What is the primary focus of the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition?

The competition focuses on public international law, simulating a dispute before the International Court of Justice, and is open to college-level students.

Where is the International Phase of the competition held?

The International Phase of the competition takes place in Washington, DC, USA.

What level of education is required for participants?

The competition is designed for college-level students.

Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 (International Phase)

Mar 28 – Apr 4, 2026Washington, DC, United StatesIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (International Phase) is a premier global event for law students, focusing on international law and advocacy. Held in Washington, DC, USA, this competition brings together college-level teams from around the world to simulate a fictional dispute before the International Court of Justice. Participants engage in rigorous legal research, brief writing, and oral arguments, honing their skills in public international law.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

As the host nation, the USA provides the venue for this significant international legal event, underscoring its role in fostering global legal education and discourse.

Role in topic

The USA, as the host country in Washington, DC, facilitates the gathering of legal minds from around the world, providing a neutral ground for the competition. Its legal institutions and academic environment often contribute to the intellectual framework of international law discussions.

Brazil

Brazil actively participates in the competition, demonstrating its commitment to international law education and the development of its future legal professionals.

Role in topic

Brazil consistently sends teams to the international phase, highlighting its dedication to engaging with global legal challenges and preparing its law students for careers in international law. Such participation reflects a broader national interest in multilateralism and international legal norms.

India

India's consistent participation reflects its growing influence in international legal forums and its emphasis on legal education.

Role in topic

India, with its large legal community and increasing engagement in international affairs, views the Jessup Competition as a crucial platform for its law students to gain exposure to international legal practice and contribute to global legal discussions.

China

China's involvement in the competition showcases its increasing engagement with international legal frameworks and its development of legal talent.

Role in topic

China's participation underscores its evolving role in international law, providing an avenue for its legal students to develop expertise in global legal issues and engage with diverse perspectives on international disputes.

Topics & background

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

Critical Minerals and the International Legal Order

Critical minerals — including lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and the rare earth elements — have become indispensable inputs for the energy transition, advanced semiconductors, and defense systems. Their geographic concentration, with the Democratic Republic of the Congo dominating cobalt extraction, Indonesia leading nickel, Chile and Australia leading lithium, and China dominating refining and processing, has produced acute supply-chain dependencies and recurrent friction over export controls, investment screening, and resource nationalism. Since 2020, the United States, European Union, Japan, and Australia have established critical minerals partnerships, while China has tightened export licensing on gallium, germanium, graphite, and select rare earth processing technologies. International legal questions cluster around WTO disciplines on export restrictions (revisited in the China — Raw Materials and China — Rare Earths cases), the customary law of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and bilateral investment treaty protections for foreign mining investors. The Energy Charter Treaty, ICSID arbitration, and emerging frameworks such as the EU Critical Raw Materials Act and the US Inflation Reduction Act test how far states may condition market access on sourcing requirements without breaching non-discrimination obligations. The contemporary dispute centers on whether unilateral export controls and subsidy-linked sourcing rules are lawful security or environmental measures or disguised protectionism, and how host-state regulation of extraction interacts with investor rights and the duties of due diligence increasingly demanded under the OECD Guidelines and emerging mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws.

Key players

Environmental Protection in International Law

Modern international environmental law crystallized through the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, the 1992 Rio Declaration, and a network of multilateral instruments addressing climate change, biodiversity, ozone depletion, transboundary pollution, and the marine environment. Core customary principles — the no-harm rule articulated in Trail Smelter and reaffirmed by the ICJ in Pulp Mills and Certain Activities (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), the duty to conduct environmental impact assessments, the precautionary approach, and common but differentiated responsibilities — now frame state conduct alongside treaty regimes such as the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, UNCLOS, and the 2023 BBNJ Agreement. The ICJ's 2024 advisory proceedings on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, alongside the ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change and the law of the sea and the Inter-American Court's advisory opinion on the climate emergency, have intensified focus on whether existing primary norms generate concrete obligations of conduct and result, and on questions of attribution, causation, and reparations for environmental harm. The contemporary debate concerns operationalizing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment recognized in UNGA Resolution 76/300, reconciling sovereignty over natural resources with erga omnes environmental duties, and clarifying state responsibility for cumulative and diffuse harms such as greenhouse gas emissions, plastic pollution, and biodiversity loss.

