Announcement: 4th Indian Vis Pre-moot

The National Law University, Delhi is happy to announce that the 4th Indian Pre-moot for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot will be conducted at NLU, Delhi from 7th to 9th March 2014. The Indian Vis Pre-moot has been successfully organized for the past three years by National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, and NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. This year, NLU, Delhi is co-organizing the Pre-moot in collaboration with NALSAR and NUJS.

The Pre-moot will be held at NLU, Delhi from 7th to 9th March, 2014, with the rounds taking place on the 8th and 9th. Participation in the pre-moot is open to all teams representing their respective Universities at the Willem C. Vis Moot Court Competition, Vienna, 2014 and also the Willem C. Vis (East) Moot Court Competition, Hong Kong, 2014. The Pre-Moot will have a competitive format, with separate preliminary and knock-out rounds. The oral rounds of the competition will be judged by professional arbitrators, experts in the field of arbitration and international commercial law, and Vis alumni who have performed exceedingly well at previous editions of the moot.

NLU Delhi is charging a nominal registration fee of Rs. 1500 per team (for teams exceeding three members, an additional fee of Rs 500 shall be charged per person) to cover organisational costs. Food and accommodation for all teams is included within the registration fee and shall be provided within the campus premises.

Teams may register by filling up the Registration Form available at the following link - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1RVFPajJ0veBrh14kuNAdhkvEaDMtk3U8JQY9R9DUMjs/viewform. The deadline for registration is 24 February, 2014. Each institution must register only once. If there are two separate teams participating in the Vienna and Hong Kong rounds and both teams are interested in participating in the pre-moot, both teams should register together within the same form. 

The aim of the Pre-moot is to provide teams with valuable practice and experience to ensure that Indian teams can improve their performance as the Vis, especially considering our stellar performances at the Moot in the last few years. So, please take advantage of this opportunity, and feel free to contact the organizers at indianpremoot@gmail.com in case of further clarifications and queries.

Punya Varma ( +919910457914)

Mini Saxena ( +919818037230) 

Divya Srinivasan (+918527389970)

National Law University Delhi

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vispremoot2014

[This is probably short notice to book tickets to Delhi, but Lexarbitri strongly suggests that every Indian Vis team make an attempt to participate in the Pre-moot -- it really helps in preparing for the real thing!]

Vindobona Junction - Industry Research: Myth or necessary evil ?

by Smaran Shetty

Most people who are in a position to give out advice for merits speakers at the Vis moot, readily concede that some level of research must be undertaken to understand the realities of the industry of the good in question, be it squid, pipes, cars or wine. They advocate that such research, grounds legal arguments in commercial realities of the industry and therefore is far more reasoned and mature. In this post I examine this long standing (and almost universally accepted proposition) to discuss what is the true place of commercial knowledge in the moot.

Industry based research is an arduous and almost always a frustrating experience, as materials are not readily available. Additionally, materially that is actually available online is either not authoritative (credible enough to be used for arbitral proceedings and cite in a memorandum) or is far too technical to be comprehended by an average law student. But the effort in some senses is worthwhile, when material is eventually found that shapes the nature of the argument being made either for the memorandum, or while speaking.

If participants do decide to undertake industry specific research for the purpose of the moot, then I would advise caution and insist that the research is limited to certain predetermined questions. Teams must be careful not to spend weeks on trying to find obscure information, that may eventually have no bearing on the memorandum. Having said that, points of research that teams may focus on are: What is the nature of flow of capital in the trade ? What are the specific laws that impact the conduct of your client, by virtue of being part of the industry ? What are the acceptable norms or standard practices in the industry ? What is the nature the production line in the industry, i.e how many actors are involved ? What are the technical implications (if any) of the product ? All these questions help to limit the scope of research, yet focussing on the most relevant aspects of the commercial knowledge that may have a bearing on a legal argument.

Having said that, I must warn against excessive dependence on commercial knowledge in terms of facts and technical jargon. For instance last year when I was a participant, while arguing in the round of 32, the opposing team referred extensively to FAO Official Reports and Internationally recognized health regulations concerning the freezing and handling of squid. The information presented before the bench did not scare me, as I had come across all the information during my research and had used the same material, in a watered down manner in previous rounds. However the judges gave the verdict to our team. Later on, I approached the opposing merits speaker and asked him the reason for the judges decision (as I believed that the opposing team should have won). In response he told me that the judges did not appreciate the excessive dependence on external material, that undermined the confines of the moot problem. The judges although impressed with the thoroughness of research, were still convinced by innovative logic that was developed within the confines of the facts.

