What is the format of the Telders International Law Moot Court Competition 2026?

The competition is a moot court format, focusing on simulated court proceedings related to public international law.

Telders International Law Moot Court Competition 2026

Jun 5–6, 2026The Hague, NetherlandsIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Telders International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 is a prestigious event in the international legal calendar, convening in The Hague, NLD. This competition offers a simulated court environment where participants engage with intricate issues of public international law. It serves as a vital platform for future legal professionals to hone their advocacy and analytical skills.

Country perspectives

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

Netherlands

Host nation with a strong tradition in international law and home to numerous international legal institutions.

Role in topic

As the host country, NLD provides the venue for the competition in The Hague, a city synonymous with international justice. Its legal infrastructure and academic institutions contribute significantly to the discourse and practice of international law, making it an ideal location for such a high-profile moot court.

Topics & background

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

Legal Consequences Arising from the Conduct and Policies of Gravenwald

The Telders Moot Court Competition traditionally builds its case around a fictional state — for the 2026 edition, the State of Gravenwald — whose conduct and policies are alleged to breach international law. Such compromis typically synthesise contemporary controversies into a single dispute brought before the International Court of Justice, requiring participants to grapple with questions of state responsibility under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), attribution, reparation, and the invocation of erga omnes obligations. The Gravenwald scenario, as framed for 2026, weaves together the use of artificial intelligence in immigration screening, responses to anti-AI terrorism, and interactions with international organisations. Legal consequences in this setting flow from two distinct branches: the secondary rules of state responsibility (cessation, assurances of non-repetition, restitution, compensation, satisfaction) and the primary obligations Gravenwald is alleged to have breached, drawn from human rights treaties, the Refugee Convention, anti-discrimination instruments, and customary international law. Participants must also confront standing questions — whether the applicant state has a sufficient legal interest — and the interaction between bilateral and community interests in international law, building on the ICJ's jurisprudence from Barcelona Traction through Belgium v. Senegal and The Gambia v. Myanmar. As a moot problem, the dispute is hypothetical, but it is anchored in live debates: how the ICJ allocates responsibility for algorithmic harms, how counter-terrorism measures intersect with non-discrimination, and how far a respondent state may invoke sovereignty or national security to displace international obligations. The outcome turns on the Court's characterisation of Gravenwald's policies and the remedies it considers appropriate.

Key players

AI-Based Visas and Immigration Measures

States have increasingly deployed algorithmic and AI-based systems across the migration cycle: visa triage, risk-scoring of applicants, biometric border control, asylum credibility assessments, and automated detention decisions. Canada's use of algorithmic tools to assess temporary resident visa applications, the United States' ATLAS and prior 'Extreme Vetting Initiative', the UK Home Office's streaming tool (withdrawn in 2020 after litigation), and the EU's iBorderCtrl pilot and ETIAS pre-travel screening illustrate the spread of these systems. Civil society reporting by Access Now, the AI Now Institute and UN Special Rapporteurs on racism (Tendayi Achiume) and on the rights of migrants has documented risks of opacity, bias against applicants from the Global South, and the erosion of individualised assessment required under refugee and human rights law. The legal questions are layered. Under the ICCPR (Articles 2, 13, 26), the Refugee Convention (Article 33 non-refoulement), CERD, and regional instruments such as the ECHR and EU Charter, states owe obligations of non-discrimination, due process, and effective remedy that apply to automated decisions. The EU AI Act classifies migration-related AI as 'high-risk', while UNESCO's 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI and the Council of Europe's 2024 Framework Convention on AI introduce further standards. Whether a state's reliance on opaque foreign-developed models breaches its duty to provide reasoned decisions, and whether algorithmic profiling at borders constitutes prohibited discrimination, remain unsettled. For the Telders problem, AI visa measures sit at the intersection of sovereign control over admission — long recognised in Nottebohm and reaffirmed in state practice — and the qualifications international law places on that control when fundamental rights are engaged.

