials
Dinner at Hotel Qube
09:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.
01:30 p.m.
01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.
02:30 p.m. to 04:00 p.m.
04:00 p.m.
04:30 p.m.
06:00 p.m. to 07:30 p.m.
08:00 p.m.
08:30 p.m.
thSUNDAY, 18 FEBRUARY, 2018
Arrival of Teams
Semi-finals Rounds
Results of Semi-final Rounds & Exchange of Memorials
Final Round
Lunch
Valediction Ceremony
08:00 a.m.
09:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.
01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.
03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.
DATES FOR LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE
Abstract Submission
Submission of Research Paper (SOFT COPY)
Submission of Research Paper (HARD COPY)
th 05 January, 2018
th 04 February, 2018
th 16 February, 2018
thSATURDAY, 17 FEBRUARY, 2018
Paper Presentation Session 01 at Seminar Hall
Paper Presentation Session 02 at Seminar Hall
Paper Presentation Session 03 at Seminar Hall
12.00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m.
03:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.
06:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m.
21
Lunch
Valediction Ceremony
01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.
03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.
thMONDAY, 19 FEBRUARY, 2018
SIGHT SEEING TOUR TO TAJ MAHAL, AGRA
The participants will be taken for a sightseeing tour to one of the seven wonders of the
world – the Taj Mahal.
* Participants from SAARC Countries are to carry their passports and visa for
identification by the authorities.
* Indian Participants must carry their ID such as Address Proof, Voter ID or Driving
License for entry to the Taj Mahal.
22
Chief Patron
Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon
Hony. SAARCLAW Mooting Administrator
Prof. (Dr.) S. SivakumarMember, Law Commission of India /
Honorary Secretary, MILAT
FOUNDING COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Mr. Manohar ThairaniPresident
Lloyd Law College
MOOTING COMMITTEE
Chief Advisor
Mr. Mehmood Y. MandviwallaPresident
SAARCLAW
Advisor
Mr. Muhammad Mohsen RashidSecretary General
SAARCLAW
Advisor
Mr. Vipin BhattExecutive Director
SAARC Law
NATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
Prof. (Dr.) Tara Prasad Sapkota
Prof. (Dr.) Lisa P. Lukose
Prof. (Dr.) V. T. Thamilmaran
Mr. Lobzang Rinzin Yargay
Prof. Ghizaal Haress
Prof. (Dr.) Md. Rahamat Ullah
Dr. Marium Jabyn
Tribhuvan University
GGSIP University
University of Colombo
American University of Afghanistan
University of Dhaka
Ministry of Gender & Family
Nepal
India
Sri Lanka
Bhutan
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Maldives
Bhutan National Legal Institute
Advisor
Mr. R. Venkataramani Senior Advocate
Supreme Court of India
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan
Deputy Director, Lloyd Law College
Organizing Secretary
Dr. P. Puneeth
Associate Professor, JNU
Member
Dr. Joyti Dogra Sood
Associate Professor, ILI
Member
Dr. Upma Gautam
Assistant Professor, USLLS
Member
Mr. Ravi Prakash
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Member
23
DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE
Mr. R. Venkataramani
Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Chairperson
MemberProf. (Dr.) Kanwal D. P. Singh
Dean, GGSIP University
MemberProf. (Dr.) Rajesh Kumar Garg
Dean, Faculty of Law, C.C.S. University
MemberProf. (Dr.) Shailendra Kumar
Professor, D.A.V. College, Muzaffarnagar
Member Secretary Administrator - India
Ms. Anju Jain
Advocate, High Court of Delhi
Member
Mr. Ahsan Rashid
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
Member
Mr. Rahul Sinha Roy
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
Member
Dr. Vikram Singh Jaswal
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
Member
Mr. Pankaj Singh
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
Member
Mr. Gangesh Kumar Jha
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
Member
STEERING COMMITTEE
STUDENT COORDINATORS
Mr. Kumar Deepraj
Ms. Richa Bais
+91 - 8447248119
+91 - 9711127801
Coordinator
Co - Coordinator
24
Dr. Md. Salim
Ms. Richa Chaudhary
Dr. Kavitha Chalakkal
Ms. Anjali Prabhakaran
Ms. Chhaya Bhardwaj
