Brochure for SAARC Roundsaarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/pdf/Third-SAARC-Brochure.pdf · University, Meerut and is approved by the Bar Council of India. It imparts two ... The

Justitia

Libertas

nMe a onva Sh Ad Aa RM C . R M . oN o t.f ino gr P

THIRD

PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON

SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION &

LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE, 2017-18

PROGRAMME

RULES

&

MOOT COMPROMIS

Organised by :

with technical support from

&

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, Greater Noida (U.P.)

MILAT (Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy & Training)

SAARCLAW (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in Law)

th th16 to 18 February, 2018

INTRODUCTION

The Third Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting

Competition and Law Students' Conference 2017-18 is being organized by

Lloyd Law College with technical support from MILAT (Menon Institute

of Legal Advocacy and Training, Trivandrum) under the patronage of

SAARCLAW at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

There are two stages of the competition: The India Round and the SAARC

Round. Each country can select/nominate up to four teams to represent

their country in the SAARC Round. India can send maximum 8 teams

having regard to a large number of Law Colleges in the country. The India th thRound of the competition was held on 28 and 29 of October 2017. The

SAARC Round will be held for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, th thAfghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives from 16 to 18 February, 2018

at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.

A Conference of law students from SAARC countries will also be held th thalong with the SAARCLAW Mooting Competition from 16 to 18

February, 2018 at Lloyd Law College. The idea of the Conference is to

provide a forum for interaction among the law students of the South Asian

Region for excellence in legal education and professional development.

Understanding the legal system of each others' country will be mutually

beneficial in the context of professional development, trade in legal

services and law reform. The topic for the Law Students' Conference is

“Disaster Management : SAARC Cooperation”.

1

2

NAMING THE MOOTING COMPETITION

The reform brought about in Indian legal education by the pioneering

efforts of Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon during the last three decades through

the Five Year Integrated B.A.LL.B. programme under the National Law

School experiment is the inspiration for Lloyd Law College for sponsoring

the Mooting Competition in his name. Even after formal retirement from

service, as a founder president of MILAT, he continues to contribute to the

cause of legal education and professional development through the Menon

Institute of Legal Advocacy and Training (MILAT), over which he

presides. Lloyd Law College is proud to be associated with MILAT in

organizing the Mooting event for the benefit of law students of South

Asian Region.

ABOUT SAARCLAW

South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation in Law, SAARCLAW,

is an association of the legal communities of the SAARC countries

comprising judges, lawyers, academicians, law teachers, public officers

and a host of other law-related persons, duly registered with the SAARC

Secretariat at Kathmandu and which has been awarded the status of a

Regional Apex Body of SAARC.

It owes its origin to the desire of the members of the legal community to

establish an association within the SAARC region to bring together the

legal communities within the region for closer co-operation, developing a

better understanding, promoting exchange of ideas and dissemination of

information. It further aims at using and developing law as a source and an

instrument towards social change for development as well as for building

co-operation among the people of the region. SAARCLAW was thestablished in Colombo on 24 October 1991. The then President of Sri

Lanka, His Excellency Ranasinghe Premadasa inaugurated the

Association in the presence of a large gathering of the legal community.

SAARCLAW has persistently worked towards the achievement of its

objectives of bringing together the legal communities within the region for

closer co-operation, development of better understanding, promotion of

exchange of ideas and dissemination of information, and to use and

3

develop law as a source and an instrument towards social change for

development as well as for building co-operation among the peoples of the

region.

VISION

Harmonization of laws and policies for closer cooperation and

collaboration towards economic, technological, social and cultural

development in South Asia.

MISSION

a. To create a hub of the legal fraternity in the South Asian region.

b. To harmonize laws and policies in South Asia.

c. To exchange information, ideas and progressive judgments in order to

bring economic, technological, social and cultural development in

South Asia.

d. To enhance trust in South Asia for prosperity and strengthen the

SAARC region.

VALUES

SAARCLAW believes that connectivity through law can bring Prosperity,

Peace and Cooperation in South Asia.

ABOUT LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

Lloyd Law College was established under the aegis of Satlila Charitable Society

(SCS) in the year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh

University, Meerut and is approved by the Bar Council of India. It imparts two

professional degree programmes, namely five year integrated B.A.LL.B. and the

three year LL.B. Lloyd Law College is located in Knowledge Park – II, Greater

Noida, India. The campus is spread over five acres of lush green area, with

excellent infrastructure, moot court rooms, fully-air conditioned classrooms

with smart-boards and a state of the art library. Highly qualified, dedicated and

experienced faculty is one of the strengths of Lloyd Law College. In the year

2014, Lloyd Law College organized the National Round of 'The Louis M Brown

and Forrest S Mosten International Client Consultation Competition', as well as ththe '30 Bar Council of India Trust All India Inter-University Moot Court

Competition'. The college also organized the 'International Client Consultation

Competition' (National Round)-2013 in association with Forum of South Asian

Clinical Law Teachers.

4

REPORT OF THE SECOND PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION & LAW STUDENTS'

CONFERENCE 2016-17

The India Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting rd thCompetition and Law Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 3 to 4 December,

2016 to select five qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC Round. It

saw participation of 32 teams from almost all states in India representing National Law

Universities and Central & State Universities and other leading law colleges. The

competition was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, Judge,

Supreme Court of India in the presence of Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon. The India Round

tested participants on various aspects of nuclear energy laws and policies in India,

including nuclear damages and liability. The top five colleges that qualified for SAARC

Round are:-

1. Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu

2. Gujarat National Law University, Gujarat

3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

4. Nirma University, Ahmadabad

5. Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi

India Round : 2016-17

The SAARC Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting th thCompetition and Law Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 10 to 12

February, 2017. 16 teams from leading universities from SAARC nations participated in

the competition. The SAARC Round tested participants on various aspects of

international law including environmental damages, compensation and rights of

indigenous tribal communities under the international law. The final round was judged

by five sitting judges of SAARC Nations. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Kankanithanthri T. Chithrasiri, Judge Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Hon'ble

Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta,

Rajasthan High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Bhansali, Rajasthan High Court and

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Punjab & Haryana High Court. The winner &

Runner-up team of the SAARC Round after a stimulating session of mooting were

Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.

Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal.

SAARC Round : 2016-17

5

th thThe Law Students' Conference was held from 11 to 12 February, 2017 at Lloyd Law

College. It was an exercise aimed at promoting research, writing and presentation skills

of law students from SAARC countries. The conference witnessed participation from

16 teams from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Research papers were

submitted by the presenters on the theme 'Justice to Indigenous People'.

The winners of the Best Paper, Second Best Paper and Third Best Paper Awards,

respectively, were students from Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi, University of

Colombo, Sri Lanka & Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi

Law Students' Conference 2016-17

The India Round of the Third Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting th thCompetition & Law Students' Conference 2017-18 was held from 27 to 29 October,

2017 to select five qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC Round. It

saw participation from 40 teams from almost all states in India representing National

Law Universities, Central & State Universities and other leading law colleges. The

competition was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge, Supreme

Court of India in the presence of Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon. The India Round

tested participants on various aspects of Constitutional Law in India. The colleges that

qualified for SAARC Round are:

1. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

2. School of Law, Christ University, Bangaluru

3. SASTRA University, Thanjavur

4. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya

5. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

6. Institute of Law Nirma University, Gujarat

7. CMR University School of Legal Study, Bangaluru

REPORT OF THE THIRD PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION

INDIA ROUND 2017-18

6

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MOOTING COMPETITION

The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-

18 will consist of India Round and the SAARC Round, along with a Law Students'

Conference to be held at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, India.

The SAARC Round comprising of participants from SAARC Countries, i.e., India,

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives will be th thheld from 16 to 19 February, 2018.

thThe Law Students' Conference will be held on 17 February 2018 on the topic

“Disaster Management: SAARC Cooperation”.

India which has over 1400 law schools can send up to eight (8)Teams to the SAARC

Round of the Competition while other countries in the region can send up to two (2)

Teams (on request of the respective national administrators, the SAARCLAW

Administrator may allow maximum four (4) teams from each SAARC country other

than India).

The objective of the mooting is to promote written and oral advocacy skills and

professionalism among students and to cultivate transnational ties among the legal

community for mutual benefit.

ARTICLE 1: Participation and Scope

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

thThe SAARC Round of the competition will be held at Lloyd Law college from16 thto18 February, 2018 among student teams from various colleges and universities

imparting legal education in SAARC Countries, provided that no institution shall

send more than one team to compete in the SAARC Round.

The SAARC Round shall consist of four rounds. The first round of the competition

shall be a Preliminary Round and the top scoring Eight (8) Teams in the Preliminary

Round will qualify for the Quarter-final Round.

The second round of the competition shall be the Quarter-final Round and the top

Four (4) scoring Teams in Quarter-final Round will qualify for the Semi-final

Round.

The third round of the competition shall be the Semi-final Round and the top two (2)

Scoring Teams in Semi-final Round will qualify for the Final Round.

The fourth round of the competition shall be the Final Round and the top scoring

team in the final round will be declared the Winner, and the second team will be

declared as the Runner-Up.

The Organizing Committee reserves the right to skip any round/s, in case of any

eventuality, without prior notification.

There shall be a Committee of Judges in each Court. Each Court will have three

judges.

The Fourth and Final Round will have a Five Judges Bench including Sitting Judges

of the High Court/Supreme Court.

ARTICLE 2: Organization

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

7

Each team will consist of two Counsels and two Researchers.thEvery participant ought to be a bonafide law student as on 16 February, 2018

pursuing law under the Three Year Scheme or Five Year Scheme from an institution

duly recognized by the Bar Council of India or is a bonafide law student of an

institution from a SAARC Country.

Each institute/college can send only One Team of such eligible participants.

In no case shall any team consist of more than four (4) participants. Their number

cannot be increased under any circumstances. The travel expenses of the participants

shall be met by their respective institution or by the participants themselves.

However, accommodation and local transport facility will be extended for the

duration of the competition between Lloyd Law College and the nearest metro

station.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

1.

2.

3.

4.

There is NO Registration fee for the SAARC Round of the Third Prof. N.R.

Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18.

The participating teams are mandatorily required to send the complete registration

form via e-mail to [email protected]

No subsequent change in the team composition will be permitted.

Registration forms received after the deadline will not be considered for registration

except under justifiable circumstances as decided by the Organizing Committee.thFormal registration of the teams shall be done on 16 February, 2018.

ARTICLE 4: Registration

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The moot proposition for the SAARC Round can be downloaded from

http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in

All queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be addressed to

[email protected] Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be entertained after 30

December 2017.

All clarifications will be uploaded for everyone's perusal without disclosure of the

identity of the teams which raised them.

ARTICLE 5: The Moot Problem and Clarifications

1.

2.

3.

4.

Each team shall submit soft copies (in PDF) of the Memorials to the Organizing

Committee of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting stCompetition & Law Students' Conference, by 31 January 2018 via e-mail to

[email protected]

Each team shall also submit five (5) hard copies of the Memorials to the Organizing

Committee of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting

ARTICLE 6: Memorials

1.

2.

8

thCompetition & Law Students' Conference on16 February, 2018 by 06:00 p.m. IST

at the time of formal registration at the venue.

Memorials must be submitted on the standard international A/4 Size Page in

FontType: Times New Roman, Font Size: 12, Double Spacing. The Font Style of the

Footnote should also be Times New Roman, Font Size: 10 and should be single

spaced. Quotations from sources outside of the memorial of Fifty (50) words or

more in any part of the memorial shall be block quoted, italicized (i.e. right and left

indented) and must be single spaced.thThe citation should be in compliance with the 20 Edition of Bluebook. Speaking

footnotes or endnotes are not allowed.

No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College of the participant

and each team will be awarded a TEAM CODE and that number alone shall be

marked on the memorials. No team shall communicate their institutional affiliation

or identity to anyone during the competition. Disclosure of identity shall result in

immediate disqualification. The memorials of the Petitioner and the Respondent

must be differentiated by 'Blue Cover' and 'Red Cover' respectively and marked with

Codes.

Memorials for both sides should contain the following:

(a) Title Page

(b) Table of Contents

(c) Index of Authorities

(d) Statement of Jurisdiction

(e) Statement of Facts

(f) Summary of Arguments/ Pleadings

(g) Arguments Supported by the Authorities

(h) Conclusion / Prayer

The Title Page shall include:

(a) The Name of the Court

(b) The Year of the Competition

(c) The Name of the Case

(d) The Title of the Document (i.e., “Memorial for the Respondent” or “Memorial

for the Petitioner”)

The memorial shall not exceed more than thirty (30) pages. The following contents

are inclusive within the stipulated page limit:

(a) Pleadings

(b) Conclusions

(c) Annexure, if any

(d) Appendices and Footnotes

Any issue or pleading, not discussed within the above mentioned contents of the

Memorial shall not be included in any other section of the Memorial.

The following shall not be included in the limit of Thirty (30) pages set out for the

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

9

(a) Title Page

(b) Table of Contents

(c) Index of Authorities

(d) Statement of Jurisdiction

(e) Statement of Facts

(f) Issues Presented

(g) Summary of Pleadings

Statement of Facts: The Statement of Facts shall be limited to the facts as stipulated

as well as to the necessary inferences drawn from the proposition. The Statement of

Facts must not include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative

statements, or legal conclusions. An excessive Statement of Facts shall be a 'Non-

Discretionary Memorial Penalty', but such violation may be taken into account by

the judges while evaluating the written submission.

Summary of Pleadings: The Summary of Pleadings shall consist of a substantive

summary of the “Pleadings”, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings

contained in the Pleadings Section. An excessive Summary of Pleadings shall be a

Non-Discretionary Memorial Penalty, while a Summary of Pleadings which is

otherwise improper shall not be subjected to a Memorial Penalty, but such violation

may be taken into account by the judges while evaluating the written submission.

The teams are to submit authorities supporting their contentions referred to in the

memorials at the time of oral presentation but at no stage they are allowed to

supplement the memorial in the form of annexure, compilation etc. which may

otherwise amount to exceeding page limit of the memorial.

8.

9.

10.

The memorials shall be assessed by a Committee of Judges and every memorial will

be marked out of total hundred (100) marks and the Team Memorial will have the

average total of both the sides (Petitioner/Respondent). The marking criteria and the

marks allocated to each category are listed below:

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials

(1) Knowledge of facts and law (Maximum: 20 pts)

(2) Proper and articulate analysis (Maximum: 20 pts)

(3) Extent and use of research (Maximum: 20 pts)

(4) Clarity and organization (Maximum: 20 pts)

(5) Citation of sources (Maximum: 10 pts)

(6) Grammar and style (Maximum: 10 pts)

CRITERIA

10

The Preliminary Round

The Preliminary Round will comprise of two Stages wherein the teams will argue

from both sides, i.e., Petitioner and Respondent respectively. The organizing

committee reserves the absolute right to derogate from this rule in case of any

eventuality.

Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team

Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.

Two (2) members from each team will make oral presentations during the round.

Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to

how it wishes to allocate its 35 minutes among:

(a) Its First Oralist,

(b) Its Second Oralist, and

(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Surrebuttal (for the Respondent).

No single oralist shall plead for more than twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal or

sur rebuttal. Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the

competition. In exceptional circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to

permit a single oralist to argue beyond the twenty (20) minutes limit.

The order of the pleadings in each round at all levels of the Competition shall be:

Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent1 Respondent 2 Rebuttal

(Petitioner 1 or 2) Sur rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).

Each team may reserve upto five (5) minutes of rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a gesture

of courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether they

intend to reserve any time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral

arguments and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not

waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the

rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although the team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal

must be one of the two team members who argued during the team's main argument,

the team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible

members will offer rebuttal or surrebuttal.

A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's

memorial. The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the

Respondent's primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal

shall be limited to responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the

rebuttal, there shall be no surebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the

primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal.

The Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Rounds

The Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Rounds shall comprise of only One Stage

respectively wherein the teams shall argue from One (1) Side only, i.e., Petitioner or

Respondent after a draw of lots. No derogation is permissible from this rule.

ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations

A.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

B.

1.

11

Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team

Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.

Two (2) members from each team will make oral presentations during the round.

Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to

how it wishes to allocate its 35 minutes among:

(a) Its First Oralist,

(b) Its Second Oralist, and

(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Sur rebuttal (for the Respondent).

No single oralist shall plead for more than Twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal

or sur rebuttal. Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the

competition. In exceptional circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to

permit a single oralist to argue beyond the Twenty (20) minutes limit.

The order of the pleadings in each Round at all levels of the Competition shall be:

Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent1 Respondent 2 Rebuttal

(Petitioner 1 or 2) Sur rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).

Each team may reserve upto Five (5) minutes of rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a gesture

of courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether they

intend to reserve any time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral

arguments and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not

waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the

rebuttal or surrebuttal. Although the team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal

must be one of the two team members who argued during the team's main argument,

the team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible

members will offer rebuttal or surrebuttal.

A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's

memorial. The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the

Respondent's primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal

shall be limited to responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the

rebuttal, there shall be no surebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the

primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal.

No researcher from any team will be permitted to be present in the court room during

any of the rounds, i. e., Preliminary, Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final. The oralists

alone will be allowed entry to the court room in all the four rounds. No derogation is

permissible from this rule.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The judges would assign marks to each individual speaker out of hundred (100)

marks. The team score would be the aggregate of the total marks for oral

presentations of the 2 speakers. The following shall be the Marking Criteria and the

Marks allocated to each category:

ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations

12

Any dispute about the conduct of the Moot Court Competition shall be referred to

the Dispute Resolution Committee, comprising of the Chairperson, Member

Secretary and the three members before the end of the competition. In all matters of

complaint or dispute, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be

final.

ARTICLE 10: Dispute Resolution

(1) Knowledge of Law (30): Excellent (26-29 pts); Very Good (22-25 pts);

Good (17-21 pts); Adequate (12-16 pts); Poor ( below 12)

(2) Application of Law to Facts (25):Excellent (21-24 pts); Very Good

(17-20 pts); Good (13- 16pts); Adequate (10-12 pts); Poor (below 10)

(3) Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions (30):Excellent (26-29 pts); Very

Good (22-25 pts); Good (17-21 pts); Adequate (12-16 pts); Poor (below 12)

(4) Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10): Excellent (8-9 pts); Very Good

(6-7 pts); Good (4-5 pts); Adequate (2-3 pts); Poor (below 2)

(5) Time Management and Organization (5):Excellent (4 pts); Very Good

(3 pts); Good (2 pts); Adequate (1 pt); Poor (0)

ORAL MARKING CRITERIA

The language for the Mooting Competition shall be English.

All participants are expected to maintain the decorum in the Court during the

competition and are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal

profession.

Oralists, Researchers, or persons affiliated with the team, will not be permitted to

hear the arguments in any court room in which the team is not one of the contesting

teams whilst the team is still in the competition.

ARTICLE 11: Code of Conduct

1.

2.

3.

The winning team will be awarded the “Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon

SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18 Winning Team Trophy”.

The runner-up team will be awarded the “Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon

SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2017-18 Runner-Up Team Trophy”.

The Female and Male Oralists receiving the highest marks in the Oral Pleadings of

Preliminary Round will be awarded "Best Student Advocate (Female)" and the

"Best Student Advocate (Male)" Trophies respectively.

ARTICLE 12: Awards

1.

2.

3.

13

Team receiving the highest and second highest marks in memorial evaluation shall

be awarded "Best Memorial" and the "Second Best Memorial" trophies

respectively.

The winners will receive "Certificate of Merit" and participants will receive

"Certificate of Participation".

4.

Each team of four (4) participants will be provided accommodation by Lloyd Law

College for the duration of the competition only. Students seeking for

accommodation are required to inform the Organizing Committee, through their

Registration Form, so as to enable them to make necessary arrangements.

ARTICLE 13: Accommodation

5.

The duration of each court shall not exceed its prescribed time-limit.

Team numbers and the side to be represented (Petitioner/Respondent) will be

decided by draw of lots at different stages during the competition. The scheme of

competition thus drawn out will be notified to the participating teams.

The organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in respect of the

side to be taken by the competing teams, in case it becomes absolutely necessary due

to withdrawal of any team/teams at the last minute, or if the competing teams had no

opportunity to argue the other side of the problem.

Each team is expected to be ready with written briefs and oral arguments to argue

from either side of the case. The court will follow its own procedure within the

accepted norms and judicial practices, and in case of doubt or dispute in the matter of

procedure or facts, the decision of the Presiding Member of the Committee of

Judges of each Court shall be final.

ARTICLE 14: General Section

1.

3.

4.

2.

All communication by the teams pertaining to registration, travel, moot proposition,

Clarifications or otherwise shall be made to Organizing Committee on

[email protected]

ARTICLE 15: Official Communications

14

RULES & REGULATIONS FOR LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE

The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference,

2017- 18 aims at promoting research, writing and cognitive skills among law

students of SAARC countries. It is also expected to facilitate a network amongst law

students for mutual benefit and to encourage them to maintain brotherhood in the

profession.thThe Law Students Conference will be held on 17 February, 2018 on the topic

“Disaster Management: SAARC Cooperation”.

ARTICLE 1: Objective and Organization

1.

2.

From India: Eight Teams from India Round will participate in the Law Students'

Conference.

Other than India: Two Teams each from every SAARC country will qualify for

participation in the Law Students' Conference upon registration with the Organizing

Committee. On the request of the respective national administrators, the SAARC

Administrator may allow maximum four (4) teams from each SAARC country other

than India).

ARTICLE 2: Participation

1.

2.

The Law Students' Conference is open only for Presenters, who may act as

Researchers in the mooting. However, during the oral rounds of the mooting

competition, no researchers will be permitted to be present in any of the court rooms.

No derogation from this rule is permissible.

Two Presenters from each participating team in the SAARC Round is required to

submit one research paper individually and participate in the Law Students

Conference.

Each presenter shall contribute one Research Paper being the original works of the

Presenter.

Both the Research Papers will be presented during the SAARC Law Students

Conference by the respective researchers/presenters.

The research papers selected by the committee of experts after peer-review will be

published in a Collected Volume by Lloyd Law College.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

All Presenters shall submit their Abstracts to : [email protected] latest by 11:59p.m. IST on 05

January 2018.

The Final Paper (SOFT COPY) shall be submitted by email to [email protected] latest by 11:59 p.m. IST on 04

February, 2018.

......................................................

ARTICLE 4: Abstract and Paper Submission

1.

2.

15

thThe Hard Copies of the research paper shall be submitted on 16 February, 2018 by

06:00 p.m. IST at the time of formal registration at the venue.

3.

The oral presentation of the research paper shall not exceed Fifteen (15) minutes per

presenter. Presenters exceeding the time limit will be liable to a penalty of Two (2)

marks per minute(s) exceeded.

ARTICLE 5: Paper Presentation

The research papers will be assessed by a Peer-Review Committee and every

research paper will be marked out of total hundred (100) marks.

The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each category are listed below:

ARTICLE 6: Assessment of Research Paper

1.

2.

(1) Content, Proper and Articulate Analysis ( Maximum: 30pts)

(2) Extent and use of Research (Maximum: 20 pts)

(3) Clarity & Organization (Maximum: 30 pts)

(4) Citation of Sources (Maximum: 10 pts)

(5) Grammar, Language and Style (Maximum: 10 pts)

CRITERIA

The paper presentation shall be assessed by a Presentation Committee and every

presentation will be marked out of total hundred (100) marks.

The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each category are listed below:

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of Paper Presentation

1.

2.

(1) Clarity and Articulate Analysis (Maximum: 30 pts)

(2) Extent and use of Research (Maximum: 25 pts)

(3) Organization and Style (Maximum: 20 pts)

(4) Etiquettes (Maximum: 10 pts)

(5) Elocution and Oral Delivery (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

(6) Time Management (Maximum: 5 pts)

CRITERIA

16

All research papers must be accompanied by an abstract not exceeding 200 words.

The body of the manuscript shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 12 and in 1.5

line spacing.

The footnotes shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 10 and in single line spacing.

Submissions must be made in the MS Word (.doc/.docx) format and the citations

must conform to the 20th Edition of Bluebook.

Co-authorship is impermissible. No deviation from this rule is allowed.

The prescribed word limit is 5,000 words exclusive of footnotes.

All queries shall be made only to [email protected]

All submissions shall be made via e-mail to :

[email protected] within the prescribed time period.

The subject of the email shall be “Submission for SAARC Law Students

Conference, 2017-18 (Title of the manuscript)”.

The submission should be accompanied by a plagiarism report/similarity test report

(one page indicating the percentage of similarity).

The submission should be accompanied by a Cover Letter which must include the

following details:

(a) Name of Author

(b) Contact Details – Address and Mobile Number

(c) Name and Address of Parent Institution

(d) Course currently being pursued/Current year/Semester

(e) A declaration that the research paper is original and authored solely for the

purpose of the Third Prof. N. R. MadhavaMenon SAARCLAW Law Students'

Conference, 2017- 18.

No indication shall be made in the research paper for identifying the

Institution/College of the participant or name of the participant. No

presenter/researcher shall communicate their institutional affiliation or identity to

anyone during the conference.

..............................................................

ARTICLE 8: Guidelines for Paper Submission

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

The presenter scoring the highest marks in paper assessment and paper presentation

cumulatively will be adjudged the Winner and shall be awarded the “Third Prof. N.

R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference, 2017-18 Best

Presenter Award”.

The presenter scoring the second highest marks in paper assessment and paper

presentation cumulatively will be adjudged the 'Runner Up' and shall be awarded the

“Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Law Students' Conference, 2017-

18 Best Presenter (Runner Up) Award”.

All selected research papers will be published in a collected volume by Lloyd Law

College and their authors will receive certificates.

All presenters will be awarded 'Certificate of Paper Presentation'.

ARTICLE 9: Awards

1.

2.

3.

4.

17

ANNEXURE ON DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTIES

The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an integral part of

the Official Rules of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting

Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18.

The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to ensure a fair and

supportive contest in the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting

Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18 by providing

means for ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the Official Rules.

ARTICLE A1: Aims

1.

2.

Cheating or use of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited and if indulged in,

shall result in disqualification of the team.

Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in

disqualification of the team.

Teams are not allowed to carry any electronic gadget inside the Court Room.

Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if indulged in,

shall result in disqualification of the team.

ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct

1.

2.

3.

4.

Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a disqualification.

It shall be the discretion of the Organizing Committee to decide on any violation of

the provisions of the Rules and Regulations during the rounds and whether that

violation entails penalty point. If a participating team, member of the Bench or the

time keeper wishes to claim a violation, the Bench shall inform the Organizing

Committee of the claim made and shall not considerate as a part of their

deliberations unless directed to do so by the Organizing Committee.

ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)

1.

2.

.

Delay in the submission of the memorials, use of incorrect font or font size, use of

font of inconsistent size, or improper line spacing, failure to include all parts of the

memorial, or inclusion of an unremunerated part, substantive legal argument

outside of approved sections of memorial, improperly formatted index of

authorities, excessive length, failure to include necessary information on the

memorial cover, inclusion of any identifying mark, character or text in the memorial

shall result in imposition of penalties.

ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials

1.

18

Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be in proper

dress code. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and 'White

Shirt', 'Black Blazers' and 'Black Neck Tie'. Failure to follow dress code shall result

in imposition of penalty.

ARTICLE A5: Dress Code

The participants are required to comply with the rules formulated by the Organizing

Committee at all times during the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW

Mooting Competition & Law Students' Conference, SAARC Round 2017-18

Total points collected by a team shall be reduced by the penalty points imposed for

the violation of rules specified by the Organizing Committee for each round in

which the violation took place.

Each penalty point shall be imposed for each violation. One penalty point imposed

shall reduce one mark from the score of the team. However, the total number of

penalty points awarded against one team shall not surpass 10 points.

If the number of penalties increases from Ten (10) in numbers, the team can be

debarred from the competition. An opportunity of being heard by the Organizing

Committee can be offered to the team on request. The Committee shall decide

whether to debar that particular team from further participation in the competition or

reduce the marks from the total score obtained by that team.

ARTICLE A6: Non-Compliance with the Rules of Organizing Committee

1.

2.

3.

4.

19

th thIMPORTANT DATES FOR SAARC ROUND (16 to 18 February, 2018)

DATES FOR REGISTRATION

DATES FOR MEMORIALS

DATE OF COMPETITION

SCHEDULE FOR SAARC ROUNDthFRIDAY, 16 FEBRUARY, 2018

Date of Announcement of Competition

Last Date for Registration

th29 October, 2017

th05 November, 2017

Release of Moot Problem for SAARC Round

Assignment of Team Codes for SAARC Round

Last Date for Clarification on Moot Problem

Submission of Memorials (SOFT COPY)

for SAARC Round

Submission of Memorials (5 HARD COPIES)

at Reading Room, Lloyd Law College

th29 November, 2017

th15 January, 2018

th30 December, 2017

st31 January, 2018

th16 February, 2018

Preliminary Rounds and Quarter-final Rounds

Semi-final Rounds and Final Round

Law Students' Conference

th17 February, 2018

th18 February, 2018

th17 February, 2018

Registration of Participants at Lloyd Law College

Draw of lots & Exchange of Memorials, followed

by briefing

Dinner at Hotel Qube

03:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m.

06:30 p.m.

07:30 p.m.

thSATURDAY, 17 FEBRUARY, 2018

Reporting of Teams & Distribution of badges

at Lloyd Law College

Group Photo of Participants with Chief Guest &

other Guests

08:30 a.m.

09:30 a.m.

20

Inaugural Ceremony

Tea

Preliminary Round Stage I

Exchange of Memorials for Preliminary Round II

Lunch

Preliminary Round Stage II

Tea

Results & Exchange of Memorials for Quarter-final Round

Quarter-final Round

Results of Quarter-finals & Exchange of Memorials

Dinner at Hotel Qube

09:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

02:30 p.m. to 04:00 p.m.

04:00 p.m.

04:30 p.m.

06:00 p.m. to 07:30 p.m.

08:00 p.m.

08:30 p.m.

thSUNDAY, 18 FEBRUARY, 2018

Arrival of Teams

Semi-finals Rounds

Results of Semi-final Rounds & Exchange of Memorials

Final Round

Lunch

Valediction Ceremony

08:00 a.m.

09:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

11:00 a.m.

12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

DATES FOR LAW STUDENTS' CONFERENCE

Abstract Submission

Submission of Research Paper (SOFT COPY)

Submission of Research Paper (HARD COPY)

th 05 January, 2018

th 04 February, 2018

th 16 February, 2018

thSATURDAY, 17 FEBRUARY, 2018

Paper Presentation Session 01 at Seminar Hall

Paper Presentation Session 02 at Seminar Hall

Paper Presentation Session 03 at Seminar Hall

12.00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m.

03:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.

06:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m.

21

Lunch

Valediction Ceremony

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

thMONDAY, 19 FEBRUARY, 2018

SIGHT SEEING TOUR TO TAJ MAHAL, AGRA

The participants will be taken for a sightseeing tour to one of the seven wonders of the

world – the Taj Mahal.

* Participants from SAARC Countries are to carry their passports and visa for

identification by the authorities.

