What is the format of the competition?

The competition is a moot court, which involves simulated court proceedings where participants argue international legal issues.

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 – National Rounds (Indonesia)

Feb 5–8, 2026Yogyakarta, IndonesiaIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 – National Rounds (Indonesia) is an academic event for college students focused on international law. Hosted in Yogyakarta, IDN, this competition serves as the national qualifying stage for teams from IDN to advance to the global rounds. Participants engage in simulated court proceedings, arguing complex international legal issues before a panel of judges.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 2 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Indonesia

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

Role in topic

IDN is the host country for these national rounds, playing a pivotal role in nurturing future international legal professionals within its borders. The competition in Yogyakarta highlights IDN's engagement with global legal standards and its investment in academic excellence in international law.

United States

Originator of the Jessup Competition, promoting international legal education globally.

Role in topic

The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition originated in the USA and has grown into a global phenomenon. Its influence extends worldwide, setting a benchmark for international legal advocacy training and fostering a common understanding of international law principles across diverse legal systems.

Topics & background

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

Rights of Indigenous Peoples under International Law

The international legal framework for Indigenous peoples crystallized over decades of advocacy culminating in ILO Convention 169 (1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). These instruments recognize collective rights to self-determination, cultural integrity, traditional lands, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) over decisions affecting Indigenous communities. While UNDRIP is formally non-binding, many of its provisions are increasingly treated as reflective of customary international law, and regional jurisprudence — particularly from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases like Saramaka v. Suriname and Sarayaku v. Ecuador — has given them concrete legal weight. The core dispute today centers on the gap between recognition and enforcement. States routinely authorize extractive, infrastructure, and conservation projects on Indigenous territories without meaningful consultation, citing sovereign control over natural resources and economic development imperatives. Indigenous communities and their advocates argue that FPIC is a substantive veto-bearing right, while many states interpret it as a procedural duty to consult. Disputes also arise over the demarcation of ancestral lands, restitution for historical dispossession, and the cross-border rights of Indigenous peoples whose territories were divided by colonial boundaries. Contemporary flashpoints include the Amazon basin, the Arctic, Southeast Asian forest frontiers, and Pacific island contexts where climate change compounds dispossession. In the ICJ's recent advisory work on climate obligations and decolonization (Chagos), Indigenous and self-determination claims have been pressed before the Court, raising the question of how general international law accommodates non-state collective rights-holders.

Key players

Third-State Intervention before the International Court of Justice

Third-State intervention before the ICJ is governed by Articles 62 and 63 of the Court's Statute. Article 62 permits a State with an 'interest of a legal nature' that may be affected by a decision to request permission to intervene; Article 63 grants States parties to a convention being construed a right to intervene on questions of interpretation. Historically, the Court applied these provisions restrictively — denying or limiting interventions in cases such as Nicaragua's request in El Salvador v. United States and Italy's request in Jurisdictional Immunities (Germany v. Italy) — reflecting concerns about consent-based jurisdiction and the bilateral structure of contentious proceedings. The practice has shifted dramatically since 2022. The Ukraine v. Russia genocide case attracted an unprecedented thirty-plus Article 63 declarations of intervention, and the South Africa v. Israel proceedings under the Genocide Convention have produced a similar wave. These mass interventions raise novel questions: whether Article 63 can be used to advance shared political-legal positions on erga omnes partes obligations, what procedural rights intervening states enjoy, and how the Court can manage docket complexity without diluting party consent. The core dispute is doctrinal and structural. Proponents view broad intervention as essential to community enforcement of multilateral obligations, particularly under treaties protecting fundamental values. Critics, including Russia and some respondent States, argue that intervention is being instrumentalized politically and that the Court risks transforming bilateral disputes into collective enforcement actions never envisaged by the Statute. The Court's evolving case management — including consolidated admissibility rulings on interventions — is reshaping ICJ procedure in real time.

Key players

Extradition and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem

Ne bis in idem — the prohibition on being tried or punished twice for the same offence — is recognized in Article 14(7) of the ICCPR, Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the ECHR, Article 50 of the EU Charter, and numerous bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties. Its application across jurisdictions, however, remains contested. The ICCPR formulation has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee as binding only within a single State, while regional instruments (notably the Schengen Convention, Article 54) extend the principle transnationally among participating States. In extradition practice, ne bis in idem typically functions as a mandatory or discretionary ground for refusal: a requested State may decline to surrender a person already finally acquitted, convicted, or pardoned for the same conduct in the requesting or a third State. Core disputes concern the definition of 'same offence' (idem factum versus idem crimen), what constitutes a 'final' disposition (including prosecutorial declinations and plea agreements), and whether in absentia convictions or amnesties trigger the bar. The rise of overlapping jurisdictional claims — cybercrime, transnational corruption, international crimes — has multiplied conflicts. Recent jurisprudence from the CJEU (e.g., the Petruhhin and bpost lines of cases) and the ECtHR (Mihalache v. Romania) has refined the European understanding, while at the universal level the principle's reach remains uneven. The interaction with the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute, and with universal jurisdiction prosecutions, adds further complexity, including whether prior proceedings shielding an accused from genuine accountability should bar subsequent extradition or prosecution.