Mr. Madhav Malya
Mr. Anil Thakur
Mr. Piyush Sharma
Mr. Amit Srivastav
Major V. G. Menon
Mr. Ratish Mallick
General Coordinator
Faculty Coordinator
Member
Member
Member
Member
Coordinator (Accommodation)
Coordinator (Media)
Coordinator (Travel)
Coordinator (Administration)
Coordinator (Finance)
STUDENT COMMITTEE
Ms. Syeda Shaharbano Abidi
Ms. Qausar Khan
Mr. Priyanshu Saurav
Ms. Shibya Pandey
Ms. Pooja Kumari
Mr. Ankit Garg
Mr. Aman Kumar
Ms. Samar Parveen
Mr. Rishav Ranjan
B.A.LL.B. 2013 - 18
B.A.LL.B. 2014 - 19
LL.B. 2015 - 18
LL.B. 2016 - 19
B.A.LL.B. 2015 - 20
B.A.LL.B. 2015 - 20
B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21
B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21
B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21
MOOT COMPROMIS
25
MOOT COMPROMIS FOR SAARC ROUND
This moot Compromis has been authored by Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Supreme
Court of India for the SAARC Round of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition & Law Students' Conference, 2017-18. This
moot proposition has been formulated solely for the purpose of this competition
furthering the academic exercise.
3.
1. Historically, the plateau of 'Eucalidus' was under the colonial domination of
Republic of 'Erga' since 1600. Then, the plateau of Eucalidus was sparsely populated
and believed to be the treasure trove of all precious metals, minerals and full of
natural resources. Across the breadth of plateau, river 'Eulga' flows, on the bank of
which, it is believed that one of the most advanced human civilization i.e.
'Eucalidian civilization' used to thrive and flourish. It was land inhabited by tribes.
The River 'Eulga' has its origin in Republic of 'Erga'.
The plateau of 'Eucalidus' is presently inhabited by a mixed population. Originally,
the tribes of 'Yo-Yo' and the 'Bao- Bao' are believed to be aboriginal, indigenous
tribes of this plateau. These two tribes formed part of the same ancestral clan i.e.
'Phukan Clan'. These two tribes used to live in the northern part of river 'Eulga',
spread across the north bank of the river sharing the same culture, religious practices
and customs.
About 200 years back, a local chieftaincy dispute of the two tribes/communities –
forced the 'Bao-Bao' faction of the tribe to cross the other side of river 'Eulga' and
settled in the south-eastern part of it, which was a mountainous region. This new
settlement in the south- eastern part did not offer any conducive condition for their
subsistence as this region remained dry, infertile mountainous region. Over
generations, the tribe of 'Bao- Bao' devised new methods of irrigation, scientific
methods of agriculture alongwith horticulture and developed animal husbandry
industry. The Tribe of 'Bao- Bao' is also credited with building one of the earliest
dams in the south-eastern part (near their settlement) to divert the required amount
of water from the river 'Eulga'.
With the passage of time, by the mid of 20th Century, under the increasing pressure
from the different administrative group, internal constituencies of plateau of
'Eucalidus', and the rise of new republic order/ governance along with present day
International legal regime – the Republic of 'Erga' realized that their domination
over the plateau of 'Eucalidus' was not only tenuous rather morally wrong. It
convened a Round Table conference wherein it invited the local administrative head,
Tribal head and agreed to have a plan for 'Devolution of Power leading to
Independence- 1945'.
PART I
2.
4.
26
Under this policy document, The Republic of 'Erga' decided to unconditionally grant
independence to all their colonial possessions including the plateau of 'Eucalidus', if
the inhabitants of these territories chose that option by referendum under the aegis of
United Nation (UN).
As the referendum, by over 97% of their vote, the northern and southern plateau of
'Eucalidus' decided to become independent and form 'Two' Separate Nation i.e.
'North Eucalidus' and 'South Eucalidus' respectively.
The Republic of 'Erga' withdrew itself from the administration of the plateau of
'Eucalidus' w.e.f. Dec. 31, 1959 and the two nation was born on 01.01.1960.
5.
6.
