IRAC

One of the first research tools taught upon entering law school is the concept of IRAC. IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion, and is a method of parsing out the main points of legal cases. While there are a number of different variations on the classic IRAC structure, the main thrust of the process is the same. IRAC is a method of vetting cases to ensure that you understand the main point being made by the court, can identify the rule being used, and can explain how and why that rule is being applied to the given facts of the case.

In my undergraduate classes, I use a modified IRAC not only to show students how to brief cases (whether international law cases or cases in a public law class), but also to teach them how to write their position and research papers. The modification is that IRAC changes to ITAC when we are talking about writing a paper, with the “rule” component becoming the thesis component (thus: issue, thesis, analysis, conclusion). Doing it this way seems to result in greater student comprehension as to what I mean when I say I want them to identify an interesting and timely research question, provide a thesis which shows the position they are taking on the issue (essentially their answer to the question), and then back this up with analysis and supporting evidence. Putting these expectations in legal terms, and having them perform the IRAC exercise with a number of cases and articles, seems to clarify for students what is necessary in terms of writing either a legal brief-style paper or a more traditional research paper.

I have found that using the IRAC/ITAC method has been helpful, not only because it improves the quality of student writing, but also because I am able to easily incorporate it into the overall class structure and into regularly scheduled class activities, so that additional time does not need to be spent discussing what makes a good paper. During the first few weeks of class, as we discuss different topics in international law, having the students work in groups to IRAC an important international legal case or ITAC an important article on international law incorporates learning how to write good papers into the overall structure of the class. Examples may be found in Appendices I and II.

Court Cases

I have also found the use of court cases to be an extremely well-received, and useful, tool for instructing students. Naturally, this works better in a course such as international law, where court cases are part of the process, or public law, where the U.S. Supreme Court is often discussed. But court cases can be used in any number of political science and international relations subjects. For example, teaching courses on Congress or the Presidency, one could use cases such as Marbury v. Madison or United States v. Nixon, in which the Supreme Court discusses the separation of powers or executive authority. In a class on U.S. foreign policy, cases like United States v. Curtiss-Wright, or Korematsu v. United States provide added emphasis to discussions on who makes U.S. foreign policy. A whole host of cases could be used to emphasize particular points in more subject-specific classes on topics such as migration, the environment, or national security. For example, New York Times Co. v. United States and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld provide illuminating examples of the balancing between national interest and constitutional protections such as free speech and due process. Discussing these cases in light of contemporary events creates an interesting discussion on the balance between national security and personal liberties, and who should get to decide which is more important.

Court cases are also an effective teaching tool because students seem to feel as though they are really engaging in the process of learning as opposed to just reading text. They see how different issues are dealt with in real scenarios, and the undertaking clearly illustrates the numerous perspectives which can validly be argued on many different issues. The court cases also challenge the students. While, due to their length, I often do not have the students read entire decisions, I also do not cut cases down to brief one- to two-page synopses, something many textbooks do. I think the students benefit more from the effort of trying to parse out the issues and analysis of a case (to IRAC it), and once they have done so, have come much closer to understanding the material.

Fact Patterns

Fact patterns, or simulations, are excellent tools for the interactive classroom. Having students work in groups to sort out the issues in a particular scenario, as with reading the cases, relates the subject matter to them in a way that simply reading a text is not able to do. I create fact patterns based on real-life scenarios for most of the issue areas we cover in international law, and have students work through them in groups, identifying the issues, deciding what international laws may apply, and pinpointing what difficulties there might be in addressing the situation. My students enjoy working through how these issues might come up in the real world, and have rank-ordered the fact pattern exercises second only to the moot court exercise in favorability. An example of one of these fact patterns can be found in Appendix III.

This fact pattern, based loosely on events which occurred in the Ogoniland region of Nigeria, addresses the question of to whom international law applies. In addition to laying the groundwork for a discussion about the more traditional reach of international law applying only to states, this problem also provides students with the opportunity to delve into a number of more current issues in international law, such as the issue of state responsibility, the rights of indigenous people, and the rights and responsibilities of multinational corporations. The limited reach of international law on multinational corporations always provides a good basis for discussion, as students are somewhat astonished that there is not more that can be done under international law to punish companies for human rights and environmental violations, such as those highlighted in the fact pattern in Appendix III.