The lesson to take away from this, is that industry research has an important place in the moot, but often that importance is overstated and may not always have the desired results. Teams who decide to venture outside of the problem, should do so with caution and more importantly for a clearly defined purpose.

Vindobona Junction - Team formation: Some insights

by Smaran Shetty

The Vis problem has been out for some time now and I am sure that teams have progressed well into the substantive issues concerning this years problem. In this post, I would like to offer some insights into how work must be divided amongst team members, and what skills would be required out of such roles. 

Every Vis problem concerns two broad issues, namely questions relating to the legal propriety of the arbitral proceedings, i.e. essentially questions of jurisdiction and substantive questions relating to the breach of contract in question and resulting loss. Accordingly, any team, however big or however small will have to divide their work load along these lines. In this post I intended to outline the qualities need for each of these tasks, so as to enable teams to make the right choice, or review already decided team formations in light of my suggestions. 

Jurisdictional questions every year relate to highly arguable legal issues concerning the Arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution that is either newly formed, or whose rules have recently been revised. Keeping that in mind, those persons involved in jurisdictional research, drafting of the memo and eventual speaking at Vienna and Hong Kong, will be required to be competent with thorough and in-depth legal research. Considering little material is available on jurisdictional issues, team members who are doing jurisdiction related research, must learn how to read the fine print, cross reference sources and most importantly be patient in finding relevant material, as chances are it will take a substantial amount of time to be able to arrive at the final argument. Jurisdiction team members will also be required to properly understand both the basics as well as the nuances of International Commercial Arbitration and must also be prepared to do cross jurisdictional research concerning the practices of Arbitral Institutions around the world. Most importantly, jurisdiction team members must at all costs operate within the confines of the law they are dealing with and must base all arguments on recognized legal principles of some kind, arguments based on personal belief or intuition, have no relevancy to a jurisdiction team member. If you are currently a jurisdictional team member and doubt whether you have the requisite skills, I strongly urge you, to convene a team meeting to re-consider whether the appropriate roles have been assigned to team members. 

On the other hand team members dealing with the substantial issues of the contract or the “merits”, will be required to posses a different set of skills to effectively execute their responsibilities. The merits of the dispute relate to certain provisions of the CISG every year, and in that sense involves the application of a static body of law, to dynamic and arguable facts of the present dispute. In terms of research, the effort involved relates to making sure all the authoritative and relevant authors/judicial decisions have been read, as opposed to finding the relevant material. Merits team members will hardly find any difficulty in research, but the task involved relates to the application of well settled legal propositions to fact situation that may or may not support the law in question. In that sense, a merits team member, unlike a jurisdictional member is not confined to merely the law. In fact merits team members are encouraged to look beyond the CISG into actual business practice and relevant data from the real world to buttress arguments based in principles of the CISG. The most convincing and compelling arguments from a merits team member, will often involve a healthy mix of law and logical assertions that fits well into the scheme of the problem (the nature of the business, character of dispute, position of parties, commodity in question). If any team member feels unsure of the ability to look beyond the law, then I suggest a reconsideration of team roles. 

Another means of dividing up work amongst a team (mostly large teams) is to divide the work based on the sides of the dispute, implying that some members do jurisdictional research only from the perspective of the claimant and some do research for the merits only from the respondent’s side. I strongly advise against such an arrangement, and may lead to disastrous results in terms of team coordination. My principal objection to such an arrangement is that fact that this results in excessive compartmentalization, inhibiting a more balance perspective of the issues involved in the problem. The best way of making an argument is acknowledging its limitations and dealing with it effectively. However when you research only from one side, you fail to recognize the argument from the other side and accordingly start to believe in the false strength of a one sided argument. 

I hope these observations help teams, and am happy to be told that I am completely wrong. I look forward to a healthy discussion in the comments section. 

You may also want to read this earlier post on the same subject.