7. The birth of two nation had social, economic and political impact on the inhabitants
of the 'Eucalidus' plateau. It was the ultimately people who were being divided as
separate nation specially when the aborigines (Bao- Bao & Yo –Yo tribes) of that
plateau shared a common cultural heritage, practicing the same traditions and
values. However, despite this, the two tribes 'Yo-Yo' and 'Bao- Bao' continued
visiting their kith and kin across the river, leading to a harmonious, cordial inter-
personal relationship including marriages and other social exchange. The
interaction among the ordinary members of these two tribes were so natural and
fluent that the systematic investigation by one of the leading anthropologist of the
Republic of 'Erga' i.e. Dr. KHAN, who is widely quoted and published; in one of his
celebrated publication observed as under:-
“The recent historical events have forced the 'Bao- Bao & Yo- Yo' tribes to be
separated geographically i.e. one the northern side and other on southern side of the
river 'Eulga'. But, the bonds of culture, social tie-up, sense of belongingness among
the two tribes have been too string to be broken and separated. The policy document
of 1945 may separate them further into two nation theory in the present
international political set – up, but, are not the borders becoming irrelevant and the
over-arching principles of 'humanism', 'global citizenship' to mankind are finding
more relevance than these territorial demarcations in 21st Century. The Truth is
along the river 'Eulga' – people have been divided, who have somehow refused to be
divided. The fact remains that natives of southern plateau (Bao- Bao tribe) maintain
a higher level of originality than those of their northern counterpart meaning
thereby the people of North Eucalidus have fully embraced the foreign system as
way of life.”
The policy document of 1945, contained a pre-condition to the grant of
independence to the plateau of 'Eucalidus' that “… to respect the WILL of the 'Bao-
Bao' & 'Yo –Yo' tribe and their freedom from all outside interference in its
administration”. It was reflected in the Tri- Partite Treaty signed on 1st January 1960
–wherein all the stakeholders acknowledged the autonomy of these two tribes.
PART II
8.
27
Two nation i.e. North Eucalidus (hereinafter NE) & South Eucalidus (hereinafter
SE) pledged not to interfere and Republic of 'Erga' guaranteed the autonomy in the
event of a breach of this treaty as under :-
“Republic of Erga … reserved the right to take corrective action in the plateau of
'Eucalidus' with the sole objective of re-establishing the state of affairs as envisaged
under the Treaty”.
The Tri- Partite Agreement further guaranteed the existing free flow and exchange
of the two tribe across the river Eulga without any interference except national
emergency.
The Constitution of South Eucalidus (hereinafter SE) provides the basic legal
framework of the Country. It lays down the basic principle of governance in the
Republic of SE, which are heavily influenced by its culture and practices followed
by majority of its population. The social set up of SE is that men enjoy power over
women. They control the country's economic activity, and responsible for making
all important decisions in house-hold, political, economic life.
The Constitution of South Eucalidus places special importance to the Culture &
Traditional value as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy & under
Fundamental Duty as under: -
“Culture and Tradition: - The State shall strive to strengthen and maintain
cultural values by instilling/ prescribing the same in unified educational
curriculum. The State must strive to teach national culture and traditions to the
younger generation to become useful members in the building of their society and
nation as a whole.
Fundamental Duty: - Everyone shall observe the value of cultural
heritage, traditions and historical harmony based on the spirit of common
brotherhood and fraternity amongst all the people in an equal manner.”
The social set up of South Eucalidus does not allow the women to take any
independent decision in social and economic aspect of life. The Government as well
as South Eucalidus seeks to justify this indifferent approach to 'Equality' on account
of its historical practices, as custom practiced for so long as part of its cultural
heritage. Certain women leader of the South Eucalidus also endorses this view as
part of its rich cultural heritage and binding on the womanhood under the scheme of
the Constitution.
[12.] The Constitution of NE as well as SEguarantees several fundamental
rights, broadly corresponding to those recognized in International Human Rights
instruments. Their Constitution further guarantees direct access to its Supreme
Court for enforcement of those rights.
