[Music] hi everyone today we have with us team nlu jur comprising of abas chaturvedi Zoya fuzer and pavani K Mago who recently emerged as the winners of the very prestigious nliu Justice Ark tanka Memorial International arbitration move I'd like to mention all three of them are second year rights by the way firstly many big congratulations for your success in the prestigious competition before we begin talking about your journey I request you to please introduce yourselves to the audience hi thank you so much for your wishes my name is pav cor and I am a semester for second year law student at nlu jur thanks a lot for inviting us I'm abhas Nish chat and I am a ug semester 4 student pursuing BLB honors from an jpur hi my name is Zoya fza I'm a fourth semester student at National La University pursuing the LLP honors great uh to start off the discussion please tell us about the structure of this competition and about your team composition uh oh yes so this competition basically is an international competition wherein people from all around the world many from all around the all countries come participate however it's physically held in India uh in at Nal we we had 60 plus teams participating in this Edition so for the first time this Edition had a memo qualifiers round basically we submit Memorial from both the sides uh and after that we have a member qualifier round wherein 38 teams got qualified and all the 38 teams were invited for oral pleadings at Nal and we were one of them so uh there we had quarterfinals out then semi-finals out and finals out basically out of 38 teams eight teams get qualified for qus now this uh the format of the question format of the mot competition is you are allowed to have maximum of four members team however our our College en only allows for a three member team so we were three members two speakers and one researcher I was the researcher and abhas and family were speakers for this competition thank you Zoya uh preparing for a moot must definitely be a long long Jour everybody knows that considering the complexity International arbitration as a subject in itself carries uh could you break down your preparation Journey For Us in terms of your research for the memorial and the presentation for the rounds so to say so uh we got this competition allocated before the proposition for this competition was released uh as soon as the proposition was released we were we we read the proposition carefully and then we sat together deated the issues we uh divided the issues amongst ourselves taking into consideration who will be the speakers and then what or issues they should research upon so I took the arbitration issue K me took CISD two issues for CISD and abas took the artificial intelligence issue these were this was the four step for our preparation and then obviously we before this we uh he basically approached our coaches our seniors like our College seniors and many external people as well and they provided us with pre-readings as well so before the proposition was out we made sure that we basically read the basics of the law the basics of arbitration and I I remember we read Gary B W book for commercial arbitration and then we went through all the process competition essentially was is based on International arbitration right however it um it is called mini because it deals with both issues of commercial transactions in international sale of goods as well as International arbitration now between these two major themes there was this one issue um which was very factual specific which I took upon and the issue was relating to an artificial intelligence system whether or not it can be considered as an expert system or not under law it was a very interesting mood question um with there being no precedents available for the or um no judgments available on the same it was essentially a futuristic and hypothetical mood question so with there being a scarcity of resources to peruse I essentially relied on scientific journals I ENT I essentially tried to understand how an artificial intelligence system works and then I tried to compare it with the threshold as to in various Global jurisdictions um how and why and when an entity can be considered as an expert when can its opinion be considered as an expert opinion Etc and then I tried to fit in the characteristics of an AI system or eliminate the characteristics of an AI system from these thresholds so essentially the my uh the way I approached was to firstly frame a fixed threshold and then trying to apply the scientific knowledge with that I tried to gain with regards to artificial intelligence in those thresholds it was a very objective process for me uh so I dealt with the merits part of the entire mood essentially cisg which is BAS basically the United Nations contracts on International sale of goods now this essentially is a very International subject matter in itself because while everything was essentially India Centric with regards to law this was International Fair because cisg is something which like abas stated they deal in viz so for my specific subject area very honestly it was completely reading intensive because applying specific articles in that part of the subject matter it is very important that you know the law very well so I think one thing that I faced issues in the beginning but I got very comfortable and what worked out for me ahead was that I was super clear with regards to what law I was arguing so that could also be something which anyone who's you know in future considering this mood possibly should know so that was one thing that I think helped me throughout this entire Journey as in when you progress to the subsequent rounds your approach also changes according to the feedbacks that you get from your peers your mentors to have already given their feedback but according to the judges feedback also so how did your approach to the preparation for the subsequent rounds changed from the one that you went to the competition with so uh for me when we are trying to practice for oral rounds once our memorials got qualified in the memorial qualifier round uh I was advised on my Pace I was advised on my hand gestes because um inherently I'm an overly excited and aggressive speaker so I was advised on my hand just just um because essentially when we are doing a mood and arbitration mode we are generally advised to assist the court as a friend we are essentially arguing before a tribunal not a court not a formal court so the members who are sitting and who are judging us essentially are our colleagues um even in the professional sphere we were advised that whenever you are going to take up arbitrations the persons who would judge you you might judge them the other day so essentially their colleagues it should be informal and it should be assistive in a process over here the councelor is not fighting for a case but fighting to assist the traval essentially so I had to change and learn how to change to be more calm more composed when I'm speaking trying to talk to a colleague um trying to come up with analogies in my transcript not follow a very fixed and a firm transcript and most importantly in any arbitration mod the one skill that I that I was asked to focus a lot on by my judges was to was to be vtty enough to answer each and every question on the spot because in this our proposition along with the clarifications went up to 46 to 47 pages so memorizing each and every contour and being very um comfortable with the whole factual Matrix came in very clutch at that point of time and just to add that he says about the oral rounds I clearly remember that when I was giving one of my oral rounds at the end of it it started off with our coaches only so they clearly said this one thing to me that when you're arguing in front of an arbitral tribunal you need to be clear and you need to basically explain it to them so I remember when I was giving my final round as well I was explaining essentially explaining it to the judges what exactly it is that I I'm saying more than just arguing so I think that is a differentiating factor which comes with arbitration Centric moods because when you're arguing in front of an arbitral tribunal you are not just reading the law to them you're explaining it to them without the legal technical words in analogies with examples which I clearly remember I did in my final round just so that I could put forward my point as clearly as possible and I think that is also differentiating Factor when it comes to normal litigation law rooms that is happening so I think that's something that everybody should be mindful of uh to just to add one thing yes so whenever they were giving oral practice overal runs to our coaches and many people external people as well I was with them I was sitting with them so I made sure that I deal with things that I read and I listen to them that as fa said they were trying to expain so if I got what they said then they're like successful in what they're doing but maybe they're using any analogy and that is not Landing well that would be like something we would ask them as feedback to change or work upon so that was the whole process we undertook before the actual or that is a very efficient way actually right uh can you can you share any memorable quot moments or highlights from your experience in the competition it was a very Topsy right um we essentially argued five times before the tribunal um two preliminary rounds followed by quarters semis and finals and out of those five the two preliminary rounds and the quarterfinals specifically were very challenging um so with regards to our second in in our first preliminary round pav would share her side of the experience but for me um due to a feedback by one of my professors I kind of changed my structure at the very last moment so I was not very compatiable with that and that got stuck out as a sore thumb to the judge because then the judge said that my structure was a bit problematic the second preliminary rounds was very painful as a speaker the judge picked on me and they essentially tried to test my composure and my tenacity as to whether or not I would give in and concede with my argument to the judge even if the judge is explic saying that that we are not convinced with the arguments or I stay and provide alternative views to explain them um which is one major learning that I took away that even if um even if the judge is not getting convinced with you arguments you do not have to really concede your arguments but maybe be ready with an alternative view to explain it to them and the quarterfinal rounds were the most challenging uh I remember we faced nma and inlu nma and they were a very solid team and uh at the end of the day it came down to Bare margin and a round actually spanned out till two and a half hours so that was a very interesting round maybe B would add on to that I think I was just recounting that moment only our quarterfinal went on for somewhere around two and a half or probably 3 hours and that is something which usually does not happen that is only happening when the judges are really wanting to listen to what you're trying to say and they and they're giving you opportunities to you know tell what exactly you're wanting to explain it to them so what happened was that since they follow an a respondent claim and claim and respondent procedure in speaking so I was the last speaker in that round and I was super shaky with regards to my arguments because the bench was I don't know if I if I could convince them plus they were already sitting there for the last two and a half hours and it was thrilling if to say the least but still I remember going there and abhas used to send me chits and the only memorable experiences that both my teammates used to send me chits saying oh you're doing very good oh just do this oh just do that normally people are giving suggestions my teammates just used to positive reinforce me and that is one experience and one memory able moment that I don't think I can ever forget from this mood Beyond legal arguments uh what non-traditional