Key players

Human Rights in Contemporary International Law

The international human rights regime built on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights matured through the twin 1966 Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR), regional systems in Europe, the Americas, and Africa, and a dense set of thematic treaties on torture, racial discrimination, women, children, disabilities, and enforced disappearance. Mechanisms include UN treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review, special procedures, and — where jurisdiction permits — regional and international courts. Contemporary controversies revolve around the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, the interaction between human rights and international humanitarian law in armed conflict, business and human rights duties under the UNGPs, the digital dimensions of civil and political rights, and the operationalization of economic, social, and cultural rights. Litigation before the ICJ — in cases such as The Gambia v. Myanmar, South Africa v. Israel, and Ukraine v. Russia — has elevated the role of erga omnes partes standing for human rights treaty enforcement. The dispute today concerns how universal norms are enforced in a fragmented geopolitical landscape, the legitimacy of selective sanctions and accountability mechanisms, and the legal status of emerging rights claims, including the right to a healthy environment and rights affected by artificial intelligence and surveillance technologies.

Key players

The Right to Intervene in Proceedings before the International Court of Justice

Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute provide two distinct intervention pathways. Article 62 permits a state with an 'interest of a legal nature which may be affected' by the decision to request intervention, subject to Court authorization; Article 63 grants states parties to a convention being construed the right to intervene, with the construction given by the judgment being equally binding upon them. Early jurisprudence was restrictive — the Court denied or narrowly granted intervention in cases such as Malta in Tunisia/Libya, Italy in Libya/Malta, and Nicaragua in El Salvador v. Honduras (1990), the first successful Article 62 intervention. The practice has expanded dramatically. In Whaling in the Antarctic, New Zealand intervened under Article 63. In The Gambia v. Myanmar and Ukraine v. Russian Federation (Genocide Convention), dozens of states filed declarations of intervention under Article 63 — an unprecedented mobilization that has prompted debate about the boundary between intervention and political solidarity. South Africa v. Israel has similarly attracted a wave of intervention declarations. The core legal questions today concern the threshold for an 'interest of a legal nature,' whether interveners become parties bound by the judgment, the permissible scope of an intervener's submissions, the relationship between intervention and erga omnes partes standing, and whether mass interventions risk transforming bilateral contentious proceedings into quasi-advisory exercises.

Key players

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Relating to Rare Earth Minerals

Rare earth and other critical-mineral deposits are disproportionately located on or near territories traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples — from the Sámi homelands in Fennoscandia to lithium-bearing salt flats in the Andean 'Lithium Triangle,' uranium and rare earth prospects in Greenland and Australia, and nickel and cobalt operations in the Philippines, Indonesia, and the DRC. The international framework protecting indigenous rights in this context includes ILO Convention 169, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court (Saramaka, Sarayaku, Kaliña and Lokono) and African human rights bodies (Endorois, Ogiek), which together require consultation and, in many circumstances, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before extractive projects on indigenous lands. Disputes have intensified as the energy transition drives demand. The Sámi Parliament's challenge to mining licenses in Sweden and Norway, including those connected to the Kallak/Gállok and Fosen wind cases, the Atacameño communities' contestation of lithium concessions in Chile, and Greenlandic moratoria on uranium and rare earth extraction at Kuannersuit/Kvanefjeld illustrate the friction between climate-driven supply imperatives and indigenous self-determination. The contemporary legal question is the content and enforceability of FPIC: whether it constitutes a veto right, how it relates to permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the responsibility of home states of mining investors, and how supply-chain due diligence laws in the EU, US, and elsewhere can give effect to indigenous rights across borders.

Key players

General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations

Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute lists 'the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations' as a primary source of international law, alongside treaties and custom. The phrase, inherited from the 1920 PCIJ Statute, was designed to fill gaps where treaty and custom were silent, drawing on principles common to the world's major domestic legal systems — including good faith, res judicata, estoppel, unjust enrichment, due process, and the prohibition on abuse of rights. The reference to 'civilized nations' is today widely regarded as anachronistic terminology, though the source itself remains operative. The International Law Commission, under Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, adopted on first reading in 2023 a set of Draft Conclusions on General Principles of Law. The Draft Conclusions distinguish principles derived from national legal systems (requiring identification of a principle common to the principal legal systems and its transposability to the international legal order) from principles formed within the international legal system itself, and confirm that the source is autonomous from custom. Contemporary debates concern the methodology for ascertaining general principles, their hierarchy vis-à-vis treaty and custom, whether they can give rise to peremptory norms, and their role in fields such as international criminal law, investment arbitration, and environmental law, where tribunals frequently invoke principles such as proportionality, equity, and procedural fairness.