Under the Constitutional scheme of both the countries, the 'Yo –Yo' & 'Bao- Bao'
tribe respectively, have been granted a great degree of autonomy, as well as special
powers and autonomy for tribes to conduct their own affairs. Each tribe has a
hierarchy of councils at the village, range, and tribal levels dealing with local
disputes.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
28
The Constitution of both the countries also provides a kind of autonomy for the
administration of such areas through the Tribal Advisory Council and provides
special protection to the 'land' and 'area' inhabited by them. Special provisions for
administration of justice in these areas are guaranteed.
Both the countries have ratified the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (ratified in year 1995); the
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified by NE
in 1967 & SE in 1970 respectively); the 1966 International Covenant on
Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (ratified in 1977); the 1951
Convention relating tothe Status of Refugees (ratified in 1973) and theNE also
ratified 1967 Protocol to the Conventionrelating to the Status of Refugees (ratified
in 1977); the 1990 InternationalConvention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members oftheir Families (ratified in 1994).
When ratifying CEDAW, SE has expressed reservations as follows:
“In general
In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and underlying culture,
tradition and values of these, the SE is not under an obligation to observe the
contradictory terms of the Convention.
In particular
i. The State of SE hereby expresses its reservation with regard to article 7(b) and (c)
of the Convention to the extent they are inconsistent with the culture and customary
practice. If not, the provisions are fully implemented in SE.
ii. The state of SE does not consider itself bound by article 9(2) and article 29 (1) of
the Convention.”
One of the woman leader of South Eucalidus has observed during a program show
on the Television in following words:-
“It is not about the law, it is about the culture, tradition which we the people of
Eucalidus Plateau seeks to preserve and nurture for the future generation. The
womanhood in general, don't want to go against it, well, some women respect it out
of fear. The Eucalidian family structure is generally hierarchical with the husband
as the head of the family. We are used to that; it is our society.”
Another glaring example of this prevailing inequality among the men & women of
South Eucalidus is that even for getting a telephone / mobile phone SIM Card, the
women need to get the approval of their husband / male head of the family member.
One of the leading human rights NGO in year 2015, published a report that 97%
women who were turned down the issuance of SIM Card were the one whose
application lacked of consent/ approval of male family member.
17.
18.
14.
15.
16.
29
19. Another salient feature of the 1945 Plan was to have the 'Brown Fleet' of Naval base
of Republic of 'Erga' to be exclusively situated in the port city of 'Indica' for another
60 years. 'Indica' is an island port city in the adjacent sea to the plateau of 'Eucalidus'.
After 1 January, 1960 – the plateau of Island port city of Indica became the part of
SE.
Since, 1960, the Island city of Indica was having an autonomous government, which
was strongly supported by the Republic of Erga. In year 2012, the autonomous
government was led by Mr. Orohan Phamuk against whom there many cases of
corruption were pending before the Constitutional Court of South Eucalidus. It was
also reported that, in the election year 2010, there was massive rigging in the
election process for the island city of Indica consequent of which Mr. Orohan
Phamuk govt. got elected. However, in December 2013, the causes of political
upheavals were not known, but due to massive protest by the public and social
unrest, which condemned the rule of Mr. Orohan Phamuk and demanded his
ousting. Mr. Orohan Phamuk condemned the protest and stated that the vested
interest/ leadership in the mainland South Eucalidus is trying to destabilize his
Government in island City of Indica. He also stated that under the Tri- Partite
Agreement, the Republic of Erga has a solemn responsibility to protect the basic
human rights of the people of Indica.
As the protest continued, the autonomous parliament of Indica led by Mr. Orohan
Phamuk, passed a resolution in month of January 2014 and urged the Governmental
machinery to "strengthen friendly ties with the Republic of Erga" at various levels.
On 4 February 2014, the Supreme Council of Indica considered holding a
referendum on the island city status, and requested the Republic of Erga to guarantee
a free and fair referendum and the vote. The Security Service of mainland South
Eucalidus responded by opening a criminal case to investigate the possible
"subversion" of its territorial integrity and charged Mr. Orohan Phamuk under
various statutes dealing with sedition, anti- national activities etc.
As the Army and other security services launched its assault in the island City of
Indica, the associates and other ministers of Mr. Orohan Phamuk fled from the island
city of Indica. After this, the opposition parties and other leaders who were
sponsored by the mainland South Eucalidus put together a parliamentary quorum in
the Parliament of South Eucalidus and voted on to remove Mr. Orohan Phamuk from
his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfil his duties, for his alleged role in
anti- national activities, and the resolution got passed by the autonomous parliament
of island City of Indica.