Vindobona Junction - 45 pages and 6 months

-By Smaran Shetty-

The problem for the 19th Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Court Competition has finally released and may be accessed here. Although drastically shorter than the previous years problem, at 45 pages, the newest problem, promises to give participants a good deal of issues to grapple with. Although most people think there is nothing much to be said regarding how the problem is to be read, I disagree. With a little guidance, and the right approach, participants will be guaranteed to have a clearer understanding of the facts and issues involved in a much lesser period of time. 

Considering the length of the problem, it is advisable to approach the problem with a little caution. In fact, due to its length (unlike most other moot problems) Judges in Vienna often refer to the problem as the “Case File” or “Record”, instead of the generic “Problem”. 

The most valuable advice I received regarding reading the problem, was to ensure that in the first  reading, you ensure that you read the entire problem,  from start to the end. In fact I was advised that irrespective of your role in the team (arbitration or merits), the first few readings of the problem should be of the whole problem to get an holistic idea of the problem. I could not agree more, the first couple of readings should be of the entire problem, and participants should not stop to research certain points while reading. Make a note of the words you don’t understand, or acronyms that you are unsure about to look up later, but make sure that the first couple of readings are uninterrupted and focussed. In reading the problem in this manner, repeatedly, a participant is sure to understand the whole narrative, which will prove instrumental in the oral rounds. Another piece of advice which I found rather helpful was to ensure that you read the problem, multiple times in the first few days. This helps to ensure that the small details of the problem, like names and dates and other significant details of fact and law are cemented in the minds of the participants. 

After you have read the entire problem multiple times, then you can get to work on research and analysis. But before you do so, make sure you do a few things. First, make sure that you make a profile of both parties involved in the dispute. This involves writing the down the names of the Claimant and Respondent, where they operate, what they do, who controls them, who their legal counsel are, what are they names of their employees etc ... Although these details seem peripheral, inevitably it’s the small details and obscure pieces of information that help in making innovative arguments. 

It also proves immensely helpful to write out a time line of all the mentioned dates, from the first meeting of the parties to the filing of the request for arbitration. This process helps condensing an expansive problem into a matter of two pages. Also, a time line helps teams pin point when exactly things went wrong, or who was responsible, and how much time elapsed between important dates. 

I hope with this seemingly irrelevant information, teams enjoy the process of working on the moot which will extend well into the next 6 month, and I wish all concerned the best of luck. 

All that left to say, is happy reading.

PS: The length of the problem is sure to increase by a minimum of 10 pages, once Procedural Order Number 3 is released. 

Vindobona Junction is back; It's coffee with Smaran this time

This post is to introduce Smaran Shetty to our readers, who will be regularly contributing Guest Posts on Vindobona Junction for the duration of the 2012 Vis Moot (and, we hope, beyond that). Smaran is an undergraduate student, currently in the 3rd year at the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He participated in the 18th edition of the Vis Moot in Vienna, last year and reached the octa-finals. Without more introduction, here is his introductory post. 

The Willem C VisInternational Commercial Arbitration Moot Court Competition, is perhaps one of the biggest mooting events in the world, and brings law students from diverse legal traditions together to argue over, whether their client was right in what they did. The moot, now in its 19th year has been growing from strength to strength, and I am led to believe that it is one of the few moots (if not the only one), recognized by the United Nations. Although the teams and stature of the moot have only increased, there is a stark silence when it comes to open forum’s where participants, arbitrators and coaches can give out advice and discuss the moot, in an open manner that befits the globalized Vis Community. I think that’s why Lexarbitri's efforts in starting this section of the blog, goes a long way in making the learning process for the moot more democratic and open.

Through the course of 8 odd months running up to the moot, I hope to blog about various aspects of the moot, that participants may often overlook, and attempt to simplify, those issues that are often complicated by teams. I however do not intended to delve into substantive issues into the problem, as I believe that no team, however strong or weak, requires spoon feeding. Instead I hope that this space allows me to best communicate the mountain of knowledge that I gained last year in doing the moot, and hope that in the process participants are eased into a process that they are sure to remember for their lifetime.

I hope to be very regular with my blogging, and intend to give out some advice before the problem actually comes out. I look forward to an active debate on the blog, and I am sure with the collective expertise of the past bloggers, this space can indeed become an indispensable aspect of preparation.

At this junction I would like to offer a caveat. The views contained in this blog, are my personal view points about how to moot and moot practices in general. I do not profess to be an expert at moot, or that my word is the final word. Instead, what I have to say, is just one perspective, in a sea of conflicting and complementary perspectives.

