What is the primary language of the Charles-Rousseau competition?

The competition is entirely francophone, meaning all proceedings, including written submissions and oral arguments, are conducted in French.

Where does the Charles-Rousseau competition take place?

The competition is held in Nice, FRA.

What level of students is eligible to participate?

The competition is designed for college-level students.

What format does the competition follow?

The competition follows a simulated trial format, involving both written memorials and oral arguments before a panel of judges.

41ème concours francophone de procès simulé en droit international Charles-Rousseau

May 5–9, 2026Nice, FranceIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Concours francophone de procès simulé en droit international Charles-Rousseau is a prestigious international law moot court competition conducted entirely in French. It brings together university students from around the world to simulate proceedings before an international court, fostering expertise in public international law and advocacy skills. The competition is a significant event for aspiring international legal professionals, offering a practical application of theoretical knowledge.

Country perspectives

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

France

As the host nation, France provides the setting for this significant Francophone legal competition, underscoring its commitment to international law and the French language.

Role in topic

France hosts the competition in Nice, providing the venue and a significant portion of the academic and legal expertise that contributes to the event's success. Its historical role in international law and its promotion of the French language are central to the competition's identity.

Belgium

Belgium, a prominent Francophone nation, often fields strong teams, reflecting its robust legal education system and engagement with international legal institutions.

Role in topic

Belgium, with its strong tradition in international law and as a key member of the Francophonie, frequently sends competitive teams to the Charles-Rousseau competition, contributing to the high level of legal discourse and advocacy.

Switzerland

Switzerland, with its multilingual environment and role in international diplomacy, contributes to the diversity and quality of participants in the Francophone competition.

Role in topic

Switzerland, a multilingual country with a significant Francophone population and a hub for international organizations, often participates in the competition, bringing a unique perspective shaped by its diplomatic and legal traditions.

Topics & background

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

Contemporary Challenges in Public International Law

Public international law emerged from the Westphalian state system and was progressively codified through the 19th and 20th centuries, culminating in the UN Charter (1945), the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Its sources, set out in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, include treaties, custom, general principles, and subsidiary means such as judicial decisions and scholarly writings. Throughout the postwar period, the International Law Commission has driven codification in areas ranging from state responsibility to diplomatic relations. The contemporary practice of international law is marked by tensions between sovereignty and erga omnes obligations, between consent-based adjudication and compulsory jurisdiction, and between universalism and regional fragmentation. Recent ICJ proceedings — including cases concerning the Genocide Convention, advisory opinions on climate change and on the legal consequences of policies in occupied territories, and disputes over immunities — have tested the resilience of the system. Selective compliance by major powers, the proliferation of specialized tribunals, and the rise of non-state actors continue to challenge the coherence of the international legal order. For a francophone moot in the Charles-Rousseau tradition, debates typically engage the classical doctrinal questions — state responsibility under the ARSIWA, treaty interpretation, jus cogens, and the interplay of customary and conventional norms — alongside their application to current disputes brought before the ICJ and other fora.

Key players

The Law of the Sea and the UNCLOS Regime

Modern law of the sea is anchored in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), negotiated over nearly a decade at UNCLOS III and entering into force in 1994. It built on the four 1958 Geneva Conventions and Truman-era claims to the continental shelf, establishing a comprehensive framework of maritime zones — territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf, high seas, and the Area — together with institutions such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). UNCLOS is widely regarded as a "constitution for the oceans," but its application is contested. Disputes over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, the 2016 PCA arbitral award in Philippines v. China, and ongoing extended continental shelf claims in the Arctic illustrate enduring tensions between coastal-state jurisdiction and high-seas freedoms. The 2023 BBNJ Agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, and the 2024 ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change obligations of states under UNCLOS, have further extended the regime into environmental governance. Unresolved questions include the status of non-parties (notably the United States), the legal characterization of maritime features under Article 121, the regulation of deep-seabed mining by the ISA, and the relationship between UNCLOS dispute-settlement procedures and other international fora.

Key players

Maritime Delimitation Between States

Maritime delimitation concerns the legal drawing of boundaries between overlapping claims to the territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf. Articles 15, 74, and 83 of UNCLOS govern these zones, but they offer only broad direction — equidistance tempered by special circumstances for the territorial sea, and an equitable solution for the EEZ and shelf. The substantive content has been developed largely through case law, beginning with the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases and refined in Tunisia/Libya, Gulf of Maine, Jan Mayen, Qatar/Bahrain, and Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine). Contemporary jurisprudence has consolidated a three-stage methodology: drawing a provisional equidistance line, adjusting for relevant circumstances (such as coastal configuration, islands, or concavity), and verifying the absence of marked disproportionality between coastal lengths and maritime areas. ITLOS applied this approach in Bangladesh/Myanmar (2012), and the ICJ in Peru v. Chile (2014), Somalia v. Kenya (2021), and Nicaragua v. Colombia. Yet hard cases persist where historic rights, straight baselines, archipelagic configurations, or unsettled land sovereignty complicate the exercise. For a Charles-Rousseau moot, classic delimitation hypotheticals test the candidate's command of equidistance/special circumstances, the treatment of small islands and low-tide elevations under Article 121, the role of tacit agreements and historic title, and the interplay between delimitation and the rights of third states.