The Republic of South Eucalidus approved the military rule in the island city of
Indica with a caretaker government under Mr. Yohanan. The Republic of Erga
termed this as forceful occupation of the island city of Indica and termed the present
arrangement as forceful military occupation of the territory.
PART III
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30
It also reminded that the Brown Fleet of Republic of Erga and its compatriots are
ready to sacrifice for the supreme cause of motherland. It termed the action and
decision of Parliament of South Eucalidus as "coup d'état", and that the caretaker
government was illegitimate.
On 15th March 2014, the world woke up to the news that situation in island City of
Indica has completely changed as the flag of Republic of Erga has been hoisted on all
important public buildings, public places including the Autonomous Parliament.
The Premier of Republic of Erga through a Press Conference announced that the
considering the WILL of People of Island City of Indica as reflected in the
resolution passed in January 2014, Indica has been re- integrated back with the
Republic of Erga. The Premier made the following speech: -
“The Supreme Will of people must prevail and reflected in the legitimate
Government as one of the cherished ideals of human civilization in modern
governance. Such a WILL which is reflected through the Parliamentary resolution
could be halted, suppressed and avoided for some time, but., ultimately it is one of
the basic universal human right as inscribed in the 'right to self- determination'.
Pursuant to this, the re-integration of island city is like coming home back. As the
majority of population of island city comprises of people who have their origin in
Republic of Erga, with the permanent base of Brown Fleet – it is the victory of people
of Indica and compatriots of Republic of Erga.'
The Republic of South Eucalidus andvarious international organization including
UN termed it as blatant violation" of sovereignty and territorial integrity of SE. The
UN passed a resolution wherein it termed this event as 'illegal occupation of
Republic of Erga' and did not recognize the annexation of island city of Indica.
The Republic of Erga opposes the "annexation" label, with its premier defending the
act and decision of 15th March 2014 as complying with the principle of self-
determination of peoples.
14.
25.
26.
27.
28. The 'Bao- Bao' tribe leadership condemned all existing discrimination towards
women by the general Government in South Eucalidus (SE) and often used to make
reference to the North Eucalidus (NE) for their progress, development and the kind
of equality which they embraced in tune with the principles of international human
rights. The leadership of 'Bao- Bao' tribe urged the general Government of SE to
bring suitable amendment in the Constitution of SE to that effect. The various
organization working the field of Women Empowerment and Women Equality also
petitioned the Govt. of SE to shun the practices which were discriminatory in nature
from social and economic life of SE.
As the tribal community of 'Bao- Bao' asserted its independence and functional
autonomy under the Tri- Partite Agreement dated 01 January 1960 for governing the
social and economic affairs of the Tribe, it passed a community order prohibiting all
kind of discriminatory practices towards women in their political, economic and
PART IV
29.
31
social life. It guaranteed the 'Right to Equality' to women of 'Bao- Bao' tribe contrary
to the cultural and historical practices, customs of the 'South Eucalidus'. The General
Government of the SE see this attempt as an attempt of express rebellion by the 'Bao-
Bao' tribe.
The leadership of South Eucalidus termed it as a situation akin to 'internal
disturbance' and failure of 'law & order' situation inthe tribal administered territory
i.e. of 'Bao- Bao Territory'. It threatened to invoke the 'Emergency Clause' which the
Constitution of South Eucalidus envisaged under for the proper administration of
the area. The 'Bao- Bao' tribe leadership has also a different set of bonding and
affinity towards the Republic of Erga which never interfered and gave a full
autonomy to the Tribal Community for regulating social, economic and political
life. The Deputy Prime Minister of South Eucalidus also reminded the solemn
constitutional provision highlighting the importance of culture, tradition and
historical values which has equal importance in the scheme of the Constitution along
with the following provision, which reads as under: -
“ *** Duty of the Government of South Eucalidus against external aggression and
internal disturbances: - It shall be the duty of the Government of South Eucalidus to
protect every autonomous territory, Tribal administered territory against external
aggression and internal disturbances and to ensure that the Governance is carried
out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
That as the Tribal Administered Area as governed by 'Bao- Bao' Community exerted
its special right to govern and administer the community without any external
interference and reminded it of Tri- Partite Agreement dated 1st January 1960. It also
sent a communique to the Government of 'Erga' explaining the looming threat and
interference at the hand of Government of South Eucalidus in the day to day affair. It
also reminded the Government of Erga of its pledge and duty under the Tri- Partite
Agreement at the time of grant of independence to South Eucalidus. It is further
imperative to mention that the Tribal Administered Area also reminded of
responsibility of Republic of Erga under the existing International Legal
Framework about the 'right to self –determination', right to equality to women, right
against gender – discrimination under various international convention, treaty and
emerging human rights obligations of mankind and right to development as a basic
human right in the 21st century.