Happy Mooting Everybody !!!! 

The Vis Experience

An arbitrator who judged the memos and the oral rounds at this year's Vis moot shares his experinces here.

I would recommend it to anyone planning on doing the moot this year,as it gives you a complete picture of the goings on in Vienna during the period of the moot. Also recommended for those who wish to relive what many describe as the best week of their student life.

Hannover invites applications for the position of Vis coach

Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany has invited applications for the post of Coach to the university teams for Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, Vienna and Willem C. Vis (East) International Commercial Arbitration Moot, Hong Kong. The position is to be held for three years. The communication circulated by email is reproduced below:

Job Posting for the position of the Coach for the Hanover Vis Moot Team

The Institute for Procedural Law and Attorney Regulation is seeking for a Research and Teaching Associate (wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter; 50 % E-13). The position will be available from 1 September 2011 and will be limitedfor a time period of three years. The position is allocated at the Chair for Civil Law, International, European and German Civil Procedure (Professor Dr. Christian Wolf). The job holder will have the opportunity to do his/her Ph.D.-thesis (Doktorarbeit). The thesis can be written in Englishor German.

Job description

The Research Assistant will be in charge of the universities Willem C. Vis program including the participation in Hong Kong and Vienna. In addition to that s/he has to teach a one hour course per term in English language (in the field ofInternational Sales or Trade Law). Furthermore the job holder has to assist faculty members with their English publications.

Some more Vis tips, from a Vienna runner-up

The only time an Indian team won Vis was in 2003. In 2009, the team of ILS Law School, Pune (Sneha Jain, Shraddha Deshmukh and Preeti Sukhthanker) missed it between the cup and the lip when they emerged runners up in a close contest with Victoria, Wellington. In addition to being the only Indian team to have entered the finals other than the 2003 NUJS team, the team also secured two Honourable Mentions for its oralists. In the following paragraphs, Sneha Jain shares her experience with Vis. She also reveals the factors that contributed to the success of her team.

The Hongkong Vis Moot just concluded and the Vienna Vis Moot is now knocking on the door! Deepak has beautifully encapsulated the essential points to be kept in mind while tackling the Vis Moot. He has requested that I share a bit about our team's Vis experience during the 16th Vis Moot, 2009 and what we learnt during our journey to the finals. So here goes:

1. 1. Knowing your arbitrator's domestic legal system (civil or common law) helps in structuring your arguments. In any case, I'd suggest that regardless of the constitution of the panel, oralists must cite both - statutes and case laws, equally. In one of our rounds, one of our arbitrators hailed from a country with a civil law system but practised international arbitration under both civil and common law systems. Consequently, his questions were mixed. Citing both supporting statutes and case laws helped us show that our research was balanced and that we were not inclined towards any single system in particular. 

Speaking at Vis, some FAQs, some common errors and some tips

The battle in Hong Kong is over and the bigger fight is about to start in Vienna. A lot of participants have been mailing me from several universities asking for last minute tips. Here are a few questions that I have been asked by the participants and my answers to them.

Tip 1: Take tips with a pinch of salt.

Recently, in one of my oral rounds at Jessup international, one of the judges narrated an experience he had as a young Jessup mooter. He had a small book in which he used to keep track of all the feedback he got after each court. Towards the end, he realised that almost everything tip in that book was countered by another tip in the same book. 

Vindobona Junction - Speaking at Vis: Two cents from a quarter finalist

The oral rounds have started in Hong Kong. Vienna rounds are also around the corner. Against this background, Iram Huq, a quarter finalist and Honourable Mention winner at Vienna last year and a quarter finalist at Jessup Internationals this year, shares her thoughts on the oral rounds.

Since the Vis moot in Hong Kong is beginning  today, my friend and colleague, Deepak Raju asked me to write about my experience of speaking at Vis Vienna last year. I have to say that it was the experience of a lifetime, and set off a chain of events that made my life much more beautiful and complete than it was before I went to Vienna.

Most people who participate in the Vis moot would agree that it’s a journey of self-discovery. It’s the perfect simulation of dispute where you get to test your innate argumentative skills. More importantly, you get to meet people from all over the world. I’ve always felt that the best way to find out more about yourself is to talk to people who are completely unlike you. There’s no better place to find random strangers than the bar at OST club during the competition!

