ofroitzheim - 2012-10-29 10:56:53
hopefully you already startet with your Moot-experience by preparing the first memoranda.
The TransLex Team hopes that this website will help you with your research. Do not hesitate to ask any question here in this forum.
Guest: Ilya - 2012-10-29 19:50:47
Hello, dear members of the Moot. What are your general impressions of the Problem?
Guest: Dave - 2012-10-30 00:45:25
It's interesting. I'm eagerly awaiting the response to our clarification question.
ofroitzheim - 2012-10-30 09:43:05
What is your clarification question?
Guest: Ilya - 2012-10-30 12:20:07
yap, it's good enough. but I stiil cannot realise why the organisers did not included anything connected with the using of child labor and fundamental breach of contract into the orders((
Guest: Jerry - 2012-10-30 13:25:06
I'm looking into the witness problem, no so easy as it looks
Guest: Supandi - 2012-10-30 15:08:17
Has anyone started work on the Art 96 issue???
EN - 2012-10-30 22:42:17
Do you have any suggestions re pre-moots? Is anybody instrested in organising smth on an informal level?
ofroitzheim - 2012-10-31 00:25:36
I think your post should be a new topic. Therefore I made a new one for you. Please check :
Guest: Tom - 2012-11-01 17:32:35
Looking in the witness problem as well. I agree there is more behind it than it seems at the first glimps...Guess we can get creative there...
Guest: Nibbles - 2012-11-02 14:23:46
hi! needed some clarity! can someone please provide some clarity on the language of the 3rd issue?
Whether the tribunal should follow the interpretation given to the mediterraneo reservation to Art. 96 and the interpretation given to it by the SC of Mediterraneo.
Guest: Jerry - 2012-11-02 23:39:29
Well, I'm still having troubles finding some relevant caselaw about the witness problem.
I'm using UNICTRAL, IBA, disregardance and something about the equality of arms as well I guess.
But we still got a month time :)
ofroitzheim - 2012-11-03 09:58:52
I am no mootie and no coach. Can you please formulate your question in a way that an outsider like me can understand the question?
When I know what specific witness problem you have I can look for case law in some databases.
ofroitzheim - 2012-11-03 10:01:20
And the same is true for Nibbles. Since I am not into the Moot Problem I do not know what the 3rd issue is.
Guest: stup0d - 2012-11-03 10:45:07
Dear Mr. Froitzheim,
I appreciate your effort in setting up this forum and starting the discussion on this year's moot problem. Of course, discussing the topics is one of the most important, helpful and efficient ways to get an idea how to tackle this year's difficult issues.
Therefore, some discussion on the issues may be very helpful to all mooties. Nevertheless, the Moot is still a competition where one of the goals is to craft convincing arguments on issues that may be difficult to address for one of the parties to the dispute. This might explain why people are hesitating to give their insight on the issues and give rather general statements.
One of the key points in forming a persuasive argument is the underlying authority, be it judgments, awards or scholarly writing. The research on authority thus is also a very important task that the teams have to work on.
Your willingness to support the teams is very kind. However, I would like to suggest that no cases or arguments are exchanged here, especially not ones found by outsiders. This would distort the competition and the individual teams' efforts on research.
Thank you very much.
Guest: Nibbles - 2012-11-03 11:08:50
Well basically something to the effect if domestic Courts decision must be followed by an International arbitral Tribunal.
Just the language of the 3rd issue does it seem ok to u? coz i find it exceptionally complicated.
ofroitzheim - 2012-11-03 11:37:46
I think I understand you concerns. But, I assure you that there is absolutley no cause for that. I am a bit suprised that you got me wrong and also afraid that you misunderstand this discussion board. I am not going to write an argument or memorandum for any team. My only task in this discussion board here is to discuss abstract issues of law and provide some general information on that. This is what this discussion board is for and was used in previous years. I see no rule of fairness or anything else that prohibts general discussions of abstract legal issues. Any posting by me, as a matter of fact, will be abstract because I have no idea of this years moot problem. Any case law or database I can provide will be on an abtract level.
And as a matter of fairness, this board is free for anyone. Everything said here can be seen by anybody. Even by using google you can find this board. We also promote this board on facebook.
I do not understand why "outsiders" should be excluded from an abstract discussion. As said above, no outsider writes your argument or memorandum. This is your task. no outsider can provide a perfect argument for your specific case. I am sure you read books written by "outsiders" for your research. And this is totally ok, because there only abstract issues are discussed. Nothing more will be done here. Any case law you will find in books or here will only be a beginning for your argument. And it is also a mootie's task to decide wether to use this case law or not, what arguement can be derived from this case etc. This is true for case law found in books or here.
I hope this clarification meets your concerns.
ofroitzheim - 2012-11-03 11:52:05
I think this is a matter of the applicable law since there are jurisdictions with the stare decisis doctrine and without. in my jurisdiction, for example, even a lower state court can disregard the higher court's opinion on an specific issue. This has no effect to the validity of the lower court's judgement. The lower court has, in this case, to deliver reasons for having an other opinion. However, when there is an appeal the higher court is very likely to reverse this judgement according to its own opinion.
Because of this effect lower courts normally decide according to the higher courts opinion. But this is no principle of law. As I understand arbitration this might be also the case for arbitral tribunals, if the same law applies.
Roughly speaking stare decisis is part of the "common law". Therefore, afaik, most "civil law" jurisdictions do not have this principle of law.
Guest: Jerry - 2012-11-03 23:48:18
Wow, didn't mean to cause any troubles up here.
Well, the thing is we found awards, scholarly writings and all sorts of stuff for respondent but almost nothing for claimant.
We're momentarily looking at the fact whether it's possible to compel Mr. Short to appear and whether the new employer can stand for an exceptional circumstance, but finding some relevant awards is hard so far.
Guest: Polina - 2012-11-12 22:19:06
Hi. I've got the same problem with the 3d issue. Absolutely can't find any case law. And there isn't enouth information for claimant.