Editor’s note: In this interview, Abhijeet and Adithi from Team JFIEL interview Smriti Rajhesh and Tarazi Mohammad Sheikh, both of whom have been Student Directors at the International Law Students Association (ILSA), which organises the largest Moot Court Competition in the world: the Jessup. We speak about their experiences with Jessup and international law as students in South Asia, and the institutions and politics behind Moot Courts. Smriti is a Chennai-based Advocate who graduated from Dr Ambedkar Law University, India. Tarazi, originally from Saudi Arabia, is a Dhaka-based law student in BRAC University, Bangladesh. The interview advances discourse about the role of Moots in capacity-building and knowledge-production. 

Abhijeet: thank you for joining us, Smriti and Tarazi. Our hope today is to focus on the role of Moot Courts in the law school experience, locally and globally. Could you begin by introducing yourselves, and what brought you to mooting and Jessup? 

Smriti: My first ever Moot was the Nuremberg competition, and since then, I have been interested in international law, international criminal law, and humanitarian law. At that point, Jessup was something you found everywhere scrolling through social media. So I thought, why not? When I competed in Jessup, I understood how everyone there, as it were, breathed international law, with specialists in different areas, let’s say in international arbitration, investment, or environment law all coming together from all over the world. This is when I found my real interest and felt captivated, wanting to give back. It was such a coincidence that I came across the Director position on their website, and thought, why not? The position would allow me to give back to society as a student, and being from a state-run university, it was important to leverage such opportunities in these spheres, as people from my college usually do not even know they exist. It would also help me see what practising international law from India might look like. 

Tarazi: It is fascinating to hear from Smriti about her experience, although mine was slightly different. I came to Bangladesh from Saudi Arabia actually, but not to study law. The plan was to go to the United States for medical studies, but the Visa did not work out. Going to law school, then, came from encouragement from my family to try a social science subject; I never thought it would change the course of my life. Being a third-culture individual, I often struggled to communicate with people in Bangladesh, and I did not understand what to do. I came to mooting because as a first-generation law student, I wanted to explore as much as possible. I competed in the largest national Moot Court in Bangladesh and my team somehow finished as the Runners-up within my second semester of law school—and so, I then looked for an international competition, which led me to Jessup. We again became the national Runners-up and Best Memorialist, and I got the Best Mooter award. And through it, I figured out that I like international law. Since then, I have been involved with Jessup! Even before the Directorship with ILSA, I was already working with law schools in different countries to promote international law studies, asking them if they would benefit from me conducting sessions on such topics. So, the Directorship became a natural choice. I struggled to find other pathways to international law—I think in South Asia, especially Bangladesh, people believe that international law is “not for us, it is very difficult to practice”, even if they study it academically. However, I do have long-term plans to practice in the field!

Abhijeet: This is very helpful, Tarazi, and it brings me to a more difficult question. As you put it, we do often think of international law or the community of Jessup as the “world out there” and ourselves being “somewhere else”. Often, our perspectives too may run counterintuitive to this “faraway” community. Smriti, you also mentioned how public universities in India face unique challenges compared with others; this may have to do with financial disparities too. Could you tell us more about the struggle of finding your place? 

Smriti: Yes, when I entered and started speaking to the community, I felt a reluctance when it came to how I, or India as a country, viewed international law—I could sense some resistance. It was only after some hard conversations with my Co-Student Director that I realised that their perspectives are a lot different from how we view it. So, you cannot plunge into it directly; it is like taking baby steps, or climbing up the ladder, beginning from say Jessup. There are also definitely vast differences between the position of my college and between one in the United States or the United Kingdom. They have a lot more privilege (no offence!) in the networking and resources they can access. I feel the gap must be bridged with the years passing by. We should appreciate, though, how India or for that matter Bangladesh or any other country has been performing, despite being less privileged. That was also what pushed me to stay within the community. 

Tarazi: I had a lot of challenges, to be honest with you. The first was trying to fit into the legal culture of Bangladesh, and I struggled to find like-minded people with regard to international law, meaning my perspective was almost always different. There was, similarly, a difference of opinion between me and people in Bangladesh about the importance of the international rounds of a Moot. I feel that a competition only really begins after the national qualifier, but people tend to focus on the national rounds too much here. Being able to say that one is the national champion or runner-up becomes the only priority, probably because their plan is to make careers within Bangladesh as advocates, barristers or judges. So, their sight is on the bar or judicial exam, since if they fail it, they would feel their life in law is behind them. There are certain people who have done exceptionally well in international law, but I feel they are quite isolated from this local community of lawyers. So, there is a lack of inspiration, as there are few credible people to tell us the international rounds matter. Another struggle was the lack of funding, or difficulties with getting sponsorships or Visas, which I have faced throughout my four years of law school. Because of this, I could not make it to many foreign conferences and events, while others who had such privileges would, irrespective of the question of merit. Other than that, I have not faced any form of bias. Everybody I reached out to has been extremely kind, and it is only because of their kindness that I am here. 

Abhijeet: Thank you for sharing your stories. You hinted at the difference between national and international rounds. Perhaps tell us more about the change in culture. 

Adithi: And do you believe there is a difference in how you craft arguments in national rounds versus international rounds? Are they perceived differently?

Smriti: I think the Indian rounds are much more aggressive, and resultantly more competitive, compared to at least the preliminaries in the international rounds until one reaches say the Top 16 teams. The international rounds are more calm and poised, it is about logic and reasoning as opposed to getting the judges’ attention with aggressive arguments that may not even correlate. So, there is a certain level of tweaking in your preparations for your international rounds. But then again, you have to play towards the judge’s sentiments. If you happen to have a bench with an Indian, we might incorporate some traits from how we argue before national benches. Your roots are still stuck to who you actually are. I also think the national administration here is slightly shaky in terms of organisation, and I do not know why it does not do enough to bring things back in place. In the international rounds, I noticed by contrast how teams had to assemble before time, judges were treated well and so on. 

Tarazi: I agree with Smriti on how national and international rounds differ from the mooter’s perspective. When I was taking inspiration from videos of international rounds, for instance, I was reminded that I am submitting before judges who are more accustomed to the Bangladesh Court system, not the ICJ! But I remember being quite stubborn on that and looking back now, I benefited the most both in the Bangladesh rounds and the international rounds when I maintained the international standard. And, I am honestly actively working to change this culture. But there is an age culture in Bangladesh; my words are not as credible as a student compared to someone, say, a professional. Now that I am affiliated with ILSA, even though I am saying the same things as before, I am more credible today. In terms of administration though, in Jessup Bangladesh, everything is quite organised and on time, with smooth registrations, how the teams will be assembled, complaint handling and everything. I am also a part of this community so I would complain a lot if there was any such mismanagement! I was coaching a team from India and they also told me that it is difficult in India because they did not know who to contact, as there is no Jessup India community or an ILSA national chapter. But although we have very good management, I think the focus should now shift to doing well in the international rounds and training the teams in that course, and India could be a great inspiration for that. 

Abhijeet: It’s very interesting, in your local contexts, that both of your stories correlate in terms of trying to find credibility in the perception of your voice, rather than what you say. I also wonder how this might substantively affect the common sense of the international rounds: whose voice counts more than others? My teammate in the Jessup, Rudraksh and I wrote about our experience with arguments that were counterintuitive to the citational and logical choices of Western academia at the time. As you say Smriti, Judges tend to stick to their roots. So, with a Moot held in Washington, DC, who are the Judges? And how does such bias affect people’s training as participants in the Moot? This is a question about the politics of knowledge-production. 