  

The first Indian pre-moot for Vis (Kolkata, March 5th and 6th)

Pre-moots for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moots, Vienna and Hong Kong, are popular events in the mooting calenders all over the world. They allow participants from a particular country or region to come together and learn from each other so as to enhance their performance in the moot. However in India, no such event has ever been held. This year, the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (NUJS) is all set to host the first ever pre-moot in India for the Vis moots in collaboration with NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The event is scheduled for the first weekend of March (March 5, 6) and will be judged by former Vis Mooters including former winners.

The modalities of the event are still being worked out and official communications will be sent to all concerned as soon as the details are worked out. 

Teams from all over the world are welcome to participate. For the first edition of the event, there may be a team cap depending on the availability of resources and there may be a registration fee. Considering the possibility of a team cap, interested teams are requested to contact indianpremoot@gmail.com at the earliest. Those interested in acting as arbitrators or in sponsoring the event may also contact the same email address.

With sufficient funding, the event may also become a national funding round for the Vis Moots.

Interview with Prof.Martin Hunter on VIS. NOT TO MISS!

At Lex Arbitri, particularly at Vindobona Junction we have tried partnering all the Vis participants in the wonderful and exciting journey of the Moot. Not to forget, the moot is considered to be the "Olympics" of international trade law and is one of the few moots reported at the UN.

Trying to give the most authentic insights of the moot, we present to you an interview of Prof.Martin Hunter.

Prof. Hunter needs no introduction in the field of arbitration. His book which which he has co-authored with Sir Alan Redfern, often cited as the "Red Bible" on arbitration has certainly turned Blue with its new edition. (By Red and Blue, I only refer to the colours of the cover of the book)

The participants at VIS Vienna would surely find him as a judge in one of the final rounds of the moot. Last year he had coached the team from Kings College, London which had won the moot. We hope his insights would help everybody related to Vis or even remotely related to arbitration mooting.

SO, HERE IT GOES:

Q- 1. The first submission is already over, what do you think is the most important thing for an award winning memorandum?

A-1. I don’t think I can identify one single point. In the mooting context, a good memorandum must have a sound structure, and it must have clarity. Obviously, it should demonstrate an ability to analyse complex legal issues, and to assemble persuasive arguments. The review panel will also, generally, look at how convincingly the memoranda have dealt with the weak arguments as well as how well they have argued the strong points. I also think that the final draft text should be edited again and again, and again and again. You would probably be surprised at the number of times professional authors review their own drafts texts. It may be as many as five or six times. Each read-through will be for a specific purpose. The first might be for structure. The second may be for validity of the content. The third may be a technical proof-read for grammar and spelling, etc (no sentence should be more than 25 words, no sentence should contain more than one set of parentheses; no paragraph should attempt to deal with more than one proposition). The fourth might be for clarity. The last will be for the ‘need-to-know’ test for each proposition – does the reader really need to be informed of it? If not, strike it out.

Q-2. How important is formatting according to you?

A-2 It is very important to stick precisely to the formatting instructions given in the rules of the competition.

Q-3. Can you identify any particular region who are exceptionally good with their memorandums and any reason for the same?

A-3. I am not aware of any regional trend, but I do recall the German teams being particularly strong in the early years of the Vis. I think that German universities focused on the CISG more than universities in other countries, particularly than those from the common law world. Recently, the Australian universities have done well. I have the impression that they are particularly well-coached for the memoranda.

Q-4 What is more important for a memorandum: to be based on law or on facts?

A-4 It depends partly on the problem in any particular year. In some years the factual issues are dominant, in others the legal (CISG) issues are in the front line. Don’t forget that the procedural aspect of the problem is also equally important, and that this usually involves mixed issues of fact and (procedural) law, which is not at all related to the CISG. The procedural aspects are nearly always governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law and a particular set of international arbitration rules. I feel that some of the more academic-type coaches focus too much on the substantive (CISG) aspect of the problem, and not enough on the procedural aspect. Both are equally important in the context of evaluating the teams’ memoranda.

Q-5 Coming to orals, what are the crucial things to make a mark at VIS?