On 1st June 2015, the Govt. of South Eucalidus imposed the Emergency in the tribal
area which was administered by the 'Bao- Bao' tribe. The Government machinery
including the forces, police has developed a different attitude and hatred towards the
member of Bao- Bao community specially 'women'. It demanded the alienation of
women from the public life and political discussions , negotiations as it considered
their involvement as culturally inappropriate. The President of the Political party
ruling the South Eucalidus plateau observed as under:-
30.
31.
32.
32
“It is historically proven and pious hard work of our ancestors , who often used to
say that where a woman rules, the streams of Eulga runs uphill. The public
tranquility and peace becomes perilous and the recent incidents and happening over
past few years have proven it again when the Bao- Bao Community allowed the
women so called Equality. It is ripen to get the house in order.”
As a general, the Bao –Bao community in particular and other population living in
those territory started protesting and demanding the prosecution of those who were
responsible for gross violation of various human rights as enshrined under the
international instruments and humanitarian law violations during and after the
armed conflict.
One of the leading international NGO i.e. UNGENDER working in the field of
Gender Justice opened up the various rehabilitation center, relief camp for the Bao –
Bao tribal women including others. It encouraged the victims of gender based
violence to come and report to its designated Victim Desk for the documentation. A
large number of women who were victimized during the armed conflict came
forward and described their ordeals in last nine months since imposition of
emergency provision. UNGENDER petitioned the Government of SE seeking
investigation and criminal trial of the perpetrators of the crime against the recorded
incidents.
The Chief of Police Staff of SE under the new Government directed the NGO
'UNGENDER' to hand over all the documentation and collection of evidence to the
concerned police machinery. It further noted that the Victims' Desk as set up by you
have been converted like another law enforcement office which is in conflict with
the institutional autonomy of the police force. It stated that such investigation,
recording of witnesses, incidents, investigations remains the exclusive function of
Police as law enforcement agency. It further directed UNGENDER to refer all
criminal matters to the concerned police Station and asked UNGENDER not to take
further statements from victims and witnesses.
The Government in order to propel the peace process and reconciliation measures, it
focused on establishing law and order, rebuilding the society and took a series of
decisions for Trust Building Measures with Bao- Bao community. The Prime
Minister in one of its address to the nation through national television observed as
under: -
“The Priority of his Government is not to punish the perpetrators of the gender-
based violation during the emergency period in particular inflicted to the women of
Ba- Bao Community, rather it focuses on establishing peace, providing greater
autonomy, restoring the trust of the Bao- Bao community to the Government and
rebuilding the country overall. We all believe in Rule of Law and Equality as
progressive principles but the customs and culture followed for centuries cannot be
altered with one stroke of constitutional amendments. I do not seek to justify the
barbaric, inhuman and degrading treatment to the women in particular, but, under
the existing international treaty and conventions, we do have expressed our valid
33.
34.
35.
36.
33
reservations in the past and my Government is not thinking of altering this position
as well.”
After this very public speech of new Prime Minister of South Eucalidus, the UN
representative of Republic of Erga responded asunder: -
“The entire world is curiously watching and understating each word of Prime
Minister of SE. It is very disappointing that the Government has also merely paid a
lip service to the agenda and promises of 'Gender -Equality' which has attained the
status of 'erga omnes' under the International Legal framework. It sought to give
undue importance to the 'culture, tradition and repressive historical values'.