skills or approaches do you believe were crucial to your success in this competition I think when it comes to something which is non-traditional or you know perhaps something which is simply to say beyond the legal acument I think it's about understanding the proposition as a logical person now what happens Happ s is that people personally believe that when it's a mood competition they need to dwell into the legal aspects and the legal knowledge of the entire proposition to the very core but sometimes what the judge is actually wanting from you in the particular moot round is to give a very logical answer to just provide a small example about it in my final round self I was very you know strongly arguing about my cisg article 3 blah blah blah and the judge simply asked me a question that okay if you're saying this then is this happening and they merely want me to say a yes or no answer now if I know my law well and if I know the proposition well then as a logical man and in a logical perspective I can answer them and that will satisfy them which a lot of times and in a lot of mood Cote competitions personally as well in my previous competitions I was not clear with so I think that you know reasonable man's perspective that we say in our legal terminology that logical perspective is something which goes beyond all the legal reasoning that can come with so I think that is something everybody should take with them in any mood code competition to add on to that um when it came to my issue I was being I basically tackled the procedural part I tackled zoya's issue and the issue on artificial intelligence when I was arguing so the most effective and the most impactful answers the most convincing answers were the one that were not law based were the one that were majorly focusing on the factual Matrix majorly focusing on the commercial aspect of how our clients uh and the parties that we are representing are commercially affected by the factual Matrix and by the laws at hand so when when we are trying to approach a mood courot we should not approach a mood quote as to the basis uh of a numerical competition as to how many citations do we have or how many authorities do we have as AOS to the other side at the end of the day it boils down to the application of those authorities with regards to the factual Matrix and the factual Matrix uh and commercial and logical aspects take the Forum um further I realized one aspect that no side is weak and no question is impossible to crack essentially each and every law question or each and every moood question would have its own way to be approached some might have readily available precedents which you can analyze or distinguish in some manners you may have to create your own logic and you may have to create your own arguments from scratch um so regardless we shouldn't get bogged down by the same because with the very rapidly evolving food of Technology law and finance um I feel like there would be many more such mood questions which I hope that I would get an opportunity to tackle which might not have such precedence and further I wouldn't get bed down by the same uh talking about an all legal scale I think you have to be a tolerant person you are working with your teammates for maybe six months and all of of us are different all of us had different work style then so be a tolerant person tolerate everyone and let it like work have a good team spirit okay so in one line what advice would each one of you give to law students who were aspiring to participate in such competition I think that's a very tough question because suggestions and recommendations are something that I personally struggle with a lot but um you can tell one okay one learning in one line you have to tell it if it's not an advice you can tell the learning that you took back home I mean I'm not in a very good position to dictate what suggestions one should follow but I just feel that regardless of whether you're doing a moot and ADR competition or anything in law school the one learning that I derived from this mood H competition was that to to stay firm to stay tenacious and to stay persistent if we give up and we concede that's the end of our argument that's the end of our case however if we stay calm if we stay composed and if we try to think um well on the spot the courts or the tribunal or the judges would be assistive enough to allow you and accommodate you for some space to think for some time to think and to come up with creative arguments never shut down creativity never be stuck to a particular transcript or a particular way of arguing that you want to pursue always be flexible and always be curious I think I would say that first of all keep reading because you know that's a very mood Centric possibly suggestion but it's in general for law school and even before law school so keep reading first of all and you know keep getting to know law as well as you can and secondly be confident so a lot of times you know when I was standing on the podium I possibly did not answer it the question which I thought I should in a way that I should so I don't think people should you know get frightened or they should you know scare themselves away from answering the question in a way that they want to so these two suggestions would be something which you know come from my experience so just say it and be confident when you're there on stage I would say communication so what I like what I believe is our team had a good communication game and so whenever you're doing a not speak up you have you are having any doubt speak up ask your doubts bestor your coaches that will help you gain Clarity that's that's it that is the most important part I think all right team thank you very much for being here your insights are incredibly valuable and I'm certain that our audience will benefit greatly from the wisdom that you have shared thank you once again for your time expertise and generosity in sharing your knowledge I on behalf of ilcc wish you all the very best your journey ahead thank you [Music]