What is the eligibility for participants in this competition?

This competition is designed for college-level participants, offering them an opportunity to engage with international law.

What is the format of the competition?

The competition is an international moot court, which involves participants simulating court proceedings by presenting arguments on legal issues.

6th Shree Abhay Bharadwaj Memorial International Moot Court Competition 2026

Apr 2–4, 2026Rajkot, IndiaIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Shree Abhay Bharadwaj Memorial International Moot Court Competition is an annual event designed for college-level participants, focusing on international law. Hosted in Rajkot, IND, this competition provides a platform for students to engage with complex legal issues and develop their advocacy skills. The event is structured to simulate proceedings before an international court, challenging participants to research, write, and present arguments on contemporary global legal challenges. This particular iteration, the sixth in the series, is scheduled to take place in Rajkot, IND. It continues the tradition of fostering legal scholarship and practical experience in international law among students.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 1 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

India

As the host nation, IND plays a central role in facilitating international legal education and discourse through this competition.

Role in topic

IND provides the venue and organizational framework for this international moot court, showcasing its commitment to fostering legal scholarship and international cooperation. The event contributes to IND's standing as a hub for legal education in Asia.

Topics & background

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

Non-International Armed Conflict under International Law

Non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) — hostilities between a state and organized armed groups, or between such groups — have become the dominant form of warfare since the latter half of the twentieth century, from the Algerian war of independence and the Vietnam conflict to civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Syria, and Yemen. The legal regime governing NIACs developed late and unevenly: Common Article 3 to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions provided a minimum baseline of humane treatment, and Additional Protocol II of 1977 extended protections for conflicts of a certain intensity occurring on the territory of a state party. The ICTY's 1995 Tadić decision crystallized the modern threshold test for NIAC, requiring 'protracted armed violence' between a state and an organized armed group, or between such groups. The core dispute today concerns classification and scope. States often deny that internal violence has crossed the NIAC threshold to avoid triggering IHL obligations, while transnational counter-terrorism operations — such as cross-border drone strikes and extraterritorial use of force against non-state armed groups — have raised contested questions about whether a NIAC can span multiple states (the so-called 'transnational NIAC' debate). The interplay between IHL and domestic criminal law, the role of customary IHL as catalogued by the ICRC, and the obligations of non-state armed groups to respect humane treatment remain unsettled. Courts at the ICTY, ICTR, ICC, and regional human rights bodies continue to shape doctrine through case law on Syria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ukraine.

Key players

Applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

Historically, IHL (the law of armed conflict) and IHRL (the law applicable at all times) developed on separate tracks: IHL emerged from the 1864 Geneva Convention and the Hague law tradition to regulate the conduct of hostilities, while IHRL crystallized after World War II in the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, and regional charters. For decades, many states argued that human rights treaties simply did not apply in wartime. That position eroded after the ICJ's 1996 Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion and the 2004 Wall advisory opinion, which affirmed that IHRL continues to apply during armed conflict, with IHL operating as lex specialis on questions such as the legality of killing in hostilities. The contemporary dispute concerns how the two regimes interact in practice — particularly in occupation, counter-terrorism, detention, and extraterritorial operations. Questions include whether human rights treaties apply outside a state's territory (the ECtHR's Al-Skeini and Hassan judgments, and the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 36), whether IHL's targeting rules displace IHRL's right-to-life protections, and how due-process guarantees survive in active combat zones. States such as the United States and Israel have historically resisted extraterritorial application of IHRL, while European states, treaty bodies, and the ICRC increasingly endorse a complementary 'mutually reinforcing' reading. The framework matters acutely in Ukraine, Gaza, the Sahel, and Myanmar, where civilian protection turns on which body of law applies and how.

Key players

Legal Status of Detainees and 'Unlawful Combatants'

The status of persons captured in armed conflict is regulated principally by the Third Geneva Convention (POWs) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (civilians), supplemented by Additional Protocol I and customary IHL. The conventions envisage a binary: combatants entitled to POW status and protected civilians. The category of 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatant — fighters who do not meet the Article 4 GC III criteria (responsible command, fixed distinctive sign, carrying arms openly, compliance with IHL) — is not a third status under the treaties; such persons remain protected, at minimum, by Common Article 3 and Article 75 of AP I, widely regarded as customary law. The modern controversy stems largely from post-9/11 U.S. practice, when the Bush administration designated Guantánamo detainees as 'unlawful enemy combatants' to argue they fell outside both POW protection and ordinary criminal due process. U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, and Boumediene pushed back, affirming habeas rights and the applicability of Common Article 3. Similar issues have arisen with foreign fighters detained in northeast Syria by the SDF, ISIS suspects in Iraq, and detainees in the Russia–Ukraine war, including disputes over POW status for Azov fighters and Wagner personnel. The unresolved questions concern screening procedures (GC III Article 5 tribunals), judicial review, treatment standards, transfer and repatriation obligations, and whether prolonged administrative detention without trial can ever be lawful.