Key players

State Immunity and the Responsibility of State-Owned Enterprises

The customary law of State immunity, codified in the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (not yet in force), distinguishes between sovereign acts (acta jure imperii), which attract immunity, and commercial acts (acta jure gestionis), which do not. The ICJ confirmed in Jurisdictional Immunities (Germany v. Italy, 2012) that immunity remains robust even against claims arising from serious human rights violations, absent a clear customary exception. Yet the rise of State-owned enterprises (SOEs) as global commercial actors — in shipping, energy, sovereign investment, and infrastructure — has strained the doctrine. The core dispute is when an SOE's conduct may be attributed to the State for purposes of either immunity or international responsibility. Under Article 8 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, an SOE's acts are attributable to the State only when carried out on its instructions or under its direction or control, but national courts apply varied tests (functional, structural, agency) to determine whether the SOE itself enjoys derivative immunity. Investment tribunals, applying the Broches and Tulip Real Estate criteria, have also wrestled with whether SOEs can be claimants under ICSID and whether their conduct triggers State responsibility. Contemporary controversies include sanctions enforcement against SOEs, sovereign-debt litigation involving central banks, asset seizures linked to wartime reparations, and Belt and Road infrastructure disputes. Indonesia's BUMN (Badan Usaha Milik Negara) sector exemplifies the tension: large state-owned firms operate commercially abroad while invoking sovereign protections at home. Harmonizing immunity doctrine with accountability for commercial wrongdoing, environmental harm, and human-rights impacts remains an open frontier.

Key players

The Role of Third States in International Courts and Tribunals

Third-State participation has become a defining feature of contemporary international adjudication. Beyond ICJ intervention under Articles 62 and 63, mechanisms include amicus curiae submissions at the WTO and investment tribunals, non-disputing party submissions under modern IIAs (e.g., USMCA, CPTPP), and written statements in ICJ advisory proceedings — where in cases such as Chagos, Climate Change Obligations, and Israeli Practices in the OPT, dozens of States have appeared. These channels allow States that are not parties to a dispute to shape the development of international law on issues affecting the international community as a whole. The core debate concerns the balance between consent-based dispute settlement and the collective interest in coherent legal development. Critics argue that mass third-State participation politicizes courts and pressures judges; defenders contend that erga omnes and erga omnes partes obligations — recognized since Barcelona Traction and reaffirmed in The Gambia v. Myanmar — necessarily invite community participation. Procedural questions abound: the scope of intervener rights, the binding effect of judgments on interveners, and the standards for admitting amicus briefs. The issue cuts across forums. At ITLOS, the 2024 climate advisory opinion saw extensive third-State engagement; at the ICC, Article 19 challenges and Article 87 cooperation issues regularly draw non-party views; in investor-State arbitration, transparency reforms (UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, Mauritius Convention) have institutionalized third-party access. The trend points toward a more pluralistic but procedurally complex international judiciary.

Key players

Protection of Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Mining Projects

Mining projects on or near Indigenous territories sit at the intersection of sovereign resource rights, investor protections, and Indigenous self-determination. UNDRIP Article 32 requires States to obtain free, prior and informed consent before approving projects affecting Indigenous lands and resources, and ILO Convention 169 imposes binding consultation obligations on its 24 States parties. The Inter-American Court has translated these standards into operational requirements through Saramaka v. Suriname (consent for large-scale projects), Sarayaku v. Ecuador (procedural quality of consultation), and Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina (land restitution). The core dispute concerns the legal force of FPIC: whether it confers a veto, a right to influence, or merely a procedural entitlement; how it interacts with mining concessions granted before consultation; and what remedies follow when consent is bypassed. Disputes increasingly migrate into investment arbitration, where investors challenge State measures protecting Indigenous communities (e.g., Bear Creek v. Peru, Cortec v. Kenya), raising tensions between IIAs and human-rights obligations. Transition minerals — lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper — have intensified pressure on Indigenous lands worldwide. Indonesia, with major nickel operations in Sulawesi and Halmahera, illustrates the challenge: rapid expansion to supply EV battery supply chains has produced disputes with adat communities over land, water, and livelihoods. Similar dynamics affect lithium triangle communities in South America, copper projects in the Andes and Central Asia, and rare-earth extraction in Africa. The emerging question is whether international law can reconcile decarbonization-driven mineral demand with substantive Indigenous consent.