Key players

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing emerged as a defined policy concern with the FAO's 2001 International Plan of Action, and has since grown into a central issue of ocean governance. UNCLOS allocates fisheries jurisdiction primarily to coastal states within their EEZs (Articles 61-73) and to flag states on the high seas, complemented by the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement on straddling and highly migratory stocks and by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), in force since 2016, has become the main treaty tool for denying port access to vessels engaged in IUU activities. IUU fishing is estimated by FAO to account for a significant share of global catches, with acute impacts on developing coastal states in West Africa, the Pacific, and Latin America. Distant-water fleets, flags of convenience, transshipment at sea, and weak monitoring complicate enforcement. ITLOS has addressed related issues in cases such as the M/V "Virginia G" and the 2015 SRFC advisory opinion, which clarified flag-state due-diligence obligations and the responsibilities of coastal states. The 2022 WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies further targets subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and IUU practices. Key moot questions include the limits of hot pursuit, the use of force in fisheries enforcement (Saiga No. 2 and Arctic Sunrise), prompt release proceedings under Article 292, and the attribution of responsibility between flag, coastal, and port states.

Key players

Human Rights at Sea

The maritime domain has historically been governed through specialized regimes — UNCLOS, IMO conventions on safety (SOLAS) and seafarer protection, and the ILO's 2006 Maritime Labour Convention — with general human rights law applying somewhat unevenly. Yet abuses at sea, including forced labour on fishing vessels, abandonment of seafarers, deaths during migrant rescues, and refoulement at the maritime border, have moved the issue onto the human rights agenda. The 2012 ECtHR Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy judgment, the Human Rights Committee's 2021 A.S. v. Italy and Malta decisions on the duty to rescue, and the work of the NGO Human Rights at Sea have been catalysts. Legally, the duty to render assistance to persons in distress at sea is established by UNCLOS Article 98, the SOLAS and SAR Conventions, and customary international law. It coexists with non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and human rights treaties, and with flag-state jurisdiction over conduct on board. Disputes arise over the designation of a "place of safety" for disembarkation, the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties on the high seas and in contiguous zones, and accountability for private actors including shipowners and security contractors. For delegates, central questions include the legal status of the Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea (2022), the scope of jurisdiction under ECHR Article 1 and ICCPR Article 2 in maritime interceptions, the criminalization of humanitarian rescue, and the responsibility of coastal and flag states for abuses occurring in their maritime zones or on vessels flying their flag.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before 41ème concours francophone de procès simulé en droit international Charles-Rousseau, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Article 23 — Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour Crimes Against Humanity Customary International Human Rights Law Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Eleanor Roosevelt's Human Rights Universalism

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

41ème concours francophone de procès simulé en droit international Charles-Rousseau

May 5–9, 2026Nice, FranceIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

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

France

As the host nation, France provides the setting for this significant Francophone legal competition, underscoring its commitment to international law and the French language.

Role in topic

Belgium

Belgium, a prominent Francophone nation, often fields strong teams, reflecting its robust legal education system and engagement with international legal institutions.

Role in topic

Switzerland

Switzerland, with its multilingual environment and role in international diplomacy, contributes to the diversity and quality of participants in the Francophone competition.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Contemporary Challenges in Public International Law

Key players

The Law of the Sea and the UNCLOS Regime

Key players

Maritime Delimitation Between States

Key players

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Key players

Human Rights at Sea

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before 41ème concours francophone de procès simulé en droit international Charles-Rousseau, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

White & Case Paris Vis Pre-Moot 2026

René Cassin Advocacy Competition 2026

Concours Charles Rousseau 2026

Concours d'Arbitrage International de Paris (CAIP) 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Prix Lehérissel-Dibout du Meilleur Étudiant Fiscaliste 2026

Related conferences

White & Case Paris Vis Pre-Moot 2026

René Cassin Advocacy Competition 2026

Concours Charles Rousseau 2026

Concours d'Arbitrage International de Paris (CAIP) 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Prix Lehérissel-Dibout du Meilleur Étudiant Fiscaliste 2026

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

White & Case Paris Vis Pre-Moot 2026

René Cassin Advocacy Competition 2026

Concours Charles Rousseau 2026

Concours d'Arbitrage International de Paris (CAIP) 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Prix Lehérissel-Dibout du Meilleur Étudiant Fiscaliste 2026

Related conferences

White & Case Paris Vis Pre-Moot 2026

René Cassin Advocacy Competition 2026

Concours Charles Rousseau 2026

Concours d'Arbitrage International de Paris (CAIP) 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Prix Lehérissel-Dibout du Meilleur Étudiant Fiscaliste 2026