Where will the German National Rounds of the Jessup Competition be held?

The competition will be held in Berlin, DEU.

What level of education is required for participants in this competition?

The competition is open to college students.

What is the format of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition?

The competition involves a simulated international legal dispute, requiring participants to prepare written memorials and present oral arguments before a mock court.

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2027 – The Jones Day German National Rounds in Berlin

Feb 24–27, 2027Berlin, GermanyIn-person

Registration open

The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition's German National Rounds are set to take place in Berlin, DEU. This event brings together college students from across DEU to engage in a simulated international legal dispute before a mock International Court of Justice. Participants will hone their research, writing, and oral advocacy skills, addressing complex issues of public international law.

Country perspectives

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

Germany

Host nation and participant in the national rounds of a prestigious international law competition.

Role in topic

As the host country for these national rounds, DEU plays a pivotal role in fostering the development of international legal talent within its educational institutions. The event highlights DEU's commitment to international law and provides a platform for its college students to engage with global legal issues, potentially advancing to the international stage of the competition.

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 is organized by the International Law Students Association (ILSA), based in the USA. Its global reach, including national rounds in countries like DEU, underscores the USA's influence in promoting international legal education and fostering a worldwide community of future international lawyers.

Topics & background

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

Allegations of Gender Apartheid as an International Crime

The term 'apartheid' entered international law through the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute, both of which define it as a system of institutionalized oppression by one racial group over another. Since the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, and against the longer backdrop of state-enforced sex segregation in jurisdictions such as Iran, advocates, UN Special Rapporteurs, and several states have argued that systematic, codified subordination of women and girls should likewise be recognized as a crime of 'gender apartheid'. Taliban edicts barring women from secondary and university education, most employment, public parks, and unaccompanied travel have intensified these calls. The legal debate centers on whether the existing crime of gender persecution under Article 7 of the Rome Statute already captures such conduct, or whether a distinct codification is required to reflect the structural, institutionalized character of gender-based domination. The ongoing UN International Law Commission Draft Articles on Crimes Against Humanity have become the principal vehicle for this discussion, with a coalition of states and civil society pressing for explicit inclusion of gender apartheid. Opponents caution against diluting the historical specificity of racial apartheid and warn of definitional uncertainty. Today the question sits at the intersection of treaty drafting, customary international law, and state responsibility. The International Court of Justice and Human Rights Council mechanisms have been invoked to examine compliance with CEDAW and the ICCPR, while the ICC Prosecutor has signaled attention to gender-based crimes in the Afghanistan situation. The mootable issues include whether gender apartheid has crystallized as a norm, what evidentiary thresholds apply, and what obligations of non-recognition and cooperation flow to third states.

Key players

State Responses to a Mass Influx of Asylum Seekers

International protection of asylum seekers rests on the 1951 Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, regional instruments such as the 1969 OAU Convention and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, and the customary principle of non-refoulement. Mass-influx situations, however, expose tensions between these obligations and states' sovereign control over borders. The 1990s Balkan displacements prompted the EU's Temporary Protection Directive; the 2015–2016 Syrian movement toward Europe reshaped political landscapes; and more recent flows from Venezuela, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, and across the Mediterranean and Darien Gap have repeatedly tested capacity and political will. State responses have ranged from large-scale reception and group-based protection (as with Ukrainians under the EU Temporary Protection Directive activated in 2022) to externalization arrangements (the EU-Türkiye Statement of 2016, the UK-Rwanda scheme struck down by the UK Supreme Court in 2023, Australia's offshore processing), pushbacks at sea and at land borders, and the instrumentalization of migrants as a tool of hybrid pressure, as alleged on the Belarus-Poland border. Litigation before the European Court of Human Rights (Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy; N.D. and N.T. v. Spain) and pending ICJ proceedings have clarified, and at times complicated, the scope of jurisdiction, collective expulsion, and non-refoulement. The contemporary debate engages the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees, burden- and responsibility-sharing, the legality of safe-third-country and offshore-processing models, derogations in emergencies, and the threshold at which protection obligations are triggered extraterritorially. Moot issues typically include the lawfulness of border closures, the use of force or deterrence, the legality of bilateral transfer agreements, and state responsibility for actions of agents and proxies.

Key players

Sanction Designations Generated by Artificial Intelligence

Targeted sanctions — asset freezes, travel bans, and sectoral restrictions imposed on individuals and entities — have become a dominant instrument of foreign policy, deployed by the UN Security Council and unilaterally by states such as the United States (via OFAC), the United Kingdom (OFSI), the European Union, and others. As listings have multiplied, designating authorities increasingly rely on algorithmic and machine-learning tools to mine open-source intelligence, financial data, and corporate registries to identify networks of evasion, shell companies, and beneficial owners, including following the unprecedented sanctions packages adopted after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The use of AI in generating or supporting designation decisions raises distinct international and human-rights law concerns. The Kadi line of jurisprudence from the EU courts, the UN Ombudsperson mechanism for the ISIL/Al-Qaida sanctions regime, and decisions of human rights bodies have established that listed persons are entitled to due process, including reasoned decisions, access to evidence, and effective remedy. Opaque or non-explainable algorithmic outputs sit uneasily with these requirements. Questions also arise about state responsibility for erroneous designations, the attribution of decisions ultimately made or ratified by humans, data-protection obligations, and discrimination risks where training data embed bias. The issue currently sits at the frontier of practice: sanctions authorities increasingly publish methodologies and screening guidance, while courts and scholars probe whether AI-assisted listings meet standards of legality, necessity, proportionality, and judicial review. Moot scenarios may consider erroneous designations of natural or legal persons, cross-border data flows, and the standard of review applicable when reasons for listing are derived from machine inference.

Key players

Recognition and Legal Status of a Government Installed by Coup d'État

International law has long distinguished between recognition of states (governed by criteria such as those in the 1933 Montevideo Convention) and recognition of governments, where doctrines have shifted between effective-control approaches (Estrada doctrine) and legitimacy-based approaches (Tobar doctrine). The 1990s saw a regional consolidation against unconstitutional changes of government, codified in the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001), the African Union's Lomé Declaration (2000) and Article 4 of the Constitutive Act, and ECOWAS Protocols. These instruments envisage suspension, sanctions, and non-recognition of regimes that come to power through coups. Recent practice has tested these frameworks. Coups in Mali (2020, 2021), Guinea (2021), Burkina Faso (2022), Niger (2023), and Gabon (2023) prompted AU and ECOWAS suspensions and sanctions, but inconsistent international responses; the 2021 Myanmar coup produced a contested credentials battle at the UN General Assembly; the Taliban's 2021 takeover of Afghanistan has left its representatives unrecognized at the UN despite effective control; and Venezuela's parallel-government episode after 2019 illustrated the difficulty of recognizing a contested 'legitimate' authority lacking territorial control. The work of the UN Credentials Committee has become a de facto site of recognition politics. Key legal questions include the relationship between effective control and democratic legitimacy, obligations of non-recognition and non-assistance, the capacity of a contested government to bind the state in treaties and litigation, immunities of its officials, control over state assets and diplomatic premises, and the lawfulness of external measures — sanctions, mediation, or intervention — taken in response. Moot scenarios typically test treaty succession, locus standi before international tribunals, and third-state duties.

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2027 – The Jones Day German National Rounds in Berlin, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Administrative State Artificial Intelligence Arms Race Carceral State City-State Committee on the Status of Women in India (Towards Equality Report 1974)Act of State

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2027 – The Jones Day German National Rounds in Berlin

Feb 24–27, 2027Berlin, GermanyIn-person

Registration open

Country perspectives

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

Germany

Host nation and participant in the national rounds of a prestigious international law competition.

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.

Allegations of Gender Apartheid as an International Crime

Key players

State Responses to a Mass Influx of Asylum Seekers

Key players

Sanction Designations Generated by Artificial Intelligence

Key players

Recognition and Legal Status of a Government Installed by Coup d'État

Key players

Key terms & resources

The concepts worth knowing before Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 2027 – The Jones Day German National Rounds in Berlin, plus lessons and profiles to go deeper.

Administrative State Artificial Intelligence Arms Race Carceral State City-State Committee on the Status of Women in India (Towards Equality Report 1974)Act of State

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

10th Jewish Law Moot Court 2026

Hugo Sinzheimer Moot Court Competition 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court 2026/27

Soldan Moot Court 2026

Nuremberg Moot Court 2026

Related conferences

10th Jewish Law Moot Court 2026

Hugo Sinzheimer Moot Court Competition 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court 2026/27

Soldan Moot Court 2026

Nuremberg Moot Court 2026

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

10th Jewish Law Moot Court 2026

Hugo Sinzheimer Moot Court Competition 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court 2026/27

Soldan Moot Court 2026

Nuremberg Moot Court 2026

Related conferences

10th Jewish Law Moot Court 2026

Hugo Sinzheimer Moot Court Competition 2026

Jessup Moot Court 2026/2027: Informationsveranstaltung und Bewerbung

Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court 2026/27

Soldan Moot Court 2026

Nuremberg Moot Court 2026