Key players

Responsibility of State and Non-State Actors

State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts is codified in the ILC's 2001 Articles on State Responsibility, which set out rules on attribution, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, and reparation. Two attribution standards dominate jurisprudence: the ICJ's 'effective control' test (Nicaragua, 1986; Bosnian Genocide, 2007) and the ICTY's looser 'overall control' test from Tadić, used principally to classify conflicts. Beyond state organs, conduct of private actors can be attributed where they act on instructions, under direction, or under effective control of the state, with important implications for proxy warfare, private military contractors, and cyber operations. Non-state armed groups present a parallel and unsettled problem. They are bound by Common Article 3 and customary IHL, and their members can be held individually responsible under international criminal law before the ICC and ad hoc tribunals. Yet there is no comprehensive regime of collective responsibility for armed groups themselves, and questions remain about engagement (e.g., Geneva Call's Deeds of Commitment), accountability for sexual violence and recruitment of children, and the legal effect of acts by groups that later become governments. Today the responsibility question is acute in Ukraine (state responsibility of Russia, attribution of Wagner conduct), Gaza and the West Bank (state and Hamas conduct), Myanmar (junta and ethnic armed organizations), and the Sahel (state forces, jihadist groups, and foreign auxiliaries).

Key players

Violations under the Geneva Conventions, ICCPR, and Customary International Humanitarian Law

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols criminalize grave breaches — wilful killing, torture, inhuman treatment, unlawful deportation, denial of fair trial, and extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity — and obligate all states parties to search for and prosecute or extradite alleged perpetrators (aut dedere aut judicare). The ICCPR, with its non-derogable core (Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18), prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, and other ill-treatment even in public emergency. The ICRC's 2005 Customary IHL Study identified 161 customary rules binding on all parties to all conflicts, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Enforcement remains the persistent weakness. Universal jurisdiction prosecutions in Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden have addressed crimes from Syria, Liberia, and elsewhere, while the ICC has issued arrest warrants in situations including Darfur, Libya, Ukraine, and Palestine. Yet political constraints, non-cooperation, and selective application erode credibility. Current flashpoints — alleged grave breaches in Ukraine (filtration, forcible transfer of children, attacks on civilian infrastructure), Gaza (proportionality, starvation as a method of warfare), Sudan (sexual violence, ethnic targeting in Darfur), and Myanmar (Rohingya atrocities) — test whether the Geneva–ICCPR–custom triad can deliver accountability. The committee must grapple with documentation standards, command responsibility, reparations, and the role of commissions of inquiry and hybrid tribunals.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before 6th Shree Abhay Bharadwaj Memorial International Moot Court Competition 2026, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Armed Non-State Actor Combatant Status AP I customary status Armed Conflict Armed Conflict, Non-International Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA)

Country profiles

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

In the news

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Story

Trump's Federal Election Strategy

Story

Supreme Court VRA Ruling Empowers GOP 2026

Story

Delhi Liquor Case

Story

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

6th Shree Abhay Bharadwaj Memorial International Moot Court Competition 2026

Apr 2–4, 2026Rajkot, IndiaIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 1 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

India

As the host nation, IND plays a central role in facilitating international legal education and discourse through this competition.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Non-International Armed Conflict under International Law

Key players

Applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL)

Key players

Legal Status of Detainees and 'Unlawful Combatants'

Key players

Responsibility of State and Non-State Actors

Key players

Violations under the Geneva Conventions, ICCPR, and Customary International Humanitarian Law

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before 6th Shree Abhay Bharadwaj Memorial International Moot Court Competition 2026, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Armed Non-State Actor Combatant Status AP I customary status Armed Conflict Armed Conflict, Non-International Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA)

Country profiles

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier