Where will the national rounds of the competition be held?

The national rounds of the competition will be held in Kyiv, UKR.

What level of education is required for participants?

The competition is open to college-level students.

What is the format of the competition?

The competition involves simulated international legal proceedings, where college students argue a fictional case before a panel of judges.

Судові дебати з міжнародного права імені Філіпа Джессапа 2026

Jan 30 – Feb 1, 2026Kyiv, UkraineIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition's Ukrainian national rounds are set to take place in Kyiv, UKR. This prestigious event brings together college students from across the country to engage in simulated international legal proceedings. Participants will argue a fictional case before a panel of judges, honing their advocacy skills and deepening their understanding of complex international law issues. The competition serves as a vital platform for future legal professionals to apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios, fostering critical thinking and effective argumentation. It is a key step for Ukrainian teams aiming to advance to the international rounds, providing an opportunity to represent their nation on a global stage.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Ukraine

Host nation for the national rounds, emphasizing legal education and international law engagement.

Role in topic

As the host country for the national rounds, UKR plays a crucial role in fostering legal education and promoting engagement with international law among its college students. The competition provides a platform for Ukrainian legal talent to develop and potentially advance to the global stage.

Netherlands

Home to the International Court of Justice, central to the competition's simulated environment.

Role in topic

The NLD is significant as the seat of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which the Jessup Competition simulates. The court's jurisprudence and procedures are central to the competition's framework, making the NLD a symbolic heart of international law.

United States

Originator of the Jessup Competition, demonstrating a historical commitment to international legal education.

Role in topic

The USA is notable as the country where the Jessup Competition originated, reflecting a long-standing commitment to promoting international legal education and fostering the development of future international lawyers and policymakers.

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

The International Court of Justice: Role and Contemporary Challenges

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, succeeding the Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations era. Seated in The Hague, it adjudicates contentious disputes between states that have consented to its jurisdiction and renders advisory opinions at the request of authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. Its statute, annexed to the UN Charter, draws sources of law from treaties, custom, general principles, and subsidiary means under Article 38. Over eight decades the Court has shaped international law through landmark rulings such as Corfu Channel (1949), Nicaragua v. United States (1986), the Wall Advisory Opinion (2004), and Bosnia v. Serbia (2007). In recent years its docket has grown markedly politicized, encompassing South Africa v. Israel under the Genocide Convention, Ukraine v. Russia, The Gambia v. Myanmar, and the 2024 advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The Court today faces structural tensions: enforcement depends on the Security Council under Article 94, where permanent-member vetoes blunt compliance; major powers including the United States, China, and Russia have withdrawn or never accepted compulsory jurisdiction under the optional clause; and the proliferation of provisional measures orders has reignited debate over their binding character and the Court's institutional capacity.

Key players

Indigenous Peoples' Rights in International Law

The international protection of indigenous peoples emerged from decades of advocacy that culminated in ILO Convention 169 (1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in 2007. UNDRIP affirms collective rights to self-determination, lands, territories and resources, cultural integrity, and the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Although a declaration rather than a treaty, large parts of UNDRIP are increasingly invoked as reflecting customary norms or general principles, and have been operationalized through the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism, and the Special Rapporteur. Regional jurisprudence has been pivotal. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, beginning with Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001) and Saramaka v. Suriname (2007), recognized communal property rights and FPIC obligations. The African Commission's Endorois and Ogiek decisions extended similar protections, while domestic courts in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have developed substantial indigenous title doctrines. Contemporary disputes center on extractive industries, the energy transition's demand for critical minerals on indigenous lands, climate adaptation, biodiversity governance under the Kunming-Montreal Framework, and the repatriation of cultural property and human remains. The four states that originally voted against UNDRIP — the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have since endorsed it, but implementation remains uneven and contested.

Key players

General Principles of Law as a Source of International Law

General principles of law recognized by civilized nations are listed in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute as a formal source of international law, alongside treaties and custom. The category was inserted into the Permanent Court of International Justice Statute in 1920 chiefly to prevent non liquet — situations where the Court could not decide a case for want of applicable rules. Classical examples drawn from domestic legal systems include good faith, res judicata, estoppel, pacta sunt servanda, equity, and procedural fairness, all transposed by analogy to inter-state relations. The scope and methodology of general principles have long been contested. Positivists worry about judicial law-making, while comparative scholars debate whether the comparison of national systems must be truly universal or merely representative across legal traditions. The International Law Commission placed the topic on its programme of work in 2017, with Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez delivering successive reports culminating in draft conclusions provisionally adopted on first reading in 2023, which distinguish principles derived from national systems from those formed within the international legal system itself. The practical stakes are significant. General principles increasingly underpin investor-state arbitration, international criminal law (notably at the ICC and ad hoc tribunals), and emerging fields such as cyber operations, environmental protection, and AI governance, where treaty and customary rules remain thin. The ILC's eventual adoption and state reception of the draft conclusions will shape how tribunals identify and apply this source going forward.

