MODE OF COMPETITION

Last updated: 2024-09-05

COMPETITION COMPONENTS
MEMORIALS
Claimant and Respondent memorials will be assessed according to the quality of analysis of the issues
involved, persuasiveness of the arguments, logic and reasoning, writing, knowledge of the facts, use
of authorities and extent of the research, and ranked in batches of 3-5 memorials by two judges per
batch over 3-5 rounds; after the first round, batches will consist of similarly seeded memorials based
on preceding rounds (cumulative “wins” and SB score, i.e. a “Swiss Tournament”).
ORALS - TEAMS
In the group phase, teams will compete in groups (of four to seven teams each) seeded according to
memorials. Each team will compete in four preliminary matches, twice as Applicant/Claimant and
twice as Respondent. In any four-team groups, some teams will face each other a second time but in
reversed roles from their previous encounters. A team wins a match if the aggregate of the raw scores
that the arbitrators have given its advocates together plus its weighted (25%) claimant or respondent
memorial score is higher than the other team’s.
In the elimination rounds, the memorial scores will not be factored in, and matches are won on a
majority of arbitrators. Among the teams in each elimination match, the team whose alias is first in
the alphabet will be Claimant in the round of 16 and semi-final and Respondent in the round of 32 (if
any), quarter final, and final.
ORALS - INDIVIDUALS
We will normalize scores awarded by each arbitrator to mitigate the impact of outliers.
HIGHEST RANKING TEAM
Each team’s Applicant/Claimant memorial and Respondent memorial scores (between 300 and 600
points each) will be added to its aggregate normalised individual oral scores for Rounds 1-4.

GUIDELINES TO ORAL ADVOCACY ROUNDS

An oral match pits one team representing the Applicant/Claimant (investor) against another
representing the Respondent (the host State). Each team consists of two oral advocates who will share
the allotted time (40 minutes per team).
Each arbitrator will serve on a three-member arbitral panel. The President of the panel should: (1)
signal when the advocates may begin or end their arguments; (2) along with the co-arbitrators
question the advocates; (3) answer procedural questions or requests (e.g., extra time – max 1 minute);
and (4) generally maintain order in the proceedings.
The parties’ two representatives (no one else at counsel table) are seated in front of the panel, left and
right. The arbitrators and advocates may refer to “my Co-Counsel” or “the Agent for the Respondent”,
etc. Arbitrators are addressed as “Mister/Madame Arbitrator” or by their titles and surnames. The
President may be referred to as “Mister/Madam President”.
Before each hearing, arbitrators can access memorials online via
[Link] (click “Match”, then download). Arbitrators should
remember that in the oral proceedings, teams are not strictly bound by their prior written submissions.
Each team has 40 minutes to present its case, allocating at least 15 and at most 25 minutes to each of
its two advocates and reserving within that, time for any rebuttal/surrebuttal. Failure to adhere to
these should be penalized (time-management) and counsel should be stopped if the 25 or 40 minutes
have been exhausted (at most 1 extra minute to wrap up may be granted).