Republic of Erga with the help of international organizations working in the field of
human rights, UN Agencies and various other diplomatic agencies is monitoring the
human right situation in Tribal Administered Area of South Eucalidus and in
particularly of Bao- Bao Community.”
During the period of conflict and civil strife, there were a number of internally
displaced persons (IDPs) camps were established in the Tribal Administered Area of
South Eucalidus and adjacent province. These camps needed due governmental
attention and relief measures specially on the aspect of health and sanitation. The
Administrator of these IDPs complained that they do not have adequate access to
clean water which is causing a variety of diseases and specially children are falling
sick in routine manner. There was also no adequate provision for the medical and
health care in these IDPs. Almost 2,25,000 people are living in the IDP camps for
almost twenty months, the worst victim are women and children as they constitute
around 80% of its population in IDPs.
These IDPs are running into their second year, but, there is no increase in budget or
allocation of relief funds from the Government of South Eucalidus, however,
despite a substantial increase in the population of inmates living in the IDPs in the
past one year.
This state of affairs in the IDPs have been recently reported by the international
media and several human rights advocacy groups seeking immediate intervention
and an increased budgetary allocation by the Government of SE.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. Contrary to the popular perception, the Govt. of SE offered an amnesty program for
the citizens of SE who lived in the island city of Indica. The amnesty policy of South
Eucalidus asked and welcomed the native/ citizens of South Eucalidus to leave the
island city of 'Indica' which it termed as under illegal occupation of Republic of
Erga. It asked its fellow citizens to show the nationalism and commitment towards
motherland i.e. SE and also offered full compensation in lieu of loss of property and
livelihood in island city of Indica. Thousands of its citizens returned from Island
City.
PART V
34
However, on return, instead of giving any immediate relief and rehabilitation
package, it put them in the existing IDPs camps in the Tribal Administered Area,
which were already operating for the women and children due to Bao- Bao Conflict.
They were further issued Unique identification Number and it is presumed that
Govt. of South Eucalidus was carrying a secretive sanitization of its own citizens
who returned from the Island City of Indica in the name of Amnesty program.
With the arrival of thousands of its citizens from the island City of Indica, the
situation in IDPs camps have gone from bad to worse as the Govt. maintains the
quantity of food and medical supplies provided to these camps at earlier level only.
On a visit of Prime Minister of SE to one of the largest IDPs camp – the inmates /
residents submitted a signed petition in which it was urged to create provision for the
basic amenities and for the Govt. to come with a proper resettlement as well as
rehabilitation plan for the affected people. It was categorically mentioned that the
residents feel like they are living in an open prison in IDPs, many of them have
committed suicide in recent past due to depression, mental agony and repressive
measures, which are practiced by officer in-charge of IDPs. Women further
complained of continued gender- based violence, sexual harassment at the hand of
authorities and general public as well as of rape.
That one 6 June 2016, that the Govt. Authorities convened a meeting of those
inmates in the camp at IDP camps, who have returned from the island city of Indica.
One of the speaker in a highly inflammatory statements held the Bao- Bao
Community exclusively responsible for their condition, plight, repression and
difficulties which they were facing.
The very next day i.e. 7 June 2016, in a ghastly incident, a Bao- bao girl aged 14
years was gang raped by six men who returned from the Indica island. This incident
got allmedia attention and was publicized widely by the leading news channels and
human rights activists. It was condemned by all the political leaders across the
Eucalidus plateau.
The Govt. of Erga through its diplomatic mission conveyed a stern warning to the
extent that either Republic of South Eucalidus should ensure full protection and
autonomy to the Bao- Bao community otherwise, the Republic of Erga reserves its
right to response and action for the protection of Bao- Bao community under the Tri-
Partite Agreement.
The Prime Minister of South Eucalidus condemned the incident in the following
words:-
“we cannot tolerate such outrageous, preposterous behavior. Even wild beastly
animals are better than such persons. We are not going to show any mercy for such
criminals or perpetrators of the crime which undermines the human dignity and
particularly the dignity of Bao- Bao women.”
43.
42.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
35
The Prime Minister of SE also mentioned about the conduct of its erstwhile colonial
master i.e. Republic of Erga since the inception of problem in SE and illegal
Annexation of Island city of Indica.
