Part I
About the Henry Dunant Memorial Moot
History, organisers, global significance, and what makes this competition the most morally serious advocacy training available to law students.

1.1History and Origins

The Henry Dunant Memorial Moot Court Competition takes its name from Jean-Henri Dunant β€” the Swiss humanitarian activist who founded the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 and inspired the adoption of the first Geneva Convention in 1864. His first-hand witnessing of the carnage at the Battle of Solferino, and his subsequent memoir A Memory of Solferino (1862), gave birth to the modern framework of international humanitarian law. The competition honours this tradition by training the next generation of lawyers in the precise, technically demanding, and morally weighty body of law that Dunant’s work set in motion.

The competition is organised through law schools partnered with ICRC regional delegations and national Red Cross/Red Crescent societies. Its problems are grounded in contemporary armed conflict scenarios β€” drawing on composite facts from Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and sub-Saharan Africa β€” and test participants on the most contested areas of modern IHL: autonomous weapons systems, cyber operations in conflict, starvation as a method of warfare, and the legal status of complex non-state armed groups.

1.2What Makes This Moot Uniquely Demanding

βš”οΈ
Real Conflict Scenarios
Problems model actual contemporary armed conflicts β€” requiring application of IHL to genuinely contested factual situations, not clean academic hypotheticals.
πŸ”΄
ICRC Practitioner Judges
Many editions involve ICRC field lawyers as judges β€” providing feedback from those who apply IHL in operations daily, not merely in classrooms.
βš–οΈ
Treaty + Custom Simultaneously
Arguments must navigate treaty IHL and the ICRC Customary IHL Study together β€” mastering both simultaneously is the core analytical challenge.
πŸ€–
Emerging Technology Issues
Recent problems feature drone warfare, autonomous weapons, and cyber operations β€” areas where IHL is still evolving through contested state practice.
🌐
NIAC Complexity
Non-international armed conflicts dominate modern warfare. NIAC problems are inherently harder β€” less treaty text, more customary law, more contested rules.
🎯
Classification First
Conflict classification is not a formality β€” it determines every applicable rule. Getting it wrong invalidates all subsequent argument regardless of its quality.

1.3Why Compete in the Henry Dunant Moot

  • Develop deep IHL expertise increasingly demanded at the ICC, ICRC, UN agencies, and leading international human rights organisations
  • Engage directly with ICRC practitioners and IHL academics who serve as both judges and mentors throughout the competition season
  • Build the analytical toolkit for the IAC/NIAC/IHRL interface β€” the most complex doctrinal intersection in contemporary international law
  • Distinguish your profile powerfully for LLM applications focused on conflict, humanitarian, and human rights law
  • Develop the moral-legal reasoning that characterises elite international law advocates at the highest levels
πŸ›
Key Point
The Henry Dunant Moot is the only major international moot competition where judges routinely include ICRC field lawyers who apply these exact rules in active conflict zones. The feedback quality is unparalleled β€” and recruiters for humanitarian law roles notice this competition on a CV.

Part II
Competition Structure
Format, team composition, evaluation criteria, and the unique procedural architecture of IHL oral rounds.

2.1Format Overview

ElementDetails
Team Size2–4 members; typically 2 oral advocates + 1–2 researchers
Written SubmissionsMemorials for both sides β€” Applicant and Respondent (or Prosecution/Defence in some editions)
Oral RoundsPreliminary rounds (both sides), Quarterfinals, Semifinals, Final
Speaking Time20–30 minutes per side; bench interventions throughout; rebuttal 3–5 minutes
LanguageEnglish primary; French in select editions; bilingual competence is a distinct advantage
Judging PanelIHL academics, ICRC field lawyers, NGO practitioners, military legal advisers
Scoring WeightsMemorials 30–40%, Oral rounds 60–70%; conflict classification analysis weighted heavily throughout

2.2The Compromis β€” IHL-Specific Architecture

The Henry Dunant compromis presents a dense factual narrative from a composite armed conflict scenario. Unlike a Jessup problem, which may raise questions across multiple PIL fields, the Henry Dunant problem is exclusively IHL-focused. Facts are carefully selected to raise: (a) conflict classification (IAC, NIAC, or mixed), (b) specific targeting decisions and the principle of distinction, (c) treatment of persons in the power of a party, (d) weaponry use and proportionality analysis, and (e) humanitarian access obligations and alleged violations.

Reading the compromis three times before forming any argument is essential. The first read is for factual orientation. The second is for conflict classification indicators. The third is for extraction of specific IHL violations and counterarguments available to the opposing side. Every fact in the compromis has been placed there to raise a legal question β€” nothing is accidental.

πŸ’‘
Mentor Tip
The single most important analytical decision in every Henry Dunant problem is conflict classification. Every subsequent IHL rule depends on whether the conflict is an IAC, NIAC, or mixed-character conflict. Spend disproportionate preparation time on this threshold question β€” more than on any individual substantive IHL issue. Teams that lock down classification persuasively find all other arguments fall into place; teams that get classification wrong find every argument contested at the root.

Part IV
Research Strategy Masterclass
The exact IHL research hierarchy and methodology used by consistently high-performing Henry Dunant teams.

4.1The IHL Research Hierarchy

  1. Treaty Text: Geneva Conventions I–IV + Additional Protocols I–III β€” full text, official Commentary, and travaux prΓ©paratoires for contested provisions
  2. ICRC Updated Commentaries: GC I (2016), GC II (2017), GC III (2020) β€” treat as the most authoritative contemporary interpretation; cite specific paragraph numbers, not just article numbers
  3. ICRC Customary IHL Study (2005): 161 rules with state practice analysis β€” primary authority for NIAC scenarios; always check whether a given rule applies to NIAC specifically
  4. ICTY / ICTR / ICC Jurisprudence: Appeals Chamber judgments carry highest judicial weight; Trial Chamber decisions for detailed doctrinal reasoning; full text, not summaries
  5. ICJ Advisory Opinions: Nuclear Weapons (1996), Wall (2004) β€” key for IHRL-IHL interaction and extraterritorial obligation arguments
  6. ICRC Interpretive Guidance Documents: DPH Guidance (2009), AWS position papers, humanitarian access guidelines β€” highest-quality expert secondary authority
  7. UN Commission of Inquiry Reports: Syria, Yemen, Gaza β€” current state practice documentation and accountability analysis from expert UN bodies
πŸ”
Research Protocol
For each IHL issue identified in the compromis, complete a five-source check: (1) What does the treaty text provide? (2) What does the ICRC Commentary say, and does it acknowledge interpretive uncertainty? (3) Does the Customary IHL Study identify a parallel rule specifically applicable to the conflict type classified? (4) Has ICTY, ICTR, or ICC applied this rule to a factually analogous scenario? (5) Has ICRC published interpretive guidance specifically on this scenario? Complete all five checks before drafting any argument paragraph.

4.2Essential Research Databases

πŸ”΄
ICRC IHL Database
ihl-databases.icrc.org β€” Full treaty texts, state ratifications, national implementing legislation, and complete Customary IHL Study with state practice analysis. The single most essential IHL research tool.
βš–οΈ
ICC Legal Tools
icc-cpi.int/legal-tools β€” All ICC judgments, indictments, filings, and the Elements of Crimes document. Essential for Rome Statute crime elements and modes of liability arguments.
πŸ›
ICTY / ICTR Archives
icty.org and ictrcaselaw.org β€” Full ICTY judgment database. ICTY produced the most sophisticated IHL jurisprudence on NIAC, targeting law, and command responsibility.
πŸ“–
Int’l Review of the Red Cross
Cambridge Journals / ICRC β€” The premier IHL academic journal. Every significant IHL controversy is analysed here. Read 12 months of back issues as foundational preparation.
🌐
Geneva Academy RULAC
rulac.org β€” Real-time conflict classification database covering all ongoing armed conflicts. Essential for factual credibility in conflict classification arguments.
πŸ“°
Just Security & ICRC Blog
justsecurity.org and blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy β€” Current expert IHL commentary on contested issues. Essential for AWS, cyber operations, and contemporary conflict analysis.

Part V
Memorial Writing Masterclass
IHL-specific drafting strategy β€” precision over eloquence, rule-to-fact application at every level, and the writing tone demanded by practitioners.

5.1The Unique Character of IHL Memorial Writing

IHL memorials differ fundamentally from PIL memorials and commercial law submissions. The advocacy is less diplomatic and more surgical β€” IHL does not operate through policy preferences or balancing of interests in the way general international law sometimes does. It operates through specific rules applied to specific factual scenarios in specific conflict contexts. Every paragraph of an excellent IHL memorial answers one question: β€œDoes this specific conduct, in this specific context, violate this specific IHL rule?”

The cardinal error in IHL memorial writing is over-generalisation. Stating that β€œthe attack violated the principle of distinction” is not an argument β€” it is an unsupported conclusion. The argument is: β€œThe attack violated Rule 1 of the ICRC Customary IHL Study and Article 48 AP I because the target β€” the Al-Rashid communications relay station β€” was not a military objective under Article 52(2) AP I, as the Respondent State has produced no evidence that it made an effective contribution to military action or that its destruction offered a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time of the attack.”

5.2Memorial Architecture β€” IHL Submissions

  1. Jurisdictional Statement: Establish the IHL framework β€” classify the conflict type with supporting factual indicators and legal criteria; identify which treaties and customary rules apply; address any threshold arguments on the beginning and end of hostilities
  2. Statement of Facts: Reconstruct facts chronologically with legal significance noted for key events; clearly distinguish accepted facts from disputed facts; frame the narrative to establish conditions required for each alleged IHL violation
  3. Conflict Classification Argument (Must Come First): IAC vs. NIAC vs. mixed conflict determination; cite the Tadić threshold criteria with specific factual indicators from the compromis; articulate precisely which legal framework flows from the classification
  4. Individual Issue Arguments: For each violation alleged β€” Identify the specific Rule (article number and customary rule number) β†’ Establish applicability in the classified conflict type β†’ Apply to specific compromis facts β†’ State the legal consequence (grave breach / ordinary violation / individual criminal responsibility)
  5. Remedies: Distinguish clearly between state responsibility for IHL violations (cessation, reparation, guarantees of non-repetition) and individual criminal responsibility; specify the legal basis for each remedy claimed
Sample IHL Argument β€” Complete IREAC Structure
Henry Dunant Memorial
III.B. THE ATTACK ON THE AL-RASHID WATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTITUTED
AN UNLAWFUL ACT UNDER ARTICLE 54(2) AP I AND RULE 54 CIHL

// I β€” Issue: State the precise legal question
Whether the Respondent State’s aerial strike on the Al-Rashid water treatment
facility on 14 March violated the prohibition on attacking objects indispensable
to the survival of the civilian population.

// R β€” Rule: Specific article + customary rule
Article 54(2) AP I prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering
useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,
including waterworks and irrigation works, for the purpose of denying their
sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party.
This prohibition is also established as customary IHL Rule 54 applicable in
both IAC and NIAC (ICRC CIHL Study, pp. 189–196).

// E β€” Explanation: ICRC Commentary + case support
The updated ICRC Commentary on GC IV confirms that β€œindispensable” objects
are those whose destruction would cause the civilian population to go without
food or water to such an extent that its health or survival is threatened
(ICRC GC IV Commentary, para. 3568). The prohibition applies regardless of
whether civilians in the area remain following the attack.

// A β€” Application: Specific compromis facts
The Al-Rashid facility supplied potable water to 340,000 civilians in the
Northern Governorate β€” confirmed in the Respondent’s own post-strike assessment
(Compromis Annex 14, para. 7). The strike commander’s radio communication
records state the objective was to β€œeliminate civilian supply infrastructure
to force population movement” (Compromis Annex 16, transcript at 14:37).
This is precisely the prohibited purpose under Article 54(2).

// Counter-argument pre-emption
The Respondent cannot invoke the Article 54(3) military advantage exception:
no armed forces operated from, stored equipment at, or directed operations
through this facility in the 72-hour window preceding the strike
(Compromis Annex 15, intelligence assessment, para. 4).

// C β€” Conclusion
The Respondent State therefore violated Article 54(2) AP I and Rule 54 CIHL,
and this violation constitutes a grave breach under Article 85(3)(f) AP I.

⚠️
Critical Warning
The most common Henry Dunant memorial error is applying AP I treaty provisions to a NIAC scenario. AP I governs IACs only. For NIACs, the applicable framework is Common Article 3, AP II (where the threshold is satisfied and the state has ratified), and the ICRC Customary IHL Study. Misapplying AP I targeting rules to a NIAC β€” even in a well-written paragraph β€” is an immediate credibility loss with experienced IHL judges. Always check conflict type before citing any treaty provision.

Part VI
Oral Advocacy Masterclass
The distinctive advocacy style demanded by IHL benches β€” precision, acknowledged complexity, and the ability to defend classification under sustained pressure.

6.1The Character of IHL Oral Advocacy

Oral advocacy before an IHL bench is unlike advocacy before any other international panel. ICRC practitioner judges are acutely sensitive to arguments that weaponise humanitarian law for tactical legal advantage rather than engaging with it in good faith. They have seen β€” often in the field β€” the consequences of bad IHL arguments. Rhetorical flourishes and soaring policy rhetoric do not impress. Precision, intellectual honesty about genuine uncertainty, and demonstrated humanitarian awareness do.

The successful Henry Dunant oral advocate demonstrates three qualities in every submission: Precision β€” exact rule identification, exact factual application, no vague invocations of β€œhumanitarian principles” without specific rule support; Calibrated certainty β€” acknowledging genuine legal ambiguity rather than overstating a clean binary position; and Humanitarian awareness β€” never losing sight of the fact that every rule exists to protect human life and dignity in conditions of extreme violence.

6.2Sample Opening Submission β€” International Standard

🎀
Sample Opening β€” Henry Dunant Oral Round
β€œMay it please the Tribunal. I appear on behalf of the Applicant State of [Name]. The facts before the Tribunal disclose a conflict that qualifies as a non-international armed conflict under Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions, applying the threshold criteria established by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in TadiΔ‡ β€” protracted armed violence between State armed forces and the organised armed group Saraya, which has the command structure and operational capacity required for legal recognition as a non-state party. The rules of customary IHL identified in the ICRC Customary IHL Study therefore govern the conduct of all parties. I will address: first, the conflict classification; second, the unlawful targeting of civilian water infrastructure under Rule 54 of the ICRC Customary IHL Study; and third, the mistreatment of detained persons violating Rule 90. My colleague will address state responsibility and remedies. We respectfully reserve four minutes for rebuttal.”

6.3Handling the Most Difficult Bench Questions

This tests the jus ad bellum / jus in bello distinction β€” foundational to the entire Geneva system. Answer precisely: β€œThe principle of equal application of IHL is a cornerstone of the Geneva framework β€” IHL applies to all parties to a conflict regardless of the legality of the initial use of force under the UN Charter. This was affirmed by the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996, para. 25) and is reflected in the Preambles to AP I and AP II. The Applicant’s submissions are confined strictly to jus in bello β€” the manner in which hostilities were conducted. No submission is made on the lawfulness of the resort to force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.”

Engage precisely with the AP I Article 51(5)(b) standard as interpreted by ICTY case law. The anticipated military advantage must be: (1) concrete β€” not merely theoretical or speculative; (2) direct β€” not remote or consequential; and (3) assessed overall β€” not limited to the immediate tactical engagement. ICTY in GaliΔ‡ (AC, 2006, para. 190) confirmed that the commander’s subjective assessment is not controlling β€” the standard is what a reasonably informed commander would have assessed at the time of the decision. If the advantage claimed is speculative, it cannot satisfy the β€œconcrete and direct” threshold, and the attack therefore violates the proportionality principle.

Yes β€” definitively. Common Article 3 expressly binds β€œeach Party to the conflict,” which includes non-state armed groups with the organisational capacity to comply. The ICRC Customary IHL Study (Introduction, p. xl) confirms that NSAGs are bound by customary IHL rules applicable in NIAC. The ICTY Appeals Chamber in TadiΔ‡ (1995, para. 128) confirmed that NSAGs with sufficient organisation and effective command structure bear IHL obligations. The content of those obligations may differ from state obligations in some procedural respects, but the fundamental prohibitions β€” torture, summary execution, targeting of civilians β€” apply with identical force to all parties.

Use the Martens Clause with care. It appears in GC I–IV Preambles and AP I Art. 1(2) β€” providing that cases not expressly covered by IHL treaties remain under the protection of principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience. The ICJ in Nuclear Weapons (1996, para. 84) confirmed it as both a conventional and customary rule of continuing relevance. However, its capacity to generate independent new prohibitions is contested β€” use it as confirmatory reinforcement of existing treaty and customary rules, not as a stand-alone basis for novel claims. The correct formulation: β€œThe Martens Clause confirms what the specific treaty and customary rules already establish β€” even absent an express treaty rule, the principle of humanity as a customary norm independently prohibits conduct of this character.”

6.4Rebuttal Strategy in IHL Rounds

Rebuttal in Henry Dunant oral rounds must be more technically precise than in almost any other moot. Rhetorical attacks on opposing counsel’s argument structure are ineffective β€” IHL judges respond to specific doctrinal corrections. The most effective rebuttal targets: (1) the opposing team’s conflict classification argument if they have classified the conflict differently; (2) any overextension of the military necessity exception or commander’s discretion; (3) any misapplication of IAC rules to a NIAC scenario or vice versa. A single precise rebuttal point addressing the strongest opposing argument is far more effective than a general summary of your own position.

Part VII
Advanced Winning Strategies
Elite-level preparation insights that consistently differentiate the highest-performing Henry Dunant teams.

7.1The Conflict Classification Supremacy Strategy

The highest-performing teams in the Henry Dunant competition share one characteristic: they make the conflict classification argument so comprehensive, precisely argued, and factually grounded that the remainder of the oral round flows naturally from an established and accepted framework. Most teams treat classification as a brief preliminary section; elite teams treat it as the centrepiece of their entire case theory. If the bench accepts your classification, your applicable legal rules follow without challenge β€” if classification is contested, every other argument becomes structurally insecure.

7.2Mastering the Updated ICRC Commentaries

The ICRC Updated Commentaries (GC I: 2016, GC II: 2017, GC III: 2020) represent years of expert IHL analysis and are now treated as the most authoritative contemporary interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Teams that can cite specific paragraph numbers of the Commentary β€” particularly where the Commentary explicitly acknowledges interpretive uncertainty or the range of state practice β€” project a level of preparation that immediately sets them apart. ICRC practitioner judges will recognise this depth of preparation the moment they hear it.

What Elite Henry Dunant Teams Do Differently
  • Read at least one full ICTY Appeals Chamber judgment (BlaΕ‘kiΔ‡ or Haradinaj recommended) and one ICC judgment (Lubanga) in complete form β€” not summaries
  • Subscribe to the ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog and read every substantive post from the preceding 12 months before competition registration
  • Use the Geneva Academy RULAC database to establish factual credibility in conflict classification β€” cite actual conflict data, not generic observations
  • Create a shared team β€œIHL Bible” β€” a single document containing the most relevant ICRC Commentary paragraphs, customary rule numbers, and key case holdings, organised by issue
  • Practice the conflict classification argument until it can be delivered flawlessly in under 90 seconds β€” with factual basis, legal criteria (TadiΔ‡ threshold), and full consequences for the applicable framework all stated
  • Anticipate and rehearse the jus ad bellum / jus in bello distinction question β€” it appears in virtually every IHL oral round in some form and must be answered without hesitation

Part VIII
Preparation Roadmap
Phased preparation timeline from IHL foundations through to elite competition readiness.

1
Month 1 β€” Foundation
IHL Doctrine Mastery
Read all four Geneva Conventions including Common Articles. Study ICRC Customary IHL Study Rules 1–60 with commentary. Read the TadiΔ‡ Jurisdiction Decision (ICTY, 1995) and the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (ICJ, 1996). Build a personal IHL technical glossary: IAC, NIAC, military objective, grave breach, DPH, proportionality, feasible precautions.

2
Month 2 β€” Problem Analysis
Issue Identification & Deep Research
Read the compromis three times. Identify conflict classification indicators, all IHL violations alleged, and any emerging technology issues. Research the five most relevant ICTY / ICC judgments. Read ICRC DPH Guidance (2009) if direct participation is raised. Draft issue trees for both sides simultaneously.

3
Month 3 β€” Memorial Drafting
Written Submissions
Draft both sides simultaneously. Use ICRC Commentary paragraph citations as primary authorities β€” never just article numbers. Request IHL academic review specifically of the conflict classification section. Conduct IREAC compliance check for every argument paragraph. Cite-check all case references against primary ICTY/ICC databases, not secondhand summaries.

4
Months 4–5 β€” Oral Preparation
Practice & Competition Readiness
Minimum five internal moots with IHL-trained judges β€” invite ICRC regional office contacts if possible. Practice the conflict classification argument until it takes under 90 seconds. Develop a bench book with 25 most likely questions per side. Practice hostile bench scenarios targeting classification and the jus ad bellum / jus in bello distinction question.

Daily IHL Preparation Checklist

Review one ICTY/ICC judgment passage (30 mins)

Study one ICRC Customary IHL Study rule + commentary

Work on memorial section β€” minimum 2 hours

Practice the conflict classification argument (timed)

Read one ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog post

Add one new authority to the team IHL Bible document

Write out model answer to one bench question

Update team research log with gaps identified today

Part IX
Recommended Resources
The complete IHL reference library for Henry Dunant competitors β€” books, databases, journals, and online tools.

9.1Essential Books

  • Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC/Cambridge, 2005) β€” The definitive reference on customary IHL; essential for all NIAC arguments
  • Marco SassΓ²li, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare (Edward Elgar, 2019) β€” Most comprehensive modern IHL treatise; exceptionally strong on NSAGs and NIAC complexity
  • Gary Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (2nd ed., Cambridge, 2016) β€” Accessible and comprehensive; excellent for building oral argument fluency
  • Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (3rd ed., Cambridge, 2016) β€” Specialist targeting law text; essential for proportionality and military objective arguments
  • Michael Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge, 2017) β€” Indispensable if the problem includes cyber operations in armed conflict
  • ICRC Updated Commentaries: GC I (2016), GC II (2017), GC III (2020) β€” Free access at ihl-databases.icrc.org; always cite paragraph numbers, not just article numbers

9.2Key Online Resources

  • ICRC IHL Database: ihl-databases.icrc.org β€” Primary source for all treaties, customary rules, national implementing measures, and ICRC Commentaries
  • Geneva Academy RULAC: rulac.org β€” Real-time conflict classification database covering all ongoing conflicts globally
  • ICC Legal Tools Database: icc-cpi.int/legal-tools β€” All ICC case materials including the Elements of Crimes document
  • ICTY Archive: icty.org β€” Full judgment database; ICTY produced the most developed IHL jurisprudence on NIAC, targeting, and command responsibility
  • ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog: blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy β€” Current IHL expert commentary from senior ICRC lawyers and academics
  • Just Security: justsecurity.org β€” IHL analysis of current conflicts; excellent for identifying state practice on contested issues

9.3Essential Journals

  • International Review of the Red Cross (Cambridge / ICRC) β€” The premier IHL journal; every significant IHL debate appears here first
  • Journal of International Criminal Justice (Oxford) β€” ICC, ICTY, ICTR jurisprudence analysis by leading scholars
  • Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (T.M.C. Asser Press) β€” Annual survey of IHL developments and state practice
  • Military Law Review (US Army JAG School) β€” Military practitioner perspective on LOAC; useful for military necessity and commander’s assessment arguments

Part X
Career Impact
Where Henry Dunant competitors go β€” and why IHL expertise opens uniquely powerful and meaningful career doors.

πŸ”΄
ICRC Careers
Legal and Protection roles at the ICRC β€” from field delegate to Geneva HQ legal adviser. IHL moot experience is explicitly valued in ICRC competitive recruitment processes.
πŸ›
International Tribunals
ICC, ICTY Mechanism, ECCC, SCSL β€” legal officer and trial team associate positions for those with demonstrated IHL expertise and competition credentials.
πŸŽ“
LLM Programmes
Geneva Academy LLM in IHL, EIUC human rights programmes, Harvard PILPG. Henry Dunant participation is the strongest possible signal of serious IHL commitment on an application.
🌐
UN Human Rights Bodies
OHCHR, Commission of Inquiry positions, Special Rapporteur offices β€” IHL/IHRL expertise is essential for conflict monitoring, documentation, and accountability work.
βš–οΈ
NGOs & Advocacy
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights β€” legal programmes requiring IHL expertise for conflict documentation and international accountability advocacy.
🏫
Academic Careers
IHL is underserved in global legal academia. A Geneva-based LLM combined with Henry Dunant achievement creates a compelling and differentiated academic research profile.

Part XI
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions from first-time and experienced Henry Dunant competitors.

No prior IHL expertise is required β€” but you must acquire deep working knowledge within months. Most participants begin with only survey-level understanding from a PIL or human rights law course. Start with Gary Solis’s Law of Armed Conflict as an accessible entry point before moving to the Geneva Conventions and ICRC Commentary. Budget 3–4 months of intensive preparation before feeling genuinely confident with the framework across all issue areas.

Conflict classification carries disproportionate weight — getting it wrong typically costs more than an inadequate analysis of a substantive IHL issue. Experienced IHL judges will identify misclassification within 60 seconds of your opening, and the bench questions that follow can structurally undermine your entire submission. Allocate at least 25% of your total preparation time specifically to the classification methodology — Tadić threshold criteria, factual indicators, and the consequences for the applicable legal framework.

ICRC practitioners assess practical application β€” will your argument work in the field? They are particularly sensitive to arguments that could be weaponised by state parties to justify unlawful conduct. They deeply appreciate explicit acknowledgement of genuine legal uncertainty β€” IHL contains many genuinely contested grey areas, and an honest acknowledgment followed by the better-reasoned position impresses experienced practitioners far more than over-confident assertions of a clean rule. Show you understand that IHL is a living framework applied in chaotic real-world conditions.

In some editions of the competition, French is the medium of oral argument β€” in which case bilingual preparation is essential. More broadly, French reading ability is an advantage in all editions because many IHL travaux prΓ©paratoires and historical ICRC documents are in French. If your problem requires travaux analysis, access to the original French text provides a genuine research and argumentation advantage over teams working from English translations alone.

Mastery of the conflict classification argument — delivered precisely in under 90 seconds. Every IHL oral round opens with bench testing on classification. If you defend it effortlessly — citing Tadić criteria, applying them to the specific factual indicators in the compromis, and articulating the exact legal framework that follows — you project the preparation and expertise that immediately separates top teams from the field. Everything else is built on this foundation.

Acknowledge the uncertainty directly and then provide the most persuasive analysis of the better-reasoned position. Say: β€œThe Tribunal correctly identifies that this point is genuinely contested β€” the ICRC Customary IHL Study acknowledges in its commentary to Rule [X] that state practice is not entirely uniform. The Applicant submits, however, that the majority and better-reasoned state practice supports the following interpretation…” This approach demonstrates deep familiarity with the sources and earns more credibility than an overconfident claim of a clear rule that the judges already know is contested.

Henry Dunant Memorial Moot β€” Guru Legal

Law in the Shadow of
War and Suffering

International humanitarian law is not an abstract academic discipline. Every rule in the Geneva Conventions was written in response to documented atrocity. When you argue an IHL case, you argue for the proposition that war has limits β€” and that those limits must be enforced regardless of military convenience. There is no more serious advocacy than this. Prepare accordingly.

Get IHL Moot Coaching β†’
More Moot Guides