Moot Court

The final, and most effective, law school tool that I use with my undergraduate international law class is a moot court. I conduct moot court instead of mock trial because I have found that with mock trial students often get so wrapped up in the procedure of the trial (calling witnesses, cross-examination, etc.) that they don't focus as much on the underlying issues and reasoning. Therefore, I have my students participate in a moot court, arguing as if they were before the ICJ. Moot court's structure—like appellate advocacy—includes only three groups: appellant's counsel, respondent's counsel, and judges. This simplifies the mechanics of the exercise for the students, as well as the process for the professor: there are only two basic groups to assign students to (lawyers and judges), two sets of responsibilities to identify, and two grading schemes to develop.

In setting up the moot court, I always select a topic that is timely, but not one that is currently (or has recently been) in front of the ICJ. I do so in order to reduce both the students' temptation to borrow their arguments from those that have already been made by others and the ease with which they conduct their research. Selecting a case which has already been decided may provide the students with a ready supply of research, given the availability of legal resources and court documents (including parties' pleadings) online. That said, I do select a problem which has been in the news and which has at least some issue that has been mentioned as a potential controversy for a court case. This ensures that the students will find ample information, even if they have to search for it. I also try to construct the problem in such a way that neither side has all the “easy” arguments. I usually divide the problem into four issues, with each side tasked with making two stronger and two weaker arguments. In many respects, this structure mimics that used by the Jessup International Moot Court Competition, an international competition in which many U.S. law schools compete alongside teams from around the globe. In fact, I often show my undergraduates a video of the final round of the Jessup Competition as frequently the teams in the final round are foreign law students; in many countries these finalists are actually undergraduate students, as law is an undergraduate rather than a graduate degree abroad. Seeing the level of accomplishment in these fellow undergraduates is a rather shocking moment for students, and seems to (I hope) motivate them to work harder on their own arguments.

Once I have drafted the problem (see Appendix IV for the most recent problem I used), I have the students sign-up for a role. I prefer not to assign roles to students, but rather let them choose which position and issue area they want to work on. Prior to their signing up, I tell them to think about a couple of different positions they would like, and most students seem to get their first or second choice (in a class of around 30 students).

In terms of preparation for the moot court, I have the students meet once a week as a group in class. This is their opportunity to ask questions of me and of each other and work on their arguments (I expect, of course, that they are also meeting outside of class). We also use these sessions to discuss sources of international law, jurisdictional issues, and past cases that may touch on issues that the students are addressing. Once again, I encourage them to think in IRAC terms when crafting their legal arguments (and when preparing their oral statements), focusing on the fact that it cannot simply be a descriptive statement of a preferred position, but rather should be a well thought-out legal analysis that addresses the issues at hand. I also believe a session with the university librarians and/or law librarians (if your school has a law library) is beneficial. The students learn what international legal resources are available and how to find them. Most libraries are happy to offer such research sessions. I also try to put a number of general international legal treatises and some basic texts on the main issues of the court cases on reserve so that students have easy access to materials to get them started. Some of these include Public International Law in a Nutshell (Buergenthal and Murphy Reference Buergenthal and Murphy2007), An Introduction to International Law (Janis Reference Janis2003), Principles of Public International Law (Brownlie Reference Brownlie2003), and International Law (Shaw Reference Shaw2003). Each is written in a fairly straight-forward manner without a great deal of legal jargon, making them accessible to undergraduates.

Throughout the process, it is important to have the students turn in written work. I do not grade each of the submissions, but I do want to see the direction students are going in order to guide them back on track if they are straying from the main crux of their particular issue. The most frequent problem is when students start to outline their arguments based on opinion rather than on fact. Since contemporary issues have a lot of commentary available about them, students are often drawn to these opinions in support of their positions. One of the keys is to get them to rely on legal evidence rather than on opinion. As we work through the sources of international law during class sessions, I try to focus my examples on sources that will help the students build their moot court arguments. I also provide them with copies of legal briefs from prior years to give them an idea of how to structure their arguments. One other exercise I have found to be extremely valuable is to have the teams for both the applicant and respondent who are arguing the same issue exchange and comment on outlines. Nothing hones one's own position more than seeing the arguments that are going to be made by opposing counsel.

In terms of graded assignments, I have students turn in an outline approximately six weeks before the moot court is to be held. The outline must be substantive, with each point of the team's argument listed and key sources of supporting evidence identified. Again, this not only ensures that the students are working, it also allows me to provide feedback at a relatively early stage in the process. As international law is usually such a new, and in many cases difficult, subject matter for students, feedback is very important. The second major graded component is their legal brief (or “memorial” in ICJ parlance), which is submitted one week prior to the oral arguments. The memorial must meet the general requirements laid out in the rules of the ICJ, and include a statement of relevant facts, the questions presented, a statement of jurisdiction, a table of contents, a table of evidence, the pleadings, and the prayer for relief. I suggest a page limit of 45 pages per team, with each issue area being no more than 8–10 pages. Grading the memorials as a group effort requires not only that students work together as teams on their specific issue areas, but also that all the teams for the two sides work together to put the memorial together. This is a component that works best in smaller classes (when each side has no more than eight students, two per issue area). I also have the students evaluate the other members of their groups (see Appendix V for a sample evaluation sheet). This helps create a cohesive working environment by making the students aware that working together as a group is an integral component of their grade. To be sure, this strategy is not always successful, and inevitably difficult group dynamics arise for at least one of the groups in the class, but the opportunity to have their grievances expressed anonymously seems to preclude many potential problems.

The requirements are slightly different for those students acting as judges. The actual moot court is scheduled for the end of the semester. I usually structure it so that the first two issues are presented the first day (both appellant and respondent); the second two issues are presented the next day (both appellant and respondent); and the third day consists of the judges announcing their decision and class-wide general discussion. During the preparatory period, while the lawyers are building their cases, the judges are responsible for researching the issues to which they are assigned and formulating potential questions to ask the oral advocates. Every couple of weeks, I have the judges turn in their lists of questions to ensure that they are targeting the main issues and are not developing inappropriate questions. Judges also receive a copy of the lawyers' written briefs the week before the oral presentations.

After the oral arguments, the judges are responsible for rendering a decision, which is presented orally to the class on the final day of moot court and prepared as a written decision. In the written decision, the judges are responsible for drawing on both the oral arguments and written briefs of the lawyers and their own independent research to support their decisions. There is a disparity between when the lawyers turn in their papers (the week before moot court) and when the judges turn in their written decisions (a week or two after oral argument, depending on when grades are due). While this disparity has the potential to create discord among students, in my experience, no one feels as though they have a greater burden or disadvantage than someone else if the guidelines and policies are clearly explained (in writing) prior to the students' selection of their position. Inevitably, it seems that some students just really want to be judges, and some students just really want to be lawyers.

For the oral portion of the moot court, it is important to provide the students with as much information about oral presentation as possible, including the need to have a clear introduction, the preference not to have students read off prepared statements, and the absolute necessity of practicing their presentations before the big day (because speeches always go longer than drawn up when they are done for real). Oral argument time limits are strictly enforced, so students must be prepared. I often will show them videos from the Jessup Competition so they can see how the flow of oral argument proceeds. Once the oral arguments begin, I do not participate in the proceedings except to hold up the time cards—the students run the show. Each team gets 20 minutes to present their arguments and five minutes for rebuttal or surrebuttal. As with all appellate arguments, the judges may ask questions at any time. Lawyers are graded on both their substantive argument and their ability to answer the judges' questions (one of the more difficult tasks for students). Judges are graded on the substantive nature of their questions, as well as their ability to follow up one question with another, particularly if their first question was not answered satisfactorily.

On the final day of moot court, the judges announce their decision on each issue area and explain why they decided the way they did. Judges' decisions, like the lawyers' arguments, must be based on legal evidence and analysis, not opinion. We then have a general class discussion about the exercise. Overwhelmingly, students seem to enjoy the exercise, and comments on evaluations consistently state that students felt like they learned so much more about international law by engaging in the moot court exercise. Of the 28 students who filled out evaluations in my summer 2007 class, for example, 26 had extremely positive comments concerning the moot court exercise (the other two were not completely negative, but were not as enthusiastic).