The Government of SE also reminded Republic of Erga of UNGA resolution which
firmly opposed the acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation,
since all these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples of Self-
determination and other human rights.
The Republic of Erga referring the certain UNGA resolution, international
convention stated that it has a solemn responsibility to protect and uphold the
universal human dignity against all acts of state repression, discrimination,
exploitation and mal- treatment.
After the incident of 7th June 2016, the tribal leaders of Bao- Bao community with
the help of various international NGO and UN sponsored agencies called for
referendum in exercise of basic right i.e. 'right to self- determination'. The tribal
leadership of the 'Bao- Bao' community requested the international NGO and UN
Sponsored relief providing agencies to nominate one responsible official to be part
of REFERENDUM MONITORING Committee to be held on 25 June 2016.
The Tribal leadership of 'Bao- Bao' tribe, on 30th June 2016, declared its
independence from the SE. It claimed that in background of prevailing situation for
last three – four years, the people inhabiting in the territory/ area administered by
Tribal Advisory Council; which mainly comprises of 'Bao- Bao' tribe have chosen to
declare themselves as independent nation and chose to govern themselves on the
ideals of modern human rights and democratic manner, through a fair and free
referendum held under the supervision of Referendum Monitoring Committee.
The Republic of North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga recognized the Republic of
Bao- Bao as independent state on 1st july 2016 and urged the other democratic and
civilized nation to recognize the Will of People as reflected in the referendum
process.
The Republic of South Eucalidus, North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga are active
members of the United Nations and have ratified the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Additionally, in 2010 both states endorsed the 2007 United Nations Declaration on
the Law of Indigenous Peoples.
The Republic of South Eucalidus approached the International Court of Justice
against the Republic of North Eucalidus as well as Republic of Erga raising disputes
on Tri- Partite treaty interpretation and obligation arising out of it. It raised a limited
dispute before ICJ against the North Eucalidus i.e. obligation under Tri- Partite
Agreement, asserted its sovereign right over regulating movement of people from
Yo- Yo community & Bao- Bao community across river Eulga as well as termed the
act of recognition of new State as illegal.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
36
Republic of Erga, Republic of North Eucalidus and Republic of South Eucalidus had
submitted individual declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36(2) of its Statute.
The Republic of State of South Eucalidus, requests the Court to adjudge and declare
that:
The Tribal Administered Area of Bao- Bao tribe is part of South Eucalidus, and
abolition of Bao- Bao's autonomy was legal underinternational law and necessary to
ensure the return of normalcy and economic survival of the nation.
The treatment of Bao- Bao was legal under international law or at least justified
toaddress an internal emergency, disturbances and a situation like civil war.
The Bao- Bao tribe had no right to secede; the Republic of Erga and North Eucalidus
violated international law by recognizing it as astate.
The movement of people across the river Eulga is an exercise of territorial
sovereignty by Republic of South Eucalidus, which is in full accord with
international law.
By annexing island city of Indica, the Republic of Erga has committed acts of
aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter andother international laws.
The Republic of Erga and North Eucalidus requested the Court to adjudge and
declare as under:-
South Eucalidian's abolition of autonomy of Bao- Bao tribe in Tribal Administered
Area violated the 1960 Tri- Partite Treaty as well as other standards of international
law.
The treatment to the Bao- Bao people (specially Women) violates essential
standards of human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.
The failure to adequately investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of
violence against the women is inconsistent with the international obligation.
The Govt. of South Eucalidus is responsible for the failure to respect the socio-
economic rights of inmates of the IDPs which are in contravention of its the
international obligation.
Bao- Bao's declaration of independence and recognition of the same as independent
state by North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga are consistent with international law.
The military actions taken by Republic of Erga in context of island of Indica were
justified under international law.
The ICJ, at Hague has scheduled the specific legal issues arising from the above
Moot Compomis for hearing before its Full Court on 17 - 18 February, 2018 at Peace
Palace (Netherlands).
57.
58.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
59.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
60.
Add. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.)
Tel : 0120-6406203, +91-8800621117
Website : http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in ; www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in
E-mail : [email protected]
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE