h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There are some results!

Frédéric Eisemann Award: prevailing team in orals
First Place: National University of Singapore
Second Place: University of Queensland
Third Place: University of Cologne
University of Zagreb
Finalists: Deakin University
Griffith University
University of Heidelberg
Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Honorable Society of King’s Inns
University of Ljubljana
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Loyola University, New Orleans
Mari State University
University of Münster
University Pantheon-Assas (Paris II
University of Potsdam

Martin Domke Award: best oral advocate in the General Rounds
First Place: Robina Kaye, University of Montpellier
Marion Alice Jane Isobel, University of Queensland
Third Place: Mitja Kocmut, University of Ljubljana
Honorable Mention:
Christian Alberti, Tulane University
Andrej Andrić, University of Ljubljana
Mark E. Bjertnes, University of Geneva
Vedrana Ćiković, University of Zagreb
Lance V. Clack, University of Texas
Noël Dilworth, Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Amos Elberg, Columbia University
Ryan Allan Goss, University of Queensland
Marc-Oliver Heidkamp, University of Cologne
Andrea Ingram, Deakin University
Laura Malloni, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Anna v. Mühlendahl, University of Heidelberg
Kokularajah Paheenthararajah, University of Cologne
Anne Sophie Riedel, University of Kiel
Henning Schaloske, University of Münster
Pamela Schuermans, University of Heidelberg
Julia Shatik, University of St. Petersburg
Ben Steinbrück, University of Cologne
Chan Tai-Hui, Jason, National University of Singapore
Oliver Wellings, Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Ho Qing Ying, Jean, National University of Singapore
David Zetoony, University of Virginia

Might as well do it properly...

Pieter Sanders Award (best memorandum for Claimant)

First Place
University of Queensland

Second Place
University of Heidelberg

Third Place
University of Cologne

Honorable Mention
Carlos III University
University of Copenhagen
Deakin University
Harvard University
Loyola University, Chicago
University of Mainz
University of Münster
University of Stellenbosch
University of Vienna



Werner Melis Award (best memorandum for Respondent)

First Place
University of Mainz

Second Place
University of Münster

Third Place
University of Cologne

Honorable Mention
University of Basel
Campbell University
University of Freiburg
Loyola University, Chicago
Monash University
University of Queensland
University of Rijeka
University of St. Gallen
University of Vienna
University of Zurich



Martin Domke Award (best oral advocate in the General Rounds)

First Place
Robina Kaye, University of Montpellier
Marion Alice Jane Isobel, University of Queensland

Third Place
Mitja Kocmut, University of Ljubljana

Honorable Mention
Christian Alberti, Tulane University
Andrej Andric, University of Ljubljana
Mark E. Bjertnes, University of Geneva
Vedrana Cikovic, University of Zagreb
Lance V. Clack, University of Texas
Noël Dilworth, Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Amos Elberg, Columbia University
Ryan Allan Goss, University of Queensland
Marc-Oliver Heidkamp, University of Cologne
Andrea Ingram, Deakin University
Laura Malloni, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Anna v. Mühlendahl, University of Heidelberg
Kokularajah Paheenthararajah, University of Cologne
Anne Sophie Riedel, University of Kiel
Henning Schaloske, University of Münster
Pamela Schuermans, University of Heidelberg
Julia Shatik, University of St. Petersburg
Ben Steinbrück, University of Cologne
Chan Tai-Hui, Jason, National University of Singapore
Oliver Wellings, Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Ho Qing Ying, Jean, National University of Singapore
David Zetoony, University of Virginia




Frédéric Eisemann Award (prevailing team in orals)

First Place
National University of Singapore

Second Place
University of Queensland

Third Place
University of Cologne
University of Zagreb

Finalists
Deakin University
Griffith University
University of Heidelberg
Honorable Society of the Inner Temple
Honorable Society of King’s Inns
University of Ljubljana
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Loyola University, New Orleans
Mari State University
University of Münster
University Pantheon-Assas (Paris II)
University of Potsdam


(public) Source:
http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/moot/awards9.html

After six or seven years, I feel able to say that, from an arbitrator's point of view, the Moot is quite the best fun you can have sitting behind a table (whether you are a lawyer or not - many people forget that arbitrators quite often are not lawyers at all).

The ninth moot involved an especially interesting jurisdictional point about the assignment of arbitration rights and I noted that none of the tribunals seemed to give an unequivocal answer. That is what gives the moot an especial academic interest.

I have a complaint, however. Why is it that so few English (or other UK) Universities and Law Schools take part? The excuse that the UK has not adopted the Vienna Convention on the International sale of goods is not valid, to my mind, although the moot problem is always a CISG problem, the moot is a valuable exercise in advocacy and logic (and arbitration law) - in the English language too! And as to international networking for young people . . .

"the Moot is quite the best fun you can have sitting behind a table"

Very true. Though it is sometimes hard to communicate that to a group of students when they are pressed to complete the memos in time. But after Vienna they all agree that it's been the most enjoyable time they had during their time at uni. That accounts for the fact that one keeps running into the same people at the orals year after year.

The jurisdictional issue was very interesting, true. Though I must say that the students maybe did underestimate the difficulties after the amendment of the case. But that's part of what the moot is for: teaching them that what might seem like a simple issue opens up to a argumentative nightmare when faced with an opposing team.

I'm not sure why there are only for few teams from the UK competing. Some part of it might be attributed to dis-interest by students (maybe cupled with insufficient information by the university). Queen Mary and Westfield for example offered a course and didn't receive enough interest. Another thing might be that well-known schools fear a detriment to their reputation by not passing the general rounds. Places like Oxford, Cambridge, Durham might think that they have little to gain from the Moot. If they win it would be "Well, it's Oxford. What did you expect?". If they not make the best 16 it's "Hey, Oxford's loosing it. They can't even make it through the general rounds." But that's just speculation on my part.

Have done some research on the competition and then came across this site. Unfortunately, the posts here seem to be too old - THREE years ago. I wonder whether there's anybody who's looking at them these days.

I'll probably take part in the coming moot in 2006. ^_^ But it seems that it's very difficult to find someone to communicate throughout the world, though hundreds of law students are taking part.

Our team has taken some time on problem you mentioned above and found it a little bit "off-track". But it was the most interesting one to me. I studied the Recievables Convention and worked on the memo for claimant. I always enjoy writing the memo. ^_^

Hope that there is still someone who's reading this page.