* Indian Participants must carry their ID such as Address Proof, Voter ID or Driving

License for entry to the Taj Mahal.

22

Chief Patron

Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon

Hony. SAARCLAW Mooting Administrator

Prof. (Dr.) S. SivakumarMember, Law Commission of India /

Honorary Secretary, MILAT

FOUNDING COMMITTEE

Chairperson

Mr. Manohar ThairaniPresident

Lloyd Law College

MOOTING COMMITTEE

Chief Advisor

Mr. Mehmood Y. MandviwallaPresident

SAARCLAW

Advisor

Mr. Muhammad Mohsen RashidSecretary General

SAARCLAW

Advisor

Mr. Vipin BhattExecutive Director

SAARC Law

NATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS

Prof. (Dr.) Tara Prasad Sapkota

Prof. (Dr.) Lisa P. Lukose

Prof. (Dr.) V. T. Thamilmaran

Mr. Lobzang Rinzin Yargay

Prof. Ghizaal Haress

Prof. (Dr.) Md. Rahamat Ullah

Dr. Marium Jabyn

Tribhuvan University

GGSIP University

University of Colombo

American University of Afghanistan

University of Dhaka

Ministry of Gender & Family

Nepal

India

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Maldives

Bhutan National Legal Institute

Advisor

Mr. R. Venkataramani Senior Advocate

Supreme Court of India

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan

Deputy Director, Lloyd Law College

Organizing Secretary

Dr. P. Puneeth

Associate Professor, JNU

Member

Dr. Joyti Dogra Sood

Associate Professor, ILI

Member

Dr. Upma Gautam

Assistant Professor, USLLS

Member

Mr. Ravi Prakash

Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Member

23

DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

Mr. R. Venkataramani

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Chairperson

MemberProf. (Dr.) Kanwal D. P. Singh

Dean, GGSIP University

MemberProf. (Dr.) Rajesh Kumar Garg

Dean, Faculty of Law, C.C.S. University

MemberProf. (Dr.) Shailendra Kumar

Professor, D.A.V. College, Muzaffarnagar

Member Secretary Administrator - India

Ms. Anju Jain

Advocate, High Court of Delhi

Member

Mr. Ahsan Rashid

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Member

Mr. Rahul Sinha Roy

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Member

Dr. Vikram Singh Jaswal

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Member

Mr. Pankaj Singh

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Member

Mr. Gangesh Kumar Jha

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Member

STEERING COMMITTEE

STUDENT COORDINATORS

Mr. Kumar Deepraj

Ms. Richa Bais

+91 - 8447248119

+91 - 9711127801

Coordinator

Co - Coordinator

24

Dr. Md. Salim

Ms. Richa Chaudhary

Dr. Kavitha Chalakkal

Ms. Anjali Prabhakaran

Ms. Chhaya Bhardwaj

Mr. Madhav Malya

Mr. Anil Thakur

Mr. Piyush Sharma

Mr. Amit Srivastav

Major V. G. Menon

Mr. Ratish Mallick

General Coordinator

Faculty Coordinator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Coordinator (Accommodation)

Coordinator (Media)

Coordinator (Travel)

Coordinator (Administration)

Coordinator (Finance)

STUDENT COMMITTEE

Ms. Syeda Shaharbano Abidi

Ms. Qausar Khan

Mr. Priyanshu Saurav

Ms. Shibya Pandey

Ms. Pooja Kumari

Mr. Ankit Garg

Mr. Aman Kumar

Ms. Samar Parveen

Mr. Rishav Ranjan

B.A.LL.B. 2013 - 18

B.A.LL.B. 2014 - 19

LL.B. 2015 - 18

LL.B. 2016 - 19

B.A.LL.B. 2015 - 20

B.A.LL.B. 2015 - 20

B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21

B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21

B.A.LL.B. 2016 - 21

MOOT COMPROMIS

25

MOOT COMPROMIS FOR SAARC ROUND

This moot Compromis has been authored by Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Supreme

Court of India for the SAARC Round of Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon

SAARCLAW Mooting Competition & Law Students' Conference, 2017-18. This

moot proposition has been formulated solely for the purpose of this competition

furthering the academic exercise.

3.

1. Historically, the plateau of 'Eucalidus' was under the colonial domination of

Republic of 'Erga' since 1600. Then, the plateau of Eucalidus was sparsely populated

and believed to be the treasure trove of all precious metals, minerals and full of

natural resources. Across the breadth of plateau, river 'Eulga' flows, on the bank of

which, it is believed that one of the most advanced human civilization i.e.

'Eucalidian civilization' used to thrive and flourish. It was land inhabited by tribes.

The River 'Eulga' has its origin in Republic of 'Erga'.

The plateau of 'Eucalidus' is presently inhabited by a mixed population. Originally,

the tribes of 'Yo-Yo' and the 'Bao- Bao' are believed to be aboriginal, indigenous

tribes of this plateau. These two tribes formed part of the same ancestral clan i.e.

'Phukan Clan'. These two tribes used to live in the northern part of river 'Eulga',

spread across the north bank of the river sharing the same culture, religious practices

and customs.

About 200 years back, a local chieftaincy dispute of the two tribes/communities –

forced the 'Bao-Bao' faction of the tribe to cross the other side of river 'Eulga' and

settled in the south-eastern part of it, which was a mountainous region. This new

settlement in the south- eastern part did not offer any conducive condition for their

subsistence as this region remained dry, infertile mountainous region. Over

generations, the tribe of 'Bao- Bao' devised new methods of irrigation, scientific

methods of agriculture alongwith horticulture and developed animal husbandry

industry. The Tribe of 'Bao- Bao' is also credited with building one of the earliest

dams in the south-eastern part (near their settlement) to divert the required amount

of water from the river 'Eulga'.

With the passage of time, by the mid of 20th Century, under the increasing pressure

from the different administrative group, internal constituencies of plateau of

'Eucalidus', and the rise of new republic order/ governance along with present day

International legal regime – the Republic of 'Erga' realized that their domination

over the plateau of 'Eucalidus' was not only tenuous rather morally wrong. It

convened a Round Table conference wherein it invited the local administrative head,

Tribal head and agreed to have a plan for 'Devolution of Power leading to

Independence- 1945'.

PART I

2.

4.

26

Under this policy document, The Republic of 'Erga' decided to unconditionally grant

independence to all their colonial possessions including the plateau of 'Eucalidus', if

the inhabitants of these territories chose that option by referendum under the aegis of

United Nation (UN).

As the referendum, by over 97% of their vote, the northern and southern plateau of

'Eucalidus' decided to become independent and form 'Two' Separate Nation i.e.

'North Eucalidus' and 'South Eucalidus' respectively.

The Republic of 'Erga' withdrew itself from the administration of the plateau of

'Eucalidus' w.e.f. Dec. 31, 1959 and the two nation was born on 01.01.1960.

5.

6.

7. The birth of two nation had social, economic and political impact on the inhabitants

of the 'Eucalidus' plateau. It was the ultimately people who were being divided as

separate nation specially when the aborigines (Bao- Bao & Yo –Yo tribes) of that

plateau shared a common cultural heritage, practicing the same traditions and

values. However, despite this, the two tribes 'Yo-Yo' and 'Bao- Bao' continued

visiting their kith and kin across the river, leading to a harmonious, cordial inter-

personal relationship including marriages and other social exchange. The

interaction among the ordinary members of these two tribes were so natural and

fluent that the systematic investigation by one of the leading anthropologist of the

Republic of 'Erga' i.e. Dr. KHAN, who is widely quoted and published; in one of his

celebrated publication observed as under:-

“The recent historical events have forced the 'Bao- Bao & Yo- Yo' tribes to be

separated geographically i.e. one the northern side and other on southern side of the

river 'Eulga'. But, the bonds of culture, social tie-up, sense of belongingness among

the two tribes have been too string to be broken and separated. The policy document

of 1945 may separate them further into two nation theory in the present

international political set – up, but, are not the borders becoming irrelevant and the

over-arching principles of 'humanism', 'global citizenship' to mankind are finding

more relevance than these territorial demarcations in 21st Century. The Truth is

along the river 'Eulga' – people have been divided, who have somehow refused to be

divided. The fact remains that natives of southern plateau (Bao- Bao tribe) maintain

a higher level of originality than those of their northern counterpart meaning

thereby the people of North Eucalidus have fully embraced the foreign system as

way of life.”

The policy document of 1945, contained a pre-condition to the grant of

independence to the plateau of 'Eucalidus' that “… to respect the WILL of the 'Bao-

Bao' & 'Yo –Yo' tribe and their freedom from all outside interference in its

administration”. It was reflected in the Tri- Partite Treaty signed on 1st January 1960

–wherein all the stakeholders acknowledged the autonomy of these two tribes.

PART II

8.

27

Two nation i.e. North Eucalidus (hereinafter NE) & South Eucalidus (hereinafter

SE) pledged not to interfere and Republic of 'Erga' guaranteed the autonomy in the

event of a breach of this treaty as under :-

“Republic of Erga … reserved the right to take corrective action in the plateau of

'Eucalidus' with the sole objective of re-establishing the state of affairs as envisaged

under the Treaty”.

The Tri- Partite Agreement further guaranteed the existing free flow and exchange

of the two tribe across the river Eulga without any interference except national

emergency.

The Constitution of South Eucalidus (hereinafter SE) provides the basic legal

framework of the Country. It lays down the basic principle of governance in the

Republic of SE, which are heavily influenced by its culture and practices followed

by majority of its population. The social set up of SE is that men enjoy power over

women. They control the country's economic activity, and responsible for making

all important decisions in house-hold, political, economic life.

The Constitution of South Eucalidus places special importance to the Culture &

Traditional value as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy & under

Fundamental Duty as under: -

“Culture and Tradition: - The State shall strive to strengthen and maintain

cultural values by instilling/ prescribing the same in unified educational

curriculum. The State must strive to teach national culture and traditions to the

younger generation to become useful members in the building of their society and

nation as a whole.

Fundamental Duty: - Everyone shall observe the value of cultural

heritage, traditions and historical harmony based on the spirit of common

brotherhood and fraternity amongst all the people in an equal manner.”

The social set up of South Eucalidus does not allow the women to take any

independent decision in social and economic aspect of life. The Government as well

as South Eucalidus seeks to justify this indifferent approach to 'Equality' on account

of its historical practices, as custom practiced for so long as part of its cultural

heritage. Certain women leader of the South Eucalidus also endorses this view as

part of its rich cultural heritage and binding on the womanhood under the scheme of

the Constitution.

[12.] The Constitution of NE as well as SEguarantees several fundamental

rights, broadly corresponding to those recognized in International Human Rights

instruments. Their Constitution further guarantees direct access to its Supreme

Court for enforcement of those rights.

Under the Constitutional scheme of both the countries, the 'Yo –Yo' & 'Bao- Bao'

tribe respectively, have been granted a great degree of autonomy, as well as special

powers and autonomy for tribes to conduct their own affairs. Each tribe has a

hierarchy of councils at the village, range, and tribal levels dealing with local

disputes.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

28

The Constitution of both the countries also provides a kind of autonomy for the

administration of such areas through the Tribal Advisory Council and provides

special protection to the 'land' and 'area' inhabited by them. Special provisions for

administration of justice in these areas are guaranteed.

Both the countries have ratified the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (ratified in year 1995); the

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified by NE

in 1967 & SE in 1970 respectively); the 1966 International Covenant on

Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (ratified in 1977); the 1951

Convention relating tothe Status of Refugees (ratified in 1973) and theNE also

ratified 1967 Protocol to the Conventionrelating to the Status of Refugees (ratified

in 1977); the 1990 InternationalConvention on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members oftheir Families (ratified in 1994).

When ratifying CEDAW, SE has expressed reservations as follows:

“In general

In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and underlying culture,

tradition and values of these, the SE is not under an obligation to observe the

contradictory terms of the Convention.

In particular

i. The State of SE hereby expresses its reservation with regard to article 7(b) and (c)

of the Convention to the extent they are inconsistent with the culture and customary

practice. If not, the provisions are fully implemented in SE.

ii. The state of SE does not consider itself bound by article 9(2) and article 29 (1) of

the Convention.”

One of the woman leader of South Eucalidus has observed during a program show

on the Television in following words:-

“It is not about the law, it is about the culture, tradition which we the people of

Eucalidus Plateau seeks to preserve and nurture for the future generation. The

womanhood in general, don't want to go against it, well, some women respect it out

of fear. The Eucalidian family structure is generally hierarchical with the husband

as the head of the family. We are used to that; it is our society.”

Another glaring example of this prevailing inequality among the men & women of

South Eucalidus is that even for getting a telephone / mobile phone SIM Card, the

women need to get the approval of their husband / male head of the family member.

One of the leading human rights NGO in year 2015, published a report that 97%

women who were turned down the issuance of SIM Card were the one whose

application lacked of consent/ approval of male family member.

17.

18.

14.

15.

16.

29

19. Another salient feature of the 1945 Plan was to have the 'Brown Fleet' of Naval base

of Republic of 'Erga' to be exclusively situated in the port city of 'Indica' for another

60 years. 'Indica' is an island port city in the adjacent sea to the plateau of 'Eucalidus'.

After 1 January, 1960 – the plateau of Island port city of Indica became the part of

SE.

Since, 1960, the Island city of Indica was having an autonomous government, which

was strongly supported by the Republic of Erga. In year 2012, the autonomous

government was led by Mr. Orohan Phamuk against whom there many cases of

corruption were pending before the Constitutional Court of South Eucalidus. It was

also reported that, in the election year 2010, there was massive rigging in the

election process for the island city of Indica consequent of which Mr. Orohan

Phamuk govt. got elected. However, in December 2013, the causes of political

upheavals were not known, but due to massive protest by the public and social

unrest, which condemned the rule of Mr. Orohan Phamuk and demanded his

ousting. Mr. Orohan Phamuk condemned the protest and stated that the vested

interest/ leadership in the mainland South Eucalidus is trying to destabilize his

Government in island City of Indica. He also stated that under the Tri- Partite

Agreement, the Republic of Erga has a solemn responsibility to protect the basic

human rights of the people of Indica.

As the protest continued, the autonomous parliament of Indica led by Mr. Orohan

Phamuk, passed a resolution in month of January 2014 and urged the Governmental

machinery to "strengthen friendly ties with the Republic of Erga" at various levels.

On 4 February 2014, the Supreme Council of Indica considered holding a

referendum on the island city status, and requested the Republic of Erga to guarantee

a free and fair referendum and the vote. The Security Service of mainland South

Eucalidus responded by opening a criminal case to investigate the possible

"subversion" of its territorial integrity and charged Mr. Orohan Phamuk under

various statutes dealing with sedition, anti- national activities etc.

As the Army and other security services launched its assault in the island City of

Indica, the associates and other ministers of Mr. Orohan Phamuk fled from the island

city of Indica. After this, the opposition parties and other leaders who were

sponsored by the mainland South Eucalidus put together a parliamentary quorum in

the Parliament of South Eucalidus and voted on to remove Mr. Orohan Phamuk from

his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfil his duties, for his alleged role in

anti- national activities, and the resolution got passed by the autonomous parliament

of island City of Indica.

The Republic of South Eucalidus approved the military rule in the island city of

Indica with a caretaker government under Mr. Yohanan. The Republic of Erga

termed this as forceful occupation of the island city of Indica and termed the present

arrangement as forceful military occupation of the territory.

PART III

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

30

It also reminded that the Brown Fleet of Republic of Erga and its compatriots are

ready to sacrifice for the supreme cause of motherland. It termed the action and

decision of Parliament of South Eucalidus as "coup d'état", and that the caretaker

government was illegitimate.

On 15th March 2014, the world woke up to the news that situation in island City of

Indica has completely changed as the flag of Republic of Erga has been hoisted on all

important public buildings, public places including the Autonomous Parliament.

The Premier of Republic of Erga through a Press Conference announced that the

considering the WILL of People of Island City of Indica as reflected in the

resolution passed in January 2014, Indica has been re- integrated back with the

Republic of Erga. The Premier made the following speech: -

“The Supreme Will of people must prevail and reflected in the legitimate

Government as one of the cherished ideals of human civilization in modern

governance. Such a WILL which is reflected through the Parliamentary resolution

could be halted, suppressed and avoided for some time, but., ultimately it is one of

the basic universal human right as inscribed in the 'right to self- determination'.

Pursuant to this, the re-integration of island city is like coming home back. As the

majority of population of island city comprises of people who have their origin in

Republic of Erga, with the permanent base of Brown Fleet – it is the victory of people

of Indica and compatriots of Republic of Erga.'

The Republic of South Eucalidus andvarious international organization including

UN termed it as blatant violation" of sovereignty and territorial integrity of SE. The

UN passed a resolution wherein it termed this event as 'illegal occupation of

Republic of Erga' and did not recognize the annexation of island city of Indica.

The Republic of Erga opposes the "annexation" label, with its premier defending the

act and decision of 15th March 2014 as complying with the principle of self-

determination of peoples.

14.

25.

26.

27.

28. The 'Bao- Bao' tribe leadership condemned all existing discrimination towards

women by the general Government in South Eucalidus (SE) and often used to make

reference to the North Eucalidus (NE) for their progress, development and the kind

of equality which they embraced in tune with the principles of international human

rights. The leadership of 'Bao- Bao' tribe urged the general Government of SE to

bring suitable amendment in the Constitution of SE to that effect. The various

organization working the field of Women Empowerment and Women Equality also

petitioned the Govt. of SE to shun the practices which were discriminatory in nature

from social and economic life of SE.

As the tribal community of 'Bao- Bao' asserted its independence and functional

autonomy under the Tri- Partite Agreement dated 01 January 1960 for governing the

social and economic affairs of the Tribe, it passed a community order prohibiting all

kind of discriminatory practices towards women in their political, economic and

PART IV

29.

31

social life. It guaranteed the 'Right to Equality' to women of 'Bao- Bao' tribe contrary

to the cultural and historical practices, customs of the 'South Eucalidus'. The General

Government of the SE see this attempt as an attempt of express rebellion by the 'Bao-

Bao' tribe.

The leadership of South Eucalidus termed it as a situation akin to 'internal

disturbance' and failure of 'law & order' situation inthe tribal administered territory

i.e. of 'Bao- Bao Territory'. It threatened to invoke the 'Emergency Clause' which the

Constitution of South Eucalidus envisaged under for the proper administration of

the area. The 'Bao- Bao' tribe leadership has also a different set of bonding and

affinity towards the Republic of Erga which never interfered and gave a full

autonomy to the Tribal Community for regulating social, economic and political

life. The Deputy Prime Minister of South Eucalidus also reminded the solemn

constitutional provision highlighting the importance of culture, tradition and

historical values which has equal importance in the scheme of the Constitution along

with the following provision, which reads as under: -

“ *** Duty of the Government of South Eucalidus against external aggression and

internal disturbances: - It shall be the duty of the Government of South Eucalidus to

protect every autonomous territory, Tribal administered territory against external

aggression and internal disturbances and to ensure that the Governance is carried

out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

That as the Tribal Administered Area as governed by 'Bao- Bao' Community exerted

its special right to govern and administer the community without any external

interference and reminded it of Tri- Partite Agreement dated 1st January 1960. It also

sent a communique to the Government of 'Erga' explaining the looming threat and

interference at the hand of Government of South Eucalidus in the day to day affair. It

also reminded the Government of Erga of its pledge and duty under the Tri- Partite

Agreement at the time of grant of independence to South Eucalidus. It is further

imperative to mention that the Tribal Administered Area also reminded of

responsibility of Republic of Erga under the existing International Legal

Framework about the 'right to self –determination', right to equality to women, right

against gender – discrimination under various international convention, treaty and

emerging human rights obligations of mankind and right to development as a basic

human right in the 21st century.

On 1st June 2015, the Govt. of South Eucalidus imposed the Emergency in the tribal

area which was administered by the 'Bao- Bao' tribe. The Government machinery

including the forces, police has developed a different attitude and hatred towards the

member of Bao- Bao community specially 'women'. It demanded the alienation of

women from the public life and political discussions , negotiations as it considered

their involvement as culturally inappropriate. The President of the Political party

ruling the South Eucalidus plateau observed as under:-

30.

31.

32.

32

“It is historically proven and pious hard work of our ancestors , who often used to

say that where a woman rules, the streams of Eulga runs uphill. The public

tranquility and peace becomes perilous and the recent incidents and happening over

past few years have proven it again when the Bao- Bao Community allowed the

women so called Equality. It is ripen to get the house in order.”

As a general, the Bao –Bao community in particular and other population living in

those territory started protesting and demanding the prosecution of those who were

responsible for gross violation of various human rights as enshrined under the

international instruments and humanitarian law violations during and after the

armed conflict.

One of the leading international NGO i.e. UNGENDER working in the field of

Gender Justice opened up the various rehabilitation center, relief camp for the Bao –

Bao tribal women including others. It encouraged the victims of gender based

violence to come and report to its designated Victim Desk for the documentation. A

large number of women who were victimized during the armed conflict came

forward and described their ordeals in last nine months since imposition of

emergency provision. UNGENDER petitioned the Government of SE seeking

investigation and criminal trial of the perpetrators of the crime against the recorded

incidents.

The Chief of Police Staff of SE under the new Government directed the NGO

'UNGENDER' to hand over all the documentation and collection of evidence to the

concerned police machinery. It further noted that the Victims' Desk as set up by you

have been converted like another law enforcement office which is in conflict with

the institutional autonomy of the police force. It stated that such investigation,

recording of witnesses, incidents, investigations remains the exclusive function of

Police as law enforcement agency. It further directed UNGENDER to refer all

criminal matters to the concerned police Station and asked UNGENDER not to take

further statements from victims and witnesses.

The Government in order to propel the peace process and reconciliation measures, it

focused on establishing law and order, rebuilding the society and took a series of

decisions for Trust Building Measures with Bao- Bao community. The Prime

Minister in one of its address to the nation through national television observed as

under: -

“The Priority of his Government is not to punish the perpetrators of the gender-

based violation during the emergency period in particular inflicted to the women of

Ba- Bao Community, rather it focuses on establishing peace, providing greater

autonomy, restoring the trust of the Bao- Bao community to the Government and

rebuilding the country overall. We all believe in Rule of Law and Equality as

progressive principles but the customs and culture followed for centuries cannot be

altered with one stroke of constitutional amendments. I do not seek to justify the

barbaric, inhuman and degrading treatment to the women in particular, but, under

the existing international treaty and conventions, we do have expressed our valid

33.

34.

35.

36.

33

reservations in the past and my Government is not thinking of altering this position

as well.”

After this very public speech of new Prime Minister of South Eucalidus, the UN

representative of Republic of Erga responded asunder: -

“The entire world is curiously watching and understating each word of Prime

Minister of SE. It is very disappointing that the Government has also merely paid a

lip service to the agenda and promises of 'Gender -Equality' which has attained the

status of 'erga omnes' under the International Legal framework. It sought to give

undue importance to the 'culture, tradition and repressive historical values'.

Republic of Erga with the help of international organizations working in the field of

human rights, UN Agencies and various other diplomatic agencies is monitoring the

human right situation in Tribal Administered Area of South Eucalidus and in

particularly of Bao- Bao Community.”

During the period of conflict and civil strife, there were a number of internally

displaced persons (IDPs) camps were established in the Tribal Administered Area of

South Eucalidus and adjacent province. These camps needed due governmental

attention and relief measures specially on the aspect of health and sanitation. The

Administrator of these IDPs complained that they do not have adequate access to

clean water which is causing a variety of diseases and specially children are falling

sick in routine manner. There was also no adequate provision for the medical and

health care in these IDPs. Almost 2,25,000 people are living in the IDP camps for

almost twenty months, the worst victim are women and children as they constitute

around 80% of its population in IDPs.

These IDPs are running into their second year, but, there is no increase in budget or

allocation of relief funds from the Government of South Eucalidus, however,

despite a substantial increase in the population of inmates living in the IDPs in the

past one year.

This state of affairs in the IDPs have been recently reported by the international

media and several human rights advocacy groups seeking immediate intervention

and an increased budgetary allocation by the Government of SE.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41. Contrary to the popular perception, the Govt. of SE offered an amnesty program for

the citizens of SE who lived in the island city of Indica. The amnesty policy of South

Eucalidus asked and welcomed the native/ citizens of South Eucalidus to leave the

island city of 'Indica' which it termed as under illegal occupation of Republic of

Erga. It asked its fellow citizens to show the nationalism and commitment towards

motherland i.e. SE and also offered full compensation in lieu of loss of property and

livelihood in island city of Indica. Thousands of its citizens returned from Island

City.

PART V

34

However, on return, instead of giving any immediate relief and rehabilitation

package, it put them in the existing IDPs camps in the Tribal Administered Area,

which were already operating for the women and children due to Bao- Bao Conflict.

They were further issued Unique identification Number and it is presumed that

Govt. of South Eucalidus was carrying a secretive sanitization of its own citizens

who returned from the Island City of Indica in the name of Amnesty program.

With the arrival of thousands of its citizens from the island City of Indica, the

situation in IDPs camps have gone from bad to worse as the Govt. maintains the

quantity of food and medical supplies provided to these camps at earlier level only.

On a visit of Prime Minister of SE to one of the largest IDPs camp – the inmates /

residents submitted a signed petition in which it was urged to create provision for the

basic amenities and for the Govt. to come with a proper resettlement as well as

rehabilitation plan for the affected people. It was categorically mentioned that the

residents feel like they are living in an open prison in IDPs, many of them have

committed suicide in recent past due to depression, mental agony and repressive

measures, which are practiced by officer in-charge of IDPs. Women further

complained of continued gender- based violence, sexual harassment at the hand of

authorities and general public as well as of rape.

That one 6 June 2016, that the Govt. Authorities convened a meeting of those

inmates in the camp at IDP camps, who have returned from the island city of Indica.

One of the speaker in a highly inflammatory statements held the Bao- Bao

Community exclusively responsible for their condition, plight, repression and

difficulties which they were facing.

The very next day i.e. 7 June 2016, in a ghastly incident, a Bao- bao girl aged 14

years was gang raped by six men who returned from the Indica island. This incident

got allmedia attention and was publicized widely by the leading news channels and

human rights activists. It was condemned by all the political leaders across the

Eucalidus plateau.

The Govt. of Erga through its diplomatic mission conveyed a stern warning to the

extent that either Republic of South Eucalidus should ensure full protection and

autonomy to the Bao- Bao community otherwise, the Republic of Erga reserves its

right to response and action for the protection of Bao- Bao community under the Tri-

Partite Agreement.

The Prime Minister of South Eucalidus condemned the incident in the following

words:-

“we cannot tolerate such outrageous, preposterous behavior. Even wild beastly

animals are better than such persons. We are not going to show any mercy for such

criminals or perpetrators of the crime which undermines the human dignity and

particularly the dignity of Bao- Bao women.”

43.

42.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

35

The Prime Minister of SE also mentioned about the conduct of its erstwhile colonial

master i.e. Republic of Erga since the inception of problem in SE and illegal

Annexation of Island city of Indica.

The Government of SE also reminded Republic of Erga of UNGA resolution which

firmly opposed the acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation,

since all these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples of Self-

determination and other human rights.

The Republic of Erga referring the certain UNGA resolution, international

convention stated that it has a solemn responsibility to protect and uphold the

universal human dignity against all acts of state repression, discrimination,

exploitation and mal- treatment.

After the incident of 7th June 2016, the tribal leaders of Bao- Bao community with

the help of various international NGO and UN sponsored agencies called for

referendum in exercise of basic right i.e. 'right to self- determination'. The tribal

leadership of the 'Bao- Bao' community requested the international NGO and UN

Sponsored relief providing agencies to nominate one responsible official to be part

of REFERENDUM MONITORING Committee to be held on 25 June 2016.

The Tribal leadership of 'Bao- Bao' tribe, on 30th June 2016, declared its

independence from the SE. It claimed that in background of prevailing situation for

last three – four years, the people inhabiting in the territory/ area administered by

Tribal Advisory Council; which mainly comprises of 'Bao- Bao' tribe have chosen to

declare themselves as independent nation and chose to govern themselves on the

ideals of modern human rights and democratic manner, through a fair and free

referendum held under the supervision of Referendum Monitoring Committee.

The Republic of North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga recognized the Republic of

Bao- Bao as independent state on 1st july 2016 and urged the other democratic and

civilized nation to recognize the Will of People as reflected in the referendum

process.

The Republic of South Eucalidus, North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga are active

members of the United Nations and have ratified the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Additionally, in 2010 both states endorsed the 2007 United Nations Declaration on

the Law of Indigenous Peoples.

The Republic of South Eucalidus approached the International Court of Justice

against the Republic of North Eucalidus as well as Republic of Erga raising disputes

on Tri- Partite treaty interpretation and obligation arising out of it. It raised a limited

dispute before ICJ against the North Eucalidus i.e. obligation under Tri- Partite

Agreement, asserted its sovereign right over regulating movement of people from

Yo- Yo community & Bao- Bao community across river Eulga as well as termed the

act of recognition of new State as illegal.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

36

Republic of Erga, Republic of North Eucalidus and Republic of South Eucalidus had

submitted individual declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the International

Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36(2) of its Statute.

The Republic of State of South Eucalidus, requests the Court to adjudge and declare

that:

The Tribal Administered Area of Bao- Bao tribe is part of South Eucalidus, and

abolition of Bao- Bao's autonomy was legal underinternational law and necessary to

ensure the return of normalcy and economic survival of the nation.

The treatment of Bao- Bao was legal under international law or at least justified

toaddress an internal emergency, disturbances and a situation like civil war.

The Bao- Bao tribe had no right to secede; the Republic of Erga and North Eucalidus

violated international law by recognizing it as astate.

The movement of people across the river Eulga is an exercise of territorial

sovereignty by Republic of South Eucalidus, which is in full accord with

international law.

By annexing island city of Indica, the Republic of Erga has committed acts of

aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter andother international laws.

The Republic of Erga and North Eucalidus requested the Court to adjudge and

declare as under:-

South Eucalidian's abolition of autonomy of Bao- Bao tribe in Tribal Administered

Area violated the 1960 Tri- Partite Treaty as well as other standards of international

law.

The treatment to the Bao- Bao people (specially Women) violates essential

standards of human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.

The failure to adequately investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of

violence against the women is inconsistent with the international obligation.

The Govt. of South Eucalidus is responsible for the failure to respect the socio-

economic rights of inmates of the IDPs which are in contravention of its the

international obligation.

Bao- Bao's declaration of independence and recognition of the same as independent

state by North Eucalidus and Republic of Erga are consistent with international law.

The military actions taken by Republic of Erga in context of island of Indica were

justified under international law.

The ICJ, at Hague has scheduled the specific legal issues arising from the above

Moot Compomis for hearing before its Full Court on 17 - 18 February, 2018 at Peace

Palace (Netherlands).

57.

58.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

59.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

60.

Add. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.)

Tel : 0120-6406203, +91-8800621117

Website : http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in ; www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in

E-mail : [email protected]

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE