MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W305326441

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Jessup Moot Court Competition

2009· article· en· W305326441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen M. Schwebel, Rosalyn Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society of International Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawInternational lawEconomic JusticeSociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ANNUAL DINNER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW The special dinner event began at 6:30 p.m., Friday, March 27, in commemoration of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel of the International Court of Justice (retired) and Judge Rosalyn Higgins of the International Court of Justice (retired) were the distinguished speakers. REMARKS BY STEPHEN M. SCHWEBEL * Fifty years ago, in 1959, I was a newly minted Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School--newly minted, but not bright and shiny. The brightest element of my daunting teaching load was jointly teaching the basic course in public international law with Professor Richard R. Baxter. Baxter and I had become friends in 1950 when we both studied with Professor Lauterpacht at Cambridge University. Baxter, then a captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Army, had been sent to plumb the depths of the law of war under Lauterpacht, who had recently revised the British War Manual. I found myself in Cambridge studying international law on Harvard's Knox fellowship. It was a pleasure nine years later to be teaching together with Baxter, who was as effervescent as he was acute. Moot courts were an entrenched institution of Harvard Law School teaching. One day Baxter proposed that we set up a moot court in international law. I said, Good idea, whereupon, in best military style, Baxter said that I had just volunteered to draft the problem to be put to the moot court advocates. So I prepared a problem on a topic current then and current today: Cuba's discriminatory and confiscatory expropriation of American owned property in Cuba. The court was composed of Professor Milton Katz, Professor Roger Fisher, and myself. The advocates were Tom Farer, William Zabel, Ivan Head (a Canadian), and Bernard Clark (a New Zealander). The argument went off beautifully and gave birth to the Jessup Competition. Baxter, with my agreement, so named it in honor of Professor Philip Jessup of Columbia Law School. Jessup was a magnificent man, eminent not only as a teacher and scholar but as a diplomat, having served with great success as United States Ambassador-at-Large. He was also among the company of Americans slandered by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Senator McCarthy's slanders notwithstanding, Jessup was nominated for election as a judge of the International Court of Justice in 1960 and served with great distinction. Baxter wrote a discreet note for the American Journal of International Law which bears on the nomination of Jessup for the Court. In 1960, the second Jessup Competition took place between teams from Harvard and Columbia Law Schools. Thereafter, it spread among other American law schools. By the time that I was appointed as Executive Director of the American Society of International Law in 1967, the Jessup Competition had spread widely in the United States. Its administration shifted from one law school to another each year, and suffered from instability and poverty. One of my first initiatives as Executive Director was to put the Jessup Competition on a broader, more solid base. I worked up a foundation application that provided for appointment of a Fellow of the Society whose duties would include establishing a central office for administering the Jessup Competition, and for funds to bring teams from overseas to compete with American teams. The then President of the Society, a senior partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, John Stevenson, quickly approved and almost as quickly produced a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation. The international Jessup Competition, administered by the first Fellow, Jim Nafziger, was off to the races, and it has been running at high speed ever since. As those who have taken part in it, as advocates and as judges, know, it is a superb teaching tool. It not only teaches the substance and procedures of international law and litigation, but it also demonstrates to the participants that there is more than one side to the issues of international law. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.025

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society of International LawSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207