National rules supplement
|
|  Yüklə 156.5 Kb.
|
| The Steering Committee
Renmin University December 9, 2015
This Qualifying Tournament shall be presided over by Renmin University, and the Steering Committee (the Committee) shall take charge of administration. The oral pleadings shall be held in Soochow University from February 17 to February 19, 2016. 1 Team Composition In the Qualifying Tournament, each Team shall be composed of two (2) to five (5) student members, who will obtain the certificates endowed by the Chinese Steering Committee. 2 Judge Panels and Eligibility of Judges In the preliminary rounds of competition, the panels will be formed with two or three judges, but the three-judge to seven-judge panels shall be utilized in the Quarterfinal Rounds, Semifinal Rounds and the Championship Round depending upon the number of the judges available. Judges will be selected according to the Official Rules of the 2016 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (Official Rules). 3 Anonymity of Participants Participants must not reveal their school to judges through direct or indirect means at any time during the competition. The Administrator may disqualify or impose a Penalty against any Team that intentionally or inadvertently discloses its school to judge, whether or not such disclosure occurs during an Oral Round. The term “participants” includes Team Members, Team Advisors, and spectators affiliated with the Team. 4 The Oral Pleading Procedure 4.1 Preliminary Rounds Each Team shall compete four times in the Preliminary Rounds of the Qualifying Tournament, twice as Applicant and twice as Respondent. The pairings for the Preliminary Rounds shall be done at an orientation meeting on the day before Qualifying Tournament. After drawing lots, Teams shall be notified immediately of the side it shall argue for and both teams shall be granted a reasonable time for preparation. Memorials shall be exchanged immediately upon the notification. In case that Team do not appear at the start of the Tournament, the Committee shall have the power to revise the pairings or authorize ex parte proceedings.
In the Quarterfinal Rounds, the pairing shall be settled in accordance with Official Rules 8.3. In the Quarterfinal Rounds, each Team argues only once as Applicant or as Respondent to determine the winning Team.
Rounds in order to determine which Teams shall advance to the Championship Round. In the Semifinal Rounds, each Team argues only once as Applicant or as Respondent to determine the winning Team. In the Semifinal Rounds, the pairing shall be settled according to Official Rules 8.4. 4.4 Championship Round In accordance with the Official Rules, five (5) Chinese teams will be selected to attend the International Round in Washington D.C. In order to upgrade national competitive competence, there will be a Championship Round between the top two Teams from the Semifinal Rounds. 4.5 Pleading Option In the Quarterfinal Rounds and Semifinal Rounds, the higher-ranking Team from the Preliminary Rounds shall have the right to choose which side it will argue. This right is called the “pleading option”. In the Championship Round, the side a team would argue for in the Championship Round shall be decided by “Tossing a Coin” according to Official Rules 8. 5 Competition Scoring 5.1 Preliminary Rounds Scoring of the Preliminary Rounds shall consist of two parts: the scoring of the written Memorials, and the scoring of the Oral Rounds. Two (2) categories of points shall be awarded to Teams in each match: Raw Score and Round Points.
(a) In each match, the Total Memorial Score for each team is the sum of three (3) Memorial judges’ scores for the side the team argued in that Oral Round. A team’s total competition Memorial Score is the sum of the twelve (12) score for its Applicant and Respondent Memorials. (b) Oral Raw Score: In each match, a Team's Total Oral Raw Score is the sum of the scores of the three (3) judges for each of its two oralists. A team’s total competition Oral Score is the sum of the twenty-four (24) score for per team, twice as applicant and twice as respondent . (c) Total Raw Scores: In the Preliminary Rounds , a team’s Total Competition Score is the sum of the team’s total competition memorial score and the team’s total competition oral score . 5.1.2 Round Points (a) Memorial Round Points: In each match, a total of three (3) Round Points will be awarded based on a comparison of the highest, middle, and lowest scores on Memorials. If four-judge panels are used to evaluate Memorials, the score furthest from the mean will be discarded and the three remaining scores will be used as the Memorial’s highest, middle, and lowest scores. The Memorials to be compared should correspond to the side that the Teams argued in that match. In other words, the scores of the Applicant Team’s Applicant Memorials should be compared against the scores of the Respondent Team’s Respondent Memorials. For each comparison, the Team with the higher score is awarded one (1) Round Point. Hence, the highest score given by a memorial judge for one Team is compared to the highest score given the other Team, and then one round point is awarded to the Team with the higher of these two scores. In a similar fashion, the two middle scores, and then the two lowest scores, are compared to determine which Team receives the second and third round points. If in any such comparison the two Teams' scores are equal, each Team is awarded one-half (0.5) Round Point. (b) Oral Round Points: In each match, a total of six (6) Round Points will be awarded based on a comparison of combined oral argument scores. For each judge, the sum of the judge’s score for Applicant Oralist 1 and Applicant Oralist 2 is compared to the sum of the judge’s scores for Respondent Oralist 1 and Respondent Oralist 2. For each judge, the Team with the highest combined oralist score is awarded two (2) Round Points. If in any such comparison, the two Teams' scores are equal, each Team is awarded one (1) Round Point.
In any given match, the Team receiving the greater of the nine (9) available Round Points wins the match. If the two Teams each receive 4.5 Round Points, the Team with the higher Total Raw Score wins the match. If the two Teams have an equal number of Round Points and an equal Total Raw Score, the match is a draw. 5.1.4 Preliminary Round Rankings (a) Teams shall be ranked by number of wins in the Preliminary Rounds, from highest to lowest. (b) If two or more Teams have the same number of wins, the Team having the higher number of draws shall be ranked higher. (c) If two or more Teams have the same number of wins and the same number of draws, the Team having the higher Total Competition Raw Score from the Preliminary Rounds shall be ranked higher. (d) If two or more Teams have the same number of wins, the same number of draws and the same Total Competition Raw Score, the Team with the higher Total Competition Round Points from the Preliminary Rounds shall be ranked higher.
If two or more Teams are tied after application of Rule 5.1.4, and the outcome of the determination does not affect (a) any Team's entry into the Advanced Rounds, or (b) the pairing of any Teams in the Advanced Rounds of the competition, the Teams shall be ranked equally. If, however, further determination is necessary (under either (a) or (b) above), the rankings shall be accomplished as follows: (a) If only two Teams are tied and if the tied Teams have faced each other in the Preliminary Rounds, the winner of that match shall be ranked higher. (b) If only two Teams are tied and the Teams have not faced each other in the Preliminary Rounds, the Administrator shall break the tie according to the following methods, starting with the first and working down only if the prior method does not break the tie: (i) tie goes to the Team with the higher total oralist and memorial score average, calculated by adding the Team’s Total Competition Oral Raw Score divided by twenty-four (24) and the Team’s Total Competition Memorial Raw Score divided by six (6); (ii) tie goes to the Team whose opponents won more matches, calculated by adding the number of wins of the Teams’ opponents and for this purpose only, counting a draw as one-half (1/2) of a win; (iii) tie goes to the Team whose opponents scored higher, calculated by adding the Total Raw Scores of the Teams’ opponents; (iv) tie goes to the Team with the higher total oralist score average calculated by dividing the Total Competition Oral Raw Score by twenty-four (24); (v) a method determined by the Administrator, taking into account the interests of the Teams and the Competition as a whole.
The decision regarding the winner of the Quarterfinal Rounds, Semifinal Rounds and the Championship Round shall be by majority vote of the judges. No ties are allowed. 5.3 Ranking of Oralists Individual oralists shall be ranked from highest to lowest average oral score. An oralist’s average oral score is the average of the scores awarded to that oralist by each judge during the Preliminary Rounds, except the single lowest score awarded to the oralist. If an oralist argued in only one (1) Preliminary Round, he or she is not eligible for ranking. The top fifteen(15) oralists are the Best Oralists. 5.4 Ranking of Memorials Total Applicant and Respondent Memorial scores for each Team shall be determined by adding the Total Raw Score of a Team's Applicant Memorial and the Total Raw Score of the Respondent Memorial respectively, for a total of three (3) judges' scores in each side. Team Memorials shall be ranked from the highest Total Memorial score to the lowest. Ties are permitted. This score shall be used to determine Best Memorial Awards, three (3) for the Best Overall Applicant Memorial and three (3) for the Best Overall Respondent Memorial. 5.5 Two (2) Judge Panels If only two (2) judges score a given Memorial or a given Oral Round, the Administrator shall create a third score by averaging the scores of the two judges. 6 Clarifications of the Competition Problem or Rules The Chinese National Rules Supplement has been promulgated by the Chinese Steering Committee with the approval of the Executive Director. This Rules Supplement is intended to facilitate the proceeding of the Chinese National Division Qualifying Tournament. The Rules Supplement completes, and wherever necessary, replaces the Official Rules. The 2016 Chinese National Division Timetable, which will be announced in February, 2016, is deemed to be an integral part of the Rules Supplement. The dates appearing in the Chinese National Division Timetable replace the dates appearing in the Official Rules. The Executive Office is the final arbiter of implementation and interpretation of the National Rules Supplement. Teams may submit written requests for clarifications of the National Qualifying Tournament Problems or these Rules. Requests for such Clarifications must be received by the Committee before February 1, 2016. Teams may submit requests for clarifications by email. The address is: jessupchina@126.com. All clarifications to legitimate requests will be summarized and posted on February 5, 2016. 7 Other Matters Unless stipulated above, the Official Rules for the 2016 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition shall apply, and the Committee and the National Administrator will jointly take charge of National Tournament. In case of unpredictable events that would happen during the course of Tournament, the Committee shall proceed at his discretion for the interests of all the Teams and the Tournament. |