Smriti: A lot of what you say makes sense when you consider the kind of Judges who attend Jessup. The pattern I have noticed in the two years I have visited and before was that in the Championship rounds, the most non-controversial people come there, like judges from the ICJ or ITLOS. You cannot really say anything about that. But when you take the preliminary and knock off rounds, the judges are typically connected with the US Supreme Court, or people from White and Case firm itself (Editor’s note: the firm sponsors Jessup), or potentially people from India who are based in Washington, DC. So, their judging is heavily driven by Western academia. Our academic training as Asians, by comparison, also has a gap from this academia, as we read Malcolm Shaw at the most. Which is why I feel beyond the round of 32 or 16, Indian teams find it hard to get through, as we are not sufficiently trained in this Western discourse. But this feels like an inherent problem to any international moot, like Stetson too for example. If you get exposure to Western academia, you might know how to bridge this gap, like you Abhijeet after being in Cambridge. 

Tarazi: I agree with Smriti that we stick to our roots, but my problem personally is I do not know which root! I think I kept switching between my own roots according to needs. I mean, last year I was in Finland at a conference, with people from Africa, the West, but also Asia. Most of the Asian presenters were from India, and probably based in Finland, with high-end backgrounds. So, I was already a child (academically!) and an undergrad, and then I was also from Bangladesh. During my introduction, I only mentioned my Saudi Arabian identity and deliberately left out Bangladesh, as sort of an anticipated self-defence mechanism. I did not expect any discrimination really, but I took that approach on the safe side. We, from Bangladesh, are also often identified as Indians, which I do not mind; I take that as an honour. But with India being the biggest player in this field in South Asia, it ends up representing most of South Asia. I have been coaching Indian teams for moots for a while and whenever an Indian team reached out to me in the initial stages, I used to wonder, why me, do they not know I am Bangladeshi? How could I teach them? But the process broke my underconfidence, as I realised people look for your skills, regardless of where you are from. But of course, in the longer path, there may be a gap that I may face once I get into the larger scale of the international community. 

Abhijeet: Very helpful responses, and that brings me to my last question. What was your involvement as Student Directors with ILSA like? What did you hope to achieve, and were you able to make a difference as you wished? 

Tarazi: I am just a few months into this role, and so far, it is very good and fits into my expectations. The first thing I wanted to work on was bringing more teams from South Asia, and also the Middle East—just yesterday, I had meetings with some universities. Though the Middle East has more funding compared with South Asia, they have a lack of inspiration, so I try to use my Middle Eastern background to approach them, but slightly differently. To them, I have to say it would just be for fun! For South Asia, on the other hand, I am selling something quite costly. As Student Directors, we contribute to certain decisions on, say, the budget, the administration of the competition in different regions, the recruitment of board members, etc. ILSA promotes the idea that after all, ILSA is about students and so students’ perspectives are foremost here. Within our capacity, we have every liberty to be creative, Michael Peil never says no! He says, “yeah, that’s fantastic, just do it!” So, if you have ideas, there are a lot of opportunities. 

Smriti: What I say also comes from a lot of what Tarazi said, especially on creative freedom. But you cannot alter the core of their decisions. Suppose they say they want to focus their budget towards the South American Rounds or elsewhere, you cannot ask them to redirect it to North America or the Pacific for example. The term you are given is also very concise, so by the time you understand enough about what they are doing or how things are set up, I got out! I flagged the issues on my mind, for example, on how the Indian rounds were not doing as well as the others, but I could not achieve my goals to the fullest. As a student, you cannot always be present with your time and mindspace. But it was an excellent experience I would recommend students to consider as it helps you see how such institutions and systems work, and where you can take initiative. 

Abhijeet: Thank you so much. Any final words of wisdom for future Student Directors or mooters? 

Tarazi: For mooters, enjoy every moment, as these competitions are unforgettable experiences. Student directors, consider applying; it’s a rewarding way to give back to the ILSA and mooting community. And, thank you for hosting us, I am very thankful to be able to share my experience and listen to Smriti as my predecessor. 

Smriti: My time as a mooter and student director really shaped my law school experience. I’m so grateful to have been part of this discussion—it brought back great memories, especially now that I’ve shifted to the corporate world! If you’re on the fence about mooting or becoming a Student Director, do it! It’s an adventure that’ll stick with you for life. Thanks for having us!