Key players

State Immunity in International Law

State immunity — the principle that one sovereign cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another's courts — evolved from the absolute doctrine articulated in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) to the restrictive theory now dominant, which distinguishes sovereign acts (acta jure imperii) from commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). The European Convention on State Immunity (1972), the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1976), and the UK State Immunity Act (1978) entrenched the restrictive approach in major jurisdictions. The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) codified contemporary practice but has not yet entered into force. The doctrine has been tested by claims arising from grave human rights violations. In Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy, 2012), the ICJ held that customary international law required Italy to recognize Germany's immunity even for claims relating to Nazi-era atrocities — a ruling Italy's Constitutional Court controversially refused to apply in Judgment 238/2014, prompting Germany to file a fresh case in 2022. Parallel litigation continues against Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russia in US, Canadian, and European courts under terrorism and war-crimes exceptions. Current flashpoints include the immunity of central bank assets in the context of the freezing and potential mobilization of Russian sovereign reserves following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine; immunities of state officials, including heads of state under arrest warrants by the ICC; and the immunity of state-owned enterprises in commercial disputes. These developments are reshaping the boundary between sovereign equality and accountability.

Key players

Public International Law: Foundations and Contemporary Pressures

Public international law is the body of rules governing relations among states and other subjects of the international legal order, including international organizations and, in defined contexts, individuals. Its modern foundations were laid by the Westphalian system of sovereign equality, theorized by Grotius, Vattel and others, and codified after 1945 through the UN Charter, the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations and on the law of treaties, the human rights covenants, and the law of the sea. Its sources, set out in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, comprise treaties, custom, general principles, and subsidiary means including judicial decisions and scholarly writings. The post-1945 order rests on prohibition of the use of force (Article 2(4)), peaceful settlement of disputes, self-determination, non-intervention, and respect for human rights. It has been progressively developed by the International Law Commission, the jurisprudence of the ICJ and regional courts, and specialized regimes covering trade (WTO), criminal accountability (ICC and ad hoc tribunals), environment (Paris Agreement), and the seas (UNCLOS, including the 2023 BBNJ Agreement). The system is now under unusual stress. Open violations of the jus ad bellum, contested ICC arrest warrants against sitting officials, paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body, fragmentation across regimes, and rapidly evolving domains — cyber operations, autonomous weapons, outer space, and AI — outpace traditional law-making. Debate increasingly centers on whether the system can adapt incrementally or requires more structural reform.

Key players

International Politics and the Legal Order

International politics describes the interaction of states and other actors in pursuit of security, wealth, and status within an anarchic system lacking centralized enforcement. The discipline's contemporary contours emerged from the breakdown of the interwar order and the bipolar Cold War, were briefly reorganized around a US-led liberal international order after 1991, and are now characterized by intensifying great-power competition, contested globalization, and the diffusion of power to middle and regional powers. Key structural features include the strategic rivalry between the United States and China across trade, technology, and the Indo-Pacific; Russia's confrontation with the Euro-Atlantic order, sharpened by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine; the assertiveness of middle powers such as India, Brazil, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, often through forums like BRICS+ and the G20; and the realignment of supply chains under industrial policy and sanctions regimes. Conflict in Gaza, the Sahel, Sudan, and the South China Sea has further tested crisis-management mechanisms. For international lawyers, the central question is the relationship between politics and law: how legal norms constrain or enable state behavior, how institutions adapt under pressure from revisionist powers, and how regimes governing trade, climate, technology and the use of force can retain legitimacy when major powers selectively comply. This intersection of geopolitics and legal order frames much of the current diplomatic agenda.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Судові дебати з міжнародного права імені Філіпа Джессапа 2026, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Act of State Act of State Doctrine Act of State Doctrine Exception Article 12 — Definition of 'State'Article 142 (Power to do Complete Justice)Article 142 — Doing Complete Justice

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

6P
67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition
Apr 4–4, 2026Delhi, India

Судові дебати з міжнародного права імені Філіпа Джессапа 2026

Jan 30 – Feb 1, 2026Kyiv, UkraineIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Ukraine

Host nation for the national rounds, emphasizing legal education and international law engagement.

Role in topic

Netherlands

Home to the International Court of Justice, central to the competition's simulated environment.

Role in topic

United States

Originator of the Jessup Competition, demonstrating a historical commitment to international legal education.

Role in topic

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

The International Court of Justice: Role and Contemporary Challenges

Key players

Indigenous Peoples' Rights in International Law

Key players

General Principles of Law as a Source of International Law

Key players

State Immunity in International Law

Key players

Public International Law: Foundations and Contemporary Pressures

Key players

International Politics and the Legal Order

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Судові дебати з міжнародного права імені Філіпа Джессапа 2026, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Act of State Act of State Doctrine Act of State Doctrine Exception Article 12 — Definition of 'State'Article 142 (Power to do Complete Justice)Article 142 — Doing Complete Justice

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

6P
67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition
Apr 4–4, 2026Delhi, India

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition

Related conferences

67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition

Related conferences

67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition