How to Read a Moot Problem

You must go through the moot problem multiple times, however there are three specific ways in which you must engage with the moot problem. You must also keep two separate copies of Moot Problem, one for the applicant and one for the respondent.

The three reading methods

Reading Style	Purpose	Notes	Time	Do Not Do
Story read	Understand the story: who, what, where, when, why	No need to make any notes.	At the beginning, 1-2 Times	Do not highlight every sentence or start writing arguments.
Question read	Find the legal questions, the court, the claims and the relief asked	Yes: mark issues	After Story Read, multiple times	Do not assume a fact is missing just because you wish it were different.
Detective read	Find every date, number, exact word, gap and contradiction	Yes: highlight and note	After Story Read, As many times as you can	Do not treat every ambiguity as permission to invent facts.

Story Read: Read the entire problem in a single sitting as if you are reading a novel, do not stop to research, do not mark anything down, do not take any notes yet. After reading, close the file and tell the story aloud in one minute to a teammate. If you cannot, you did not understand the problem yet, thus read it again. Keep repeating this method, until you can explain the problem to another person and that person also understands what you are talking about.

Question Read: Go to the end first. Find the issues, questions presented or grounds of appeal. These are the exact legal questions the court will decide. Also find: Which court or tribunal hears the case, and why (jurisdiction); Which side you are (Applicant, Respondent, Claimant, etc.); What each side asks for (the relief or prayer);        Which law the court must apply; take notes on which facts belong to which issue; whether the questions can be answered using the facts only; can the reliefs sought by your opponent be defended against using the facts only; lastly, make notes of all your findings. It is important to note that you must go through the process twice, once for applicant and once for respondent.

Detective Read: Now read slowly with a pen, constantly look for Names and legal status: states, organizations, commanders, companies, individuals and their roles. Dates and times: Is something late, early or expired? Take notes of dates and sequence of signing, entry into force, notification, incident, arrest, attack, filing, withdrawal or judgment etc. Numbers: Percentages, quantities, distances, money. Exact words: If a treaty clause says “shall”, that is different from “may”, similarly give extra attention to words like “necessary”, “reasonable”, “directly”, “effective control”, “imminent”, “proportionate” and defined terms. Who did it: A soldier? A ministry? A private company? This matters for attribution. Missing facts: What does the story not tell you? Contradictions: Does one paragraph contradicts another? Clarifications and annexures: Moot writers hide key facts here. Read every single one. Jurisdiction and procedure: who can bring the case, against whom, under which instrument, and what the court is asked to decide. Agreed facts: facts you should normally accept rather than waste time disputing. Negative facts: the problem expressly says something did not happen, was not notified, or was not available. These may matter. It is again important to note that you must go through the process twice, once for applicants and once for respondents.

Color coding the Moot Problem

You must do this step for both applicant and respondent separately, each color will represent a different meaning, making it easier for you to point out a specific fact. An example of a color scheme you can use is:

Color	Meaning
Yellow	Fact important to both sides
Green	Fact helpful to your side
Red	Fact harmful to your side
Blue	Date, time limit or sequence
Purple	Defined term or exact legal wording
Grey	Gap, ambiguity or contradiction

An Example Read

A short fictional problem (All the examples in all of the parts uses the following scenario)

Ulka v Torsa (fictional). Ulka is upstream on the Rupa River. Torsa is downstream. In 1998 they signed the Rupa Water Treaty. Article 4 says Ulka “shall ensure a minimum flow of 40% of the river’s dry-season volume to Torsa.” Article 12 says the treaty lasts 25 years and “is renewed automatically unless either party gives written notice of termination one year before expiry.” In March 2024 Ulka finished the Ulka Dam and kept back water. Salt water entered Torsa’s southern farms and crop output fell. Ulka says it sent an email notice of termination to a Torsa ministry official in October 2022. Torsa says it never received a proper notice. Torsa asks the court to order Ulka to restore the flow and pay compensation.

What the three readings give you:

Story read:

Upstream state keeps water. Downstream state is harmed. Both rely on a treaty.

Question read:

Is the treaty still in force? Did Ulka break Article 4? Does the harm break general international law even if the treaty ended? What remedy?

Detective read:

1998 + 25 years = 2023. Notice had to be given one year before expiry. Ulka’s email was sent in October 2022. If the treaty began in early 1998, it ended in early 2023, so the email may have been late. Is an email “written notice”? Was a ministry official the right person to receive it? The facts also do not say the exact date the treaty entered into force. That is a gap.

Making your first case notes

Your first note is a one-to-three-page map of the problem. Make this note at the very beginning. Everything else you do (research, memorial, oral notes) starts from this map.

The golden formula you can utilize while taking your notes is:

FACT + SO WHAT?  +  WHICH SIDE DOES IT HELP?

Example:

“Notice sent by email, Oct 2022 (para 7)” + “Is email valid written notice? Was it in time?” + “Helps Torsa if invalid or late; helps Ulka if valid.”

The seven boxes that makes a good note

Box 1: Parties and roles. Who is who? Write each State, person, company or body, and its role.

Party	Role	Side	Notes
Republic of Ulka	Upstream State	Respondent	Built the dam
Kingdom of Torsa	Downstream State	Applicant	Farmers harmed
Ulka Water Authority	State agency	Respondent	Is its conduct attributable to Ulka?

Box 2: Timeline. List every dated event in order. Add the paragraph number so you can find it again in seconds.

Date	Event	Para	Issue
1998	Rupa Water Treaty signed	2	Treaty in force?
Oct 2022	Ulka emails notice of termination	7	Valid notice?
2023	Treaty’s 25 years end	Art. 12	Auto-renewal?
Mar 2024	Dam completed, flow reduced	9	Breach of Art. 4?
Mid 2024	Salt water enters farms	10	Causation, harm

Box 3: Legal issues. Copy the issues from the problem. Under each one, write two or three sub-questions.

Issue 1: Is the treaty in force?

1. Was notice in writing?
2. Was it given in time?
3. Was it given to the right person?

Issue 2: Did Ulka breach its duties?

1. Treaty duty (Art. 4)
2. General duty not to cause significant harm

Box 4: Gaps. A gap is a fact the problem does not give you. List every such gap.

• Exact date of entry into force of the treaty.
• Who at the Torsa ministry received the email.
• How much the flow was reduced.

Box 5: Contradictions. A contradiction is when two parts of the problem do not agree. Write both paragraph numbers.

Para 6 says the treaty “lasts 25 years”; the annexed treaty text says “20 years”.

Box 6: Traps and red herrings. Moot writers add facts that look important but are not. Add facts that tempt you into the wrong issue. Mark them “?” until, you are sure.

Box 7: Questions for clarification. Gaps and contradictions: what to do:

Situation	Do this	Never do this
Gap (fact missing)	1. Ask a clarification question if it is important. 2. If no answer, make the most reasonable inference from the given facts. 3. Prepare an argument that still works if the inference is wrong.	Invent a fact and treat it as given
Contradiction	1. Ask for clarification. 2. If none, argue why one version is more reliable (for example, the signed annex beats a summary). 3. Keep a backup argument.	Ignore it, or quote only the version that suits you
Ambiguous word	Show the court two readings and explain why yours is better	Pretend there is only one meaning

Build the note so the whole team can use it

• Keep it in one shared document (Google Docs, Word on a shared drive, or a free Notion page). Everyone edits the same file.
• Put paragraph numbers beside every fact. Judges ask, “Where in the facts is that?”
• Update it every time a clarification arrives. Write the date of the change.
• Make a one-page fact sheet from it. The oralists will carry that sheet into every round.

Quick test: is your note finished?

• Can any teammate find any fact in under ten seconds?
• Do you know the three or four biggest issues in order of importance?
• Do you know the two weakest facts for your side, and how you will deal with them?

How to write a good clarification question

Organizers usually answer only short, factual questions. They will not answer legal questions.

Formula:

Ask about one fact. Cite the paragraph. Make it answerable with one short sentence.

Weak	Strong
Was Ulka’s notice valid? (a legal question)	Para 7 says the notice was sent “by email”. To which official in the Torsa ministry was it addressed?
What happened in 1998? (too wide)	On what date did the Rupa Water Treaty enter into force?
Is the dam legal?	Did Ulka conduct an environmental impact assessment before starting the dam?

Important tips and tricks

• Never assume a fact. If the problem does not say it, you cannot say it. Do not assume or write about what you think should have happened instead of what the facts say.
• Use the exact words. Copy key phrases into your notes with the paragraph number.
• Ask “So what?” For each fact, ask which legal question it helps or hurts.
• Read the other side’s story too. You will argue both sides in oral rounds.
• Read the clarifications and rules every time they change. Teams lose points for missing a clarification.
• Do not read once and start writing.
• Do not ignore the jurisdiction and admissibility issues because they look “boring”. Judges love them, and they decide whether the court can hear the case at all.
• Do not forget the facts that can help both sides. Always ask how the other side will use it.