1/5
MODE OF COMPETITION

Teams should try to agree on an Order of Argument before the hearing. An agreed order (and
allocation of time) or, if there is no agreement, each team’s proposal should be submitted to the
Tribunal (see examples below on p. 5). There will be no argument on proposals. The President may
accept either proposal or impose his/her/* own compromise giving teams then one minute to allocate
their advocates’ times.
Hearings should be structured as flexibly as the teams may agree (or failing that, as the President
directs), so long as basic procedural fairness is respected.
If a Party waives rebuttal, then the other Party will NOT have a corresponding opportunity for
surrebuttal.
After the arbitrators have invited counsel and the audience to be seated, the arbitrators should
introduce themselves briefly. The President will then start the hearing. The President will monitor only
the 15/25- and 40-minute limits and may indicate how much time an advocate/team has consumed
(especially when the limits are being approached).
The President should eliminate any disturbance without interrupting the flow of the match; arbitrators
may note misconduct by advocates or their teammates and deduct points from the offending
advocate(s). Hearing misconduct is rare, but includes counsel communicating with anyone other than
co-counsel, the Tribunal or (if directed by the Tribunal) opposing counsel, leaving counsel table during
the hearing, or any disruptive conduct at counsel table (1 point penalty per occurrence). Serious
misconduct would be undermining the Order of Argument, for example, by (significantly) exceeding
the time indicated, (persisting in) addressing issues outside the agreed sequence (3-point penalty per
occurrence), or ignoring a direction from the President.
If spectators disturb the match, the President should admonish them and, if they persist, have them
expelled. The presences of members of teams other than those pleading is prohibited (“Scouting”)
At the end of the last rebuttal/surrebuttal, the arbitrators will offer feedback (maximum 5 minutes),
Arbitrators must not give the teams substantive tips.
After asking all others to leave the room, arbitrators will deliberate; if the room is needed for the next
hearing before deliberation is finished, please deliberate elsewhere; be mindful in case an arbitrator
has an immediately following hearing. Arbitrators should finalize their scores online via
[Link] (click “Match”).
THE ROLE OF THE ARBITRATOR – HELPFUL HINTS
The best panels balance letting participants complete their entire presentation and engaging them in
a lively a dialogue. Arbitrators should ask questions of a sufficient difficulty and in a sufficient quantity
to prevent the competitors from merely reading a rehearsed speech. Participants expect to be tested
on the material. Arbitrators should refrain from taking up too much time with long questions or
comments.
Arbitrators must not decide this case on the merits! Instead, they must score the performances of the
advocates. An arbitrator should evaluate the strength of each advocate's overall presentation, the
validity of the participants' arguments, the persuasiveness of their presentation, their poise and
advocacy skills, and the thoroughness of their preparation. The criteria for this are found at
[Link] - click “Match”.
Advocates are NOT bound by their team’s written submissions in this competition. Since written
memorials were submitted, subsequent research (and subsequent oral rounds) may lead advocates to
revise the substance, style and structure of their arguments.
The advocates will assume that the arbitrators are generally familiar with the facts of the case and will
likely not ask the Tribunal if it wishes to hear a recitation all the facts. Advocates may focus only on
those facts that are directly pertinent to their legal arguments.
A. DURING THE MATCH:

2/5
MODE OF COMPETITION

Arbitrators should:
• Utilize concise questions, ideally ones that call for a “yes” or “no” answer. Such questions test an oral
advocate's ability to answer directly and clarify the competitor’s position on an issue.
• Feel free to ask a “basic” question, if relevant to the issue at hand, e.g. “What are the primary rules
of treaty interpretation?”. Such questions may ensure that the advocate understands international law
and is not merely reciting memorized details.
• Avoid rhetorical questions and lengthy statements. A question that takes more than 30 seconds to
ask might already be too long.
• Avoid debates with the advocates. Feel free to press for a direct answer but avoid “flogging a dead
horse”.
• Question each advocate equally (e.g. 1 or 2 questions each from each arbitrator). Evaluating the
match is easier when all advocates have been equally tested by the panel.
• Only question an advocate about a co-counsel's argument if it contradicts a position taken by the
former. Each advocate should be generally familiar with the team's entire argument but is not
expected to have a detailed grasp of a co-counsel's argument. You should, however, explore
inconsistencies between the two.
• Respect the time limits on oral argument. The President may generally grant an advocate extra time
(typically not more than 1 minute) solely for answering a specific question or briefly concluding the
presentation.
• Many competitors are not native English speakers; if an advocate is not a native speaker, be
especially careful when asking long questions or using idioms; do not mark a competitor down just for
their accent or semantic or grammatical errors.
• Remember that teams come from different countries with a wide variety of legal resources. Some
teams are at a disadvantage in this respect. The FDI Moot issues are intended to be answerable by
reference to generally available materials and a careful reading of the facts.
Advocates should observe all provisions of the Rules. They should NOT:
• communicate with anyone when at the counsel’s table except co-counsel, the Tribunal and (as
directed) opposing counsel; or
• engage in any behaviour that distracts from the hearing.
B. AFTER THE MATCH - COMMENT TO THE TEAMS:
Before the advocates and spectators leave the room, arbitrators may give brief feedback to the
advocates. Arbitrators should:
• not announce the winner of a match (except in elimination matches) or the advocates’ scores.
• not give substantive comments to the competitors or suggest alternative arguments to the teams as
this may give an unfair advantage. Arbitrators may comment on an advocate’s poise, the structure of
his/her argument, and other general tips on oral advocacy.
• to avoid (perceived) bias, not ask the advocates which institution or which country they represent.
At the end of the FDI Moot, identities will be revealed.
• remind the advocates that there are many different opinions regarding oral presentation styles.
• not opine on the merits of the case or the balance of the problem or that one side is “correct”, as it
may give the advocates the false impression that you favoured the advocates arguing the more
meritorious side. The point of the FDI Moot is not to determine which side of the argument is more
meritorious.
• not confess a lack of expertise on any particular issue of the problem.

3/5
MODE OF COMPETITION

Please keep comments brief (in total for all three arbitrators under 5 minutes). The FDI Moot’s tight
timetable means we will need the room soon and one or both teams may have another match
immediately.
C. AFTER THE MATCH – DELIBERATE AND SCORE:
After the competitors and audience have left the room, arbitrators may deliberate on their scores.
Some prefer to discuss the match with the other arbitrators, while others do not wish to be
“influenced”. Either approach is acceptable. Arbitrators should not deliberate more than 5 minutes
and remember:
• Reasonable arbitrators may disagree. “Split panels” are as common in moots as in practice.
• Each arbitrator alone is responsible for his/her/* score. Do not feel pressured to adjust scores to
conform to those of the others.
• The hearing room may be needed for the next match.
Arbitrators must complete and finalize the individual scores via their online profiles as soon as possible
after the hearing. At the start of the hearing, Arbitrators may enter the advocates’ names and some
“default scores” (75) and then adjust the components (“Edit” remember to “Save”) as the hearing
progresses. Arbitrators may also use a Score Work Sheet (Word) as a printable reference outside their
online profiles. Some arbitrators find it useful in their first hearing to score the median advocate(s) in
the 70-80 range, the best in the 80-90 range and the worst in the 60-70, leaving room above, below
and in between these scores for better or worse advocates in subsequent hearings.

Virtual (Only) and Hybrid Hearings

Please consult [Link]

4/5
ORDER OF ARGUMENT

Teams should agree and record an Order of Argument before each match and indicate to the Tribunal
the agreed order of argument. If the two teams cannot agree on an order, the President of the Tribunal
will decide the order and give teams one minute reflection to allocate times among their advocates.
Total advocacy time of a team may not exceed 40 minutes per team (including rebuttal surrebuttal)
or 25 minutes for any one of its advocates.
A team’s two advocates may alternate more than once, but teams should consider carefully how this
affects the flow of argument and timekeeping. Each advocate must speak at least 15 minutes total.
Teams may reserve one consolidated rebuttal/surrebuttal period at the end on all issues with the
opportunity for both of its advocates to speak or issue-by-issue rebuttal/surrebuttal periods with only
one advocate per team in each. In any case, each team is limited to a maximum total of 5 minutes on
rebuttal/surrebuttal
The Tribunal will only monitor the 40-minute (per team) and 25-minute (per advocate) and 5-minute
(rebuttal/surrebuttal) maxima (e.g. using a multi-timer app). As a matter of courtesy or to “sign-post”
their arguments, advocates may indicate how much time they intend to spend on each issue; this,
micro time-management is the sole responsibility of each team/advocate.
Some teams may struggle with (or feel creative about) the "order of argument". The distinct examples
below illustrate a clear and concise way to indicate to a tribunal (a) the order in which the issues will
be addressed; (b) which party counsel will plead first on each issue; (c) how much time each counsel
expects to plead and rebut/sur rebut on each issue.

Example 1
B) Security for Costs/TPF and A) Temporal Jurisdiction: R1 18+2 min; C1 18+2 min
C) Expropriation and D) Adverse Inference: C2 18+2 min R2 18+2 min
Total minutes: C1 18+2=20; C2 18+2=20; R1 18+2=20; R2 18+2=20

Example 2
A) Temporal Jurisdiction: R1 10+1 min; C1 8+1 min
B) Security for Costs/TPF: R1 8+1 min; C1 7+1 min
C) Expropriation: C2 15+1 min; R2 11+1 min
D) Adverse Inference: C1 6+1 min R2 7+1 min
Total minutes: C1 21+3=24; C2 15+1=16; R1 18+2=20; R2 18+2=20

These examples in no way suggest what the “best” order or time allocation for addressing the issues
is.

Proposed or agreed orders of argument should be presented to the Tribunal in writing (paper or chat
function if the team is online) and orally.

5/5