Key players

Threats of Anti-AI Terrorist Attacks

As AI infrastructure has become economically and strategically central, a new threat vector has emerged: violence directed at data centres, model developers, chip fabrication facilities, and the engineers who staff them. Public discourse on 'anti-AI' or accelerationism-adjacent violence intensified after attacks on telecommunications infrastructure during the COVID-19 period, sabotage of data cables in the Baltic and Red Sea, and recorded threats against AI laboratories. Manifestos associated with figures such as Ted Kaczynski have been cited by individuals advocating violence against technological infrastructure, and counter-terrorism agencies in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union have begun to track ideologically motivated anti-technology violence alongside more established categories. International law on terrorism remains fragmented: there is no universal definition, but sectoral conventions (the 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention, the 1999 Terrorist Financing Convention, the 2005 Nuclear Terrorism Convention) and Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1624 and 2178 oblige states to criminalise, prevent, and cooperate against terrorist acts. Attacks on critical infrastructure also engage obligations under international humanitarian law where conducted in armed conflict, and may trigger states' due diligence duties to protect foreign nationals and corporate assets on their territory. At the same time, counter-terrorism responses must comply with human rights law, as repeatedly emphasised by the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights. The Telders scenario raises questions about state responsibility for failing to prevent such attacks, the lawfulness of expansive surveillance or pre-emptive detention measures, and whether characterising anti-AI ideology as terrorism risks chilling legitimate dissent over technology policy.

Key players

Independence of International Organizations

The independence of international organizations is a foundational principle articulated in the ICJ's 1949 Reparation for Injuries advisory opinion, which recognised the UN's objective international legal personality, and refined in subsequent jurisprudence including the 1980 WHO-Egypt and 1996 Nuclear Weapons opinions. Independence has functional, financial, and personnel dimensions: organisations must be able to take decisions free from undue influence by host states or powerful members; their officials enjoy privileges and immunities under instruments such as the 1946 Convention on UN Privileges and Immunities; and their secretariats must serve the organisation alone, as Article 100 of the UN Charter requires. In practice, independence is under pressure from multiple directions. Earmarked funding now dominates the budgets of bodies like the WHO, raising concerns about donor capture. Withdrawals or threatened withdrawals — the US from UNESCO and the WHO, Russia from the Council of Europe, several African states from the ICC — test the resilience of organisational mandates. Host-state interference, including visa denials to officials and experts, has been litigated in cases such as the 1988 PLO Observer Mission advisory opinion. The increasing role of private actors, public-private partnerships, and AI vendors in international administration introduces further independence questions. For the Telders problem, the independence issue likely arises where a host or member state's conduct toward an organisation is alleged to breach the headquarters agreement, the UN Charter, or customary obligations of good faith and non-interference, with consequences for the organisation's ability to fulfil its mandate.

Key players

The ICJ's Discretion to Give an Advisory Opinion

Under Article 65 of its Statute, the ICJ 'may' give an advisory opinion at the request of bodies authorised by the UN Charter. The permissive language has been consistently read by the Court as conferring discretion, but the Court has equally maintained that, as the principal judicial organ of the UN, it should not refuse a request 'except for compelling reasons' — a formulation first articulated in the 1950 Peace Treaties opinion and reiterated in Western Sahara (1975), Nuclear Weapons (1996), Wall (2004), Kosovo (2010), Chagos (2019) and the recent Occupied Palestinian Territory (2024) and Climate Change (2025) opinions. The most frequently invoked grounds for refusal — lack of consent of an interested state, the political character of the question, the abstract nature of the request, or interference with bilateral disputes — have been raised by states in nearly every recent proceeding and consistently rejected by the Court. The Eastern Carelia (1923) precedent of the PCIJ, where consent considerations led to refusal, has been carefully distinguished. Debate continues about the scope of the Court's discretion when advisory proceedings are perceived as a substitute for contentious jurisdiction, and about the propriety of opinions touching on ongoing armed conflicts. The Telders problem may engage these issues directly, asking whether the Court should exercise its discretion to decline, or whether compelling reasons are absent. Participants must master both the procedural architecture of Article 65 and the substantive policy considerations underlying the Court's judicial propriety doctrine.

Key players

State Sovereignty

Sovereignty remains the structural premise of the international legal order, expressed in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter and elaborated through the principles of non-intervention, territorial integrity, and sovereign equality. Its classical articulation in the Island of Palmas arbitration (1928) and the Lotus case (1927) emphasised exclusive territorial authority, but twentieth- and twenty-first-century developments — human rights treaties, international criminal accountability, environmental obligations, and the law of international organisations — have qualified sovereignty significantly. The ICJ's Nicaragua judgment (1986) reaffirmed non-intervention as customary law while recognising treaty-based limits on state freedom. Contemporary debates focus on digital sovereignty (data localisation, jurisdiction over cyber activities, governance of AI), economic sovereignty (sanctions, extraterritorial measures), and the relationship between sovereignty and erga omnes obligations. The Tallinn Manual processes, the OEWG on cybersecurity, and ICJ pronouncements in Certain Iranian Assets (2023) and the Genocide Convention cases illustrate how sovereignty is invoked both as a shield and as the basis for affirmative duties. The principle is also central to questions of immigration control, counter-terrorism, and treatment of international organisations on a state's territory. In the Telders scenario, sovereignty likely operates as Gravenwald's principal defence: a claim that its choice of AI tools, its security measures, and its dealings with international bodies fall within its domaine réservé. The applicant state's task is to identify the international obligations that displace that claim.

