- Pre-reading: General background on the area, rules and specifications to the moot (includes

previous IMS)
- Once you receive the problem – there are five stages.
- 1. Reading 2. Researching (how facts could be interpreted and what issues) 3. Structure
(Correlates to see how an argument is independent or inter related argument. Other option
is descriptive structure. 4. Drafting (subjectivity in drafting) 5. Proofreading (Visual
appearance, grammar, and punctuations, table of contents, citations)

READING THE PROBLEM

- Read with a fresh and open mind in first

- Second reading: identify the potential legal problem involved, what are reliefs sought etc etc
- Jurisdiction argument and admissibility argument then move on to substansive questions of
law.
- After identification of certain issue and then
- Make a timeline of events
- Make a statement of facts (summary of facts) – tabular form, chronological
- After a preliminary reading, first think about logical arguments. Then go on to find legal
terms.

You don’t want to go through the same sources, make a common document. Make sure everything
is very very clear regarding what relevant is and why it is relevant. Highlight it.

How do you understand the legitamcy of the source cited? ICJ Statute. Within sources of law,
whether a UK court has more value or US comes down to subjectivity. How you justifiy the its value
is of greater value.

Read the biographies of the people you cite in oral rounds to augment your argument about why the
source cited should be taken seriously.

If you find something relevant extracts in the website, highlight! Once you are trying to make a
structure, this would be helpful.

To make a strong argument – the quality and the quantity of your legal argument Is important.

If you find a case with a ratio that goes against your favour, possibly justify with the difference in
facts.

How to draft arguments in facts based on law? Once the rule is laid down, that’s when you apply the
law (“in this case”)
“Omission and conduct” – use of right words for certain connotations.

Legal arguments are the context in which the facts are argued

Table of content should be like a flowing argument on the basis of which the reader should be able
to understand 80% of the argument.

Footnotes will matter a lot for judging how good the memo is.

Arguments should be very well put in headings and sub-headings