A-5. By the orals stage, good presentation skills are as important as knowledge of the law. Many teams, and their coaches, spend proportionately too much time and effort on the academic aspects of the problem and do not give adequate time and importance to presentation. Moot competitions are an important part of training to become a practising lawyer, and are intended to test presentational skills as well as the ability to analyse a factual and law-related scenario. Elements such as posture, body language, pacing and tonality are important. By the time of the oral phase most teams are on the top of the problem, particularly in the final elimination rounds. The arbitrators (who are also the competition judges) will be looking for the extent to which the teams appearing before them have abandoned ‘bad’ arguments and have found attractive ways of presenting the good arguments. By the time of the quarter/semi final rounds the differential between the teams is more likely to be seen in their presentational skills, rather than their in their technical prowess in analysing the legal and factual issues.

Q-6. Again, would you like to identify any geographical region very good in the oral skills?

A-6. One of the strengths of the Vis Moot is that success is marked by a remarkable level of diversity. I have not counted, but certainly the winners of the main team prize have come from both civil law and common law countries. Winning teams have also come from developed and developing countries. There is also a remarkable, and manifestly unmanipulated, diversity both as to gender and race.

Q-7. Do you believe LUCK plays a role at VIS?

A-7. Oh, yes! Absolutely. I think that quality plays the greater part in the four preliminary rounds. Some, but not many, really strong teams are eliminated; and some, but not many, weak teams go through to the final rounds. But in the elimination rounds the dynamic changes significantly. Assessing the competing teams on a ‘knock-out’ basis is a very subjective exercise, and the tribunal deliberations after the arguments are concluded can, in my experience, be coloured by the way that relationships between the three arbitrators have developed before and during the hearing. I am always struck by the relatively large number of results in the elimination rounds that are reached by a majority vote, which shows that the decision could have gone either way.

GOOD LUCK!

Vindobona Junction - Claimant memo final Check list

Today is the first landmark for the Vis teams. The Claimant memorial, the result of a lot if effort over the last few months, will be submitted today. For those situated in many time zones, including mine, there is less than 12 hours left for the deadline. We had shared some tips on Vis memos in Vindobona Junction. If you already do not have the best of arguments and have not done a good job with the memorial, there is not much you can do now. 

However, the following is a checklist that may help you avoid some of the most common errors that one may commit while racing against time. These deal with presentation, not content.

Vindobona Junction - Some tips on writing a Vis Memo (Part II)

In part I of this post, Rukmini covered a number of tips that we hope would be of assistance to the Vis Moot teams. In this post, I wish to add nothing more. Instead, I share the Respondent memorials of our team for the 16th Vis with the comments we received from the memo judges. Though I am searching for the Claimant memorial with the comments, I am yet to locate it. As both the memorials secured Honourable Mentions, the comments and suggestions written on them by the memo judges could be the best indicator of what distinguishes a good memo from the Best Memo.

The memorial, along with the comments can be found here, here, here and here. The original versions of the memorials, without the comments, can be accessed here and here.

Statutory Warning: Reading certain handwritings can be too stressful and injurious to the eye. Neither Lex Arbitri nor the author assumes any liability for any such injury.

We wish all the teams all the very best for the approaching Claimant submission.

Vindobona Junction - Some tips on writing a Vis Memo (Part I)

A mooter's best friend

The shortage of posts on Vindobona Junction in a while is due to the fact that my co-blogger and I were writing a moot memo and it was the last week before the deadline. Having submitted the memo and caught up on the pending sleep, I thought I would share some tips on Vis memos here.

I divide this post into two parts. In the first part, I will share some general tips on Vis memorials. In the second part, what I intend to share is the feedback I received for my memos for the 16th Vis. As both my memos had secured Honourable Mentions, those comments will tell you what exactly makes the difference between an Honourable Mention and a Memo Award.

Why write a good memo?

The memo does not decide your fate at the Vis to the extent that it does in many other moots. In theory, you can have a really bad memo and still win the competition (and I know a team which has done exactly that). Memo scores are not counted in deciding the outcome of an argument, and consequently the progress to the next round, in Vis. But there are separate awards for the memo. In effect, Vis boils down to three competitions - one to prevail in the oral rounds, one for the best memorial for the claimant and the other for the best memorial for the respondent. The memo awards are almost as prestigious and competitive as the awards in oral rounds. Moreover, though one's arguments in Vis are not restricted by the memo (arbitrators hardly ever open the memo or look at it while a team is speaking), writing a good memo helps one understand the structure and flow of various arguments. Both in writing a memo and in speaking at the oral rounds, a mooter is articulating an argument. So, chances are high that a person who has already articulated the argument well in a memo would be better equipped to articulate the same argument better at the oral round than a person who has not done so.

Vindobona Junction - Should a Vis mooter know how to cook squid?

This post is inspired by a link shared by the Hannover team for the 18th Vis on Twitter. The link discusses 25 ways to make delicious dishes using squid. Hannover seems to be doing some basic research on squid, the subject matter of the sales contract in the 18th Vis moot. But is it important for a mooter to know what exactly squid looks like and how exactly it is to be prepared? My experience says, YES.

We have discussed how to understand a moot problem. The moot problem sets the basic set of facts which lead up to the dispute. Usually, the arguments will have to be within the constraints of these facts. Yet, it is very important, and at times very rewarding, to have an understanding of some real world facts surrounding the problem. This is particularly true of the facts related to the product in question.

Vindobona Junction - What is the perfect battle formation for a vis moot?

The Vis problem has been out for a while and it is time most universities decided who their team members are and most teams decided who is doing what. This post seeks to give some suggestions as to the strategic considerations to be kept in mind while deciding who is doing what in a Vis team.

Does Size Matter?

When I participated in the 16th Vis, my team had two speakers, one researcher, one Junior researcher and one non-accompanying coach. Though the number is technically five, the junior researcher and the coach are not core members of the team as per my university practice, making the number effectively three. The junior researcher is a first year student attached to the team for training and the coach (strategist) is a senior student who has done well at the moot and is expected to act as a guide to the team. We came across European teams with up to 16 members and 4 accompanying coaches (most of whom were senior professors who were cited as authorities in our memorials). While the sheer number of members on these teams could be intimidating at times, what I found out through the course of the moot is that Goliaths are not invincible. We proceeded to the Round of 16 beating several teams which by far outnumbered us. More notably, a team which consisted merely of two speakers (ILS Pune) became runners up in the 16th Vis. Similarly, a team from my university (for which I was a non-accompanying coach) reached the Round 8 in the 17th Vis with just the two speakers and one junior researcher present in Vienna.

Vindobona Junction - Tackling the confidentiality issue in 18th Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot

Till now, my discussions in this section have been by way of introduction to the moot and to arbitration in general. There will be more of those posts in the coming days. However, this post intends to discuss a possible line of argument that can be taken by the participants in one of the issues. What this post will NOT do is, it will not give anyone a source for direct copying of an argument into their memo. This is not meant to be a shortcut, but a starting point for research intended to help teams without much background in the subjects and without the benefit of multiple expert coaches that several teams have.

Vindobona Junction - An introduction to arbitration - Guest post by Mr. Ashutosh Ray

The posts is this section are intended to be of assistance to the  participants in the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot. Other Readers may find some of these posts too basic. Apologies for the same. However, as this section progresses, the posts will move on from being introductory and discuss topics relevant to the moot at a higher level.

The following is a guest post from Mr. Ashutosh Ray, a former Vis participant from Gujarat National Law University. He seeks to introduce the some basic, yet important, concepts in arbitration. Having a good understanding of these basics is essential in moving ahead to tackle the issues in the moot.

So, Vis is here and it is an Arbitration Moot! Well, this post is to rebrush some basics for the people who already know what arbitration is and infuse the vital points for those who have just started their journey. The new comers to this field should find this tryst with arbitration interesting.

Vindobona Junction - Understanding the 18th Vis Problem (Part II)

The posts is this section are intended to be of assistance to the  participants in the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot. Other Readers may find some of these posts too basic. Apologies for the same. However, as this section progresses, the posts will move on from being introductory and discuss topics relevant to the moot at a higher level.

In a previous post in this section, I had made some suggestions on reading the 18th Vis problem so as to comprehend the 66 page document. I guess most participants will, by now, have overcome this first hurdle. In this part, I introduce the second aspect of understanding the problem - the issues.

Having read through the documents, you know what factual occurrence lead up to the present dispute. Now what needs to be understood is what precisely is the dispute between the parties. In other words, on what points are the parties materially disagreeing with each other and seeking the adjudication of the arbitral tribunal. This will in turn decide what is called the terms of reference of the arbitral tribunal (what questions can the tribunal validly adjudicate upon) as well as what arguments are to be made by the parties.