Key players

Human Rights Obligations

States' human rights obligations derive from the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration, the two 1966 Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR), specialised treaties (CERD, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CRPD, CED), regional instruments, and customary international law. The ICJ has progressively recognised that these obligations bind states in their treatment of all persons within their jurisdiction, including extraterritorially in certain circumstances (Wall, 2004; Armed Activities, 2005). General Comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee elaborates the tripartite duty to respect, protect, and fulfil, and the Maastricht Principles address extraterritorial economic and social rights obligations. Contemporary issues include the application of human rights to digital and AI-driven decision-making, the obligations of states regarding climate change (now before the ICJ, ITLOS and the Inter-American Court), the scope of non-refoulement, and the duty to provide effective remedies for algorithmic harms. The Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, and the recent ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen (2024), have expanded the protective scope of core rights. States increasingly invoke national security, public order, and sovereignty to qualify these obligations, while treaty bodies and courts continue to test the limits of permissible derogation and limitation. For the Telders problem, human rights obligations likely form the substantive core of the applicant's case, with arguments turning on the precise scope of due process, equality, privacy, and freedom of movement guarantees in the context of AI deployment and security measures.

Key players

Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, 1965) is one of the most widely ratified human rights treaties and the only UN human rights convention to date to have generated contentious ICJ proceedings (Georgia v. Russia, 2011; Ukraine v. Russia, 2024; Qatar v. UAE, 2021; Armenia v. Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan v. Armenia, pending). Article 1 defines racial discrimination broadly to include distinctions based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and Article 2 imposes affirmative obligations to eliminate discrimination by public and private actors alike. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has developed substantial jurisprudence on structural discrimination, hate speech (General Recommendation No. 35), and the discriminatory impact of facially neutral measures, including in migration and counter-terrorism. The 2020 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism focused specifically on emerging digital technologies and racial discrimination, finding that AI systems frequently reproduce and amplify racial bias, particularly in border management, predictive policing, and welfare administration. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action remains a contested reference point in this field. In the Telders scenario, allegations that Gravenwald's AI-based visa system disproportionately burdens applicants of particular national or ethnic origins, or that its counter-terrorism response targets a particular community, may be litigated under ICERD's substantive provisions and against the background of the Court's expanding jurisprudence on the Convention.

Key players

Key terms & resources

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

Advisory Opinion anti-Sikh riots of 1984 Abolished national-origins immigration quotas Act of State Act of State Doctrine Act of State Doctrine Exception

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

Telders International Law Moot Court Competition 2026

Jun 5–6, 2026The Hague, NetherlandsIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Country perspectives

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

Netherlands

Host nation with a strong tradition in international law and home to numerous international legal institutions.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Legal Consequences Arising from the Conduct and Policies of Gravenwald

Key players

AI-Based Visas and Immigration Measures

Key players

Threats of Anti-AI Terrorist Attacks

Key players

Independence of International Organizations

Key players

The ICJ's Discretion to Give an Advisory Opinion

Key players

State Sovereignty

Key players

Human Rights Obligations

Key players

Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Key players

Key terms & resources

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

Advisory Opinion anti-Sikh riots of 1984 Abolished national-origins immigration quotas Act of State Act of State Doctrine Act of State Doctrine Exception

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition 2026 (NMCC)

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) 2025/2026 Edition

11th International Pre-Moot Amsterdam (IPA)

Amsterdam Law Trials 2026 (ALT 2026)

ALT 2026

Frits Kalshoven International Humanitarian Law Competition (19th edition)

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition 2026 (NMCC)

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) 2025/2026 Edition

11th International Pre-Moot Amsterdam (IPA)

Amsterdam Law Trials 2026 (ALT 2026)

ALT 2026

Frits Kalshoven International Humanitarian Law Competition (19th edition)

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Key terms & resources

Frequently asked questions

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition 2026 (NMCC)

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) 2025/2026 Edition

11th International Pre-Moot Amsterdam (IPA)

Amsterdam Law Trials 2026 (ALT 2026)

ALT 2026

Frits Kalshoven International Humanitarian Law Competition (19th edition)

Related conferences

National Moot Court Competition 2026 (NMCC)

National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) 2025/2026 Edition

11th International Pre-Moot Amsterdam (IPA)

Amsterdam Law Trials 2026 (ALT 2026)

ALT 2026

Frits Kalshoven International Humanitarian Law Competition (19th edition)