Key players

Individual Rights in Extradition Processes

Modern extradition law has evolved from a purely inter-State mechanism into a process constrained by individual rights protections. The ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, 9, 14), the ECHR (Articles 3, 5, 6, and 8, as developed in Soering v. United Kingdom), and the Convention against Torture (Article 3) impose non-refoulement and fair-trial obligations that limit surrender. The ECtHR's Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom further established that real risk of a flagrant denial of justice — including use of torture-tainted evidence — bars extradition. The core disputes today involve diplomatic assurances and their reliability, surrender to jurisdictions with mass-incarceration or death-penalty regimes, the political-offence exception in an era of counter-terrorism and transnational protest, and the misuse of INTERPOL Red Notices and bilateral requests for political persecution. The Assange, Puigdemont, and various Russia- and China-related cases have spotlighted how requested States balance treaty obligations against rights review. Health-based refusals (as in the UK Supreme Court's Assange-related rulings) and prison-conditions assessments (Romeo Castaño, Bivolaru) have expanded the substantive review now expected of requested courts. Procedural rights — adequate notice, legal representation, access to evidence underlying the request, and effective remedy — are increasingly viewed as integral to lawful extradition. Tensions persist between the speed and reciprocity expected by requesting States and the rigorous individualized assessment required by human-rights law, with regional instruments (European Arrest Warrant, Inter-American Convention on Extradition, ASEAN frameworks) producing divergent balances.

Key players

Immunity of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) in International Law

State-owned enterprises occupy an ambiguous position under the law of jurisdictional immunity. The 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities treats a 'State enterprise or other entity established by the State' as entitled to immunity only when exercising sovereign authority (Article 2(1)(b)(iii)). National regimes — the US FSIA, the UK State Immunity Act, China's 2023 Foreign State Immunity Law — apply variants of the restrictive theory, denying immunity for commercial activity but disagreeing on how to characterize SOE conduct, separate legal personality, and central-bank assets. The ICJ has touched on related questions in Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States, 2023), distinguishing the State from its commercial entities for attachment purposes. Indonesia's BUMN sector — including Pertamina, PLN, Garuda, and Mining Industry Indonesia (MIND ID) — illustrates the practical stakes. These entities sign commercial contracts, raise debt on international markets, operate vessels and assets abroad, and increasingly participate in cross-border M&A. Whether they can invoke sovereign immunity in foreign courts, whether their assets can be attached to enforce arbitral awards against Indonesia, and whether their conduct engages State responsibility under the ILC Articles are recurring questions. The core disputes involve the Bancec presumption of separate juridical personality (and its alter-ego exceptions), the treatment of sovereign wealth funds, immunity from execution versus immunity from jurisdiction, and the implications of treaty-based waivers in BITs and loan agreements. Sanctions enforcement, climate litigation against State-owned oil majors, and award enforcement against Venezuelan, Russian, and other SOEs have made the topic one of the most active areas of contemporary public international law.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 – National Rounds (Indonesia), plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

1973 Diplomatic Protection Convention Andhra State Article 12 — Definition of 'State'Article 14 (Equality Before Law)Article 142 (Power to do Complete Justice)Article 142 — Doing Complete Justice

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 – National Rounds (Indonesia)

Feb 5–8, 2026Yogyakarta, IndonesiaIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 2 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Indonesia

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

Role in topic

United States

Originator of the Jessup Competition, promoting international legal education globally.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Rights of Indigenous Peoples under International Law

Key players

Third-State Intervention before the International Court of Justice

Key players

Extradition and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem

Key players

State Immunity and the Responsibility of State-Owned Enterprises

Key players

The Role of Third States in International Courts and Tribunals

Key players

Protection of Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Mining Projects

Key players

Individual Rights in Extradition Processes

Key players

Immunity of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) in International Law

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 – National Rounds (Indonesia), plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

1973 Diplomatic Protection Convention Andhra State Article 12 — Definition of 'State'Article 14 (Equality Before Law)Article 142 (Power to do Complete Justice)Article 142 — Doing Complete Justice

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

National Moot Court Competition ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

Internal Moot Court Competition Piala Mr. Soepomo VIII

Jean-Pictet Competition 2026 (50th edition)

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

National Moot Court Competition ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

Internal Moot Court Competition Piala Mr. Soepomo VIII

Jean-Pictet Competition 2026 (50th edition)

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

National Moot Court Competition ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

Internal Moot Court Competition Piala Mr. Soepomo VIII

Jean-Pictet Competition 2026 (50th edition)

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

National Moot Court Competition ALSA Piala Mahkamah Agung XXVI

Internal Moot Court Competition Piala Mr. Soepomo VIII

Jean-Pictet Competition 2026 (50th edition)