Key players

State Immunity from Domestic Jurisdiction for Economic Harm

State immunity, rooted in the sovereign equality of states, shields foreign states from the adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction of national courts. The customary law has shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity over the twentieth century, denying immunity for acta jure gestionis (commercial acts) while preserving it for acta jure imperii (sovereign acts). This restrictive approach is codified in the European Convention on State Immunity (1972), the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004, not yet in force), and national statutes such as the US FSIA and UK State Immunity Act. The distinction between commercial and sovereign acts is notoriously contested, particularly for measures with economic consequences: sovereign debt restructurings (NML Capital v. Argentina), expropriations, sanctions and countermeasures, central bank reserve freezes, and state-directed cyber or trade actions causing cross-border economic harm. The ICJ's Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy, 2012) reaffirmed broad immunity for sovereign conduct even when serious violations of international law are alleged, while the Italian Constitutional Court's Judgment 238/2014 and subsequent practice have generated ongoing friction. The contemporary dispute concerns whether and how immunity should yield where states cause significant economic harm through regulatory, financial, or coercive measures: debates over attaching frozen Russian sovereign assets to compensate Ukraine, the treatment of central bank property, secondary sanctions liability, and proposals — reflected in some national legislation — to create exceptions for cyber-economic harms or for jus cogens violations with economic dimensions.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 (International Phase), plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Article 2(7) (Domestic Jurisdiction Clause)Article 12 — Definition of 'State'Article 131 (Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)Act of State Doctrine Article 131 — Original Jurisdiction in Centre-State Disputes Article 14 (Equality Before Law)

In the news

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission Dis

Story

US Job Openings at 6.7M

Story

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Story

Trump's Economic Reset

Story

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 (International Phase)

Mar 28 – Apr 4, 2026Washington, DC, United StatesIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

As the host nation, the USA provides the venue for this significant international legal event, underscoring its role in fostering global legal education and discourse.

Role in topic

Brazil

Brazil actively participates in the competition, demonstrating its commitment to international law education and the development of its future legal professionals.

Role in topic

India

India's consistent participation reflects its growing influence in international legal forums and its emphasis on legal education.

Role in topic

China

China's involvement in the competition showcases its increasing engagement with international legal frameworks and its development of legal talent.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Critical Minerals and the International Legal Order

Key players

Environmental Protection in International Law

Key players

Human Rights in Contemporary International Law

Key players

The Right to Intervene in Proceedings before the International Court of Justice

Key players

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Relating to Rare Earth Minerals

Key players

General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations

Key players

State Immunity from Domestic Jurisdiction for Economic Harm

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 (International Phase), plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

In the news

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission Dis

Story

US Job Openings at 6.7M

Story

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Story

Trump's Economic Reset

Story

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition 2026 – North American Regional Round

The Hicks Thomas LLP Moot Court National Championship 2026

2026 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition

38th Annual Domenick L. Gabrielli National Family Law Moot Court Competition

IBA ICC Moot Court Competition – North American Regional Round 2026

International Criminal Court Moot Competition 2026

Related conferences

Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition 2026 – North American Regional Round

The Hicks Thomas LLP Moot Court National Championship 2026

2026 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition

38th Annual Domenick L. Gabrielli National Family Law Moot Court Competition

IBA ICC Moot Court Competition – North American Regional Round 2026

International Criminal Court Moot Competition 2026

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition 2026 – North American Regional Round

The Hicks Thomas LLP Moot Court National Championship 2026

2026 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition

38th Annual Domenick L. Gabrielli National Family Law Moot Court Competition

IBA ICC Moot Court Competition – North American Regional Round 2026

International Criminal Court Moot Competition 2026

Related conferences

Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition 2026 – North American Regional Round

The Hicks Thomas LLP Moot Court National Championship 2026

2026 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition

38th Annual Domenick L. Gabrielli National Family Law Moot Court Competition

IBA ICC Moot Court Competition – North American Regional Round 2026

International Criminal Court Moot Competition 2026