Jessup 2026 World Championship Round

Good afternoon.

>> [applause]

[applause]

>> It's the same guy every time.

Welcome to the White & Case Jessup Cup

World Championship match.

>> [applause]

>> A very special hello to several

ambassadors who've joined us this

afternoon at the invitation of their

Jessup teams. You honor us with your

presence and I couldn't imagine a

friendlier environment for you to come

to for international diplomacy and

international law. So, you are welcome.

>> [applause]

>> And to our remote teams and our friends

watching around the world, you've

already heard me talking about going

live, so you you know we're live. I

didn't know it was a hot mic.

They said I was a hot mic.

>> [applause]

>> We have a fantastic championship round

ahead of us with at you now know the

identities three amazing judges and if I

can say two amazing teams.

Representing the applicant Representing

the applicant today is the National

University of Singapore.

>> [applause]

>> And representing the respondent from the

Philippines, we have Ateneo de Manila

University.

>> [cheering]

[applause]

[applause]

>> So, in a moment the bailiff will call

all rise and the judges will come into

the room. Before we do that, I want to

ask everyone to turn off or set to

silent mode any mobile phones, smart

devices, beepers, holographic support

animals, or anything else that might

distract the round.

Shut them down.

Judges, would someone please add me to

the WhatsApp group?

Good luck to both teams.

Have a great match.

>> [applause]

[applause]

>> All rise.

The International Court of Justice is

now in session. President Anaya and

honorable judges Muñoz and Akande

presiding.

The case before the court is the case

concerning the Gordian Gorge. The

parties are applicant, the Dominion of

Alacostia, and versus respondent, the

Republic of Rostovia.

The applicant and respondent are each

allocated 45 minutes to present their

pleadings.

Please be seated.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Counsel,

looking forward to

your presentations. We read your

memorials with great interest.

So, um

applicant, please proceed.

Please proceed.

Mr. President, your excellencies, may it

please the court.

My name is Phoebe Chan and together with

my co-agent, Miss Tan Kai Han, and our

off counsel, Miss Lee Don Jean,

we act on behalf of the applicant, the

Dominion of Alacostia.

For the first 22 minutes, I will address

this court on the first two issues

pertaining to Selenia's intervention and

the consultation of the Piliman people.

For the next 22 minutes, my co-agent

will be addressing you on the issues

concerning Miss Liss Scott's

extradition, as well as the issue of

state immunity. And we respectfully

reserve 1 minute for rebuttals.

To that end, we advance two main

submissions.

First, that Selenia should be permitted

to intervene in these proceedings as a

non-party pursuant to Article 62 of this

court's statute.

And second, that Rostovia has breached

its obligations under both treaty and

customary international law relating to

the consultation of the Piliman people

for the development of the Gordian

Gorge. I turn to address your

excellencies on the first issue on

intervention.

We note that under Article 62, a third

state can intervene as a non-party if it

fulfills three conditions. Namely, that

it has a legal interest. Secondly, this

interest may be affected by the

proceedings. And lastly, that its object

of intervention is proper.

We note that this court most recently

confirmed these conditions in its 2026

judgment in the Sapodilla Cays

concerning Belize and Honduras with

Guatemala intervening.

In this particular case, Selenia, in

Alacostia's view, has two distinct legal

interests.

One, in customary international law as a

result of its citizens' rights to the

gorge.

And second, in the Selenia-Rostovia

Plateau agreement, which I will address

in time.

Firstly, on the customary international

law interest,

our position is that Selenia has a clear

interest in this court's determination

of the customary obligation on free,

prior, and informed consent of the

Piliman people.

Your excellencies, we note that the

respondent relies on the 1990 Gulf of

Fonseca decision between El Salvador and

Honduras, wherein this court stated that

a general interest in the rules and

principles of international law is

insufficient for the purposes of Article

62.

But our argument in this case stretches

beyond that. And that is because this

court is specifically determining

whether or not this obligation has been

breached by Rostovia to the Piliman

people.

And we also note that this stems from

the very recognition that indigenous

peoples, as a collective, have the right

to their traditional lands, here being

the Piliman people.

And therefore, our position Are the Are

the Piliman people in Selenia

clearly indigenous?

And they're the majority in that

country, is that correct? Your

excellency, we note that they are a

majority in the country, but that does

not preclude them from being indigenous.

What it means to be indigenous would be

having a certain spiritual and

connection to this land that they now

refer to as the Tonga Plateau. And for

40,000 years, the Piliman people across

all three states have in fact venerated

the Tonga Plateau and maintained their

cultural connection to this land. And

for that reason, we would consider

Selenia's citizens to also be

indigenous.

>> Well, that would mean a lot of people in

Europe would be indigenous, right? Who

have long-standing connections with

their

their countries. Is that right?

Well, your excellency, not quite. Our

Our understanding of indigenous peoples

would refer to the first nations of this

land, and this being the indigenous

people of Pilimo in this present case.

And in the example of Europe, that would

potentially be the Sami people that we

note span across

>> the Scots or the Irish?

Well, your excellency, we certainly

understand that those could also be

understood as indigenous, and we would

certainly be happy for your excellencies

to acknowledge them as such. And in this

>> Counsel, following on that, would you

characterize the Pilimos as a

transnational indigenous people? And

what concrete legal consequences would

follow from that, if so?

Your excellency, would you be referring

to the recognition that the Piliman

people here are indigenous?

No, I would like to know if, according

to your understanding, the Pilimos is a