Mock Trials of the International Court for Dispute Settlements

Mock Trials of the International Court for Dispute Settlements Introduction Narrative In an international court, much emphasis is placed on the law, treaties, and legal precedents when and if they exist. Although these are very important aspects of any international court, it is not our prime focus since this is not a course in Law. Rather, you should focus on logic, economic analysis, common sense, historical perspectives, and moral and ethical considerations when considering a particular case. The following narrative serves as the constitution of our international court for dispute settlement. In the international justice system, economically-based offenses are considered especially heinous due to the pernicious effects on the welfare of the citizens of the offended nation (or group). In this justice system, nations (or groups) are represented by two opposing teams: the Complainant, who brings a legal action against a nation (or a group), and Respondent, who protects and defends against the complainant’s action. All Respondents are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain, or trial by a panel of judges appointed by the International Court for Dispute Settlements, commonly referred to as the ICDS-ApEc. The guiding principle that governs the ruling of the ICDS-ApEc is that as long as a nation’s (or group’s) policies to promote the long-term welfare of its citizens do not constitute an undue burden to members of the international community, it can pursue such policies. Therefore, in this court, beyond the law, logic, economic analysis, common sense, historical perspectives, moral and ethical considerations play significant roles in the decisions! The Basic Setup There will be two court sessions, March 3 and April 14. The grades from the two mock trial projects will account for 8% of the semester grade. In each court session, an international economic issue will be deliberated. Students in a discussion session will be randomly divided into three groups: the Judge Panel, the Complainant, and the Respondent. Attempts will be made to ensure that each student will be assigned to different roles in the two mock trial projects and will partner with different students. Each Judge Panel has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the student number in the discussion session in question. One judge will serve as the “Chief Judge” who has additional administrative responsibilities. Each Respondent/Complainant team is divided into two groups: the Research Group and the Lawyer Group. Each Research Group has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the student number in the discussion session in question. One researcher will serve as the “Chief Researcher” who has additional administrative responsibilities. Each Lawyer Group has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the 2 student number in the discussion session in question. The lawyers are to play five roles: the opener, the primary oral argument presenter, the secondary oral argument presenter, the rebuttal presenter and the closer. One of the lawyers will serve as the “Chief Counsel” who has additional administrative responsibilities. The time in a court session will be allocated in the following manner: 1 minute: Opening Statement by the Instructor 4 minutes: Opening Statement – the Complainant (no question) 4 minutes: Opening Statement – the Respondent (no question) 4 minutes: Primary Oral Arguments – the Complainant (with questions from Judges) 4 minutes: Secondary Oral Arguments – the Complainant (with questions from Judges) 4 minutes: Primary Oral Argument – the Respondent (with questions from Judges) 4 minutes: Secondary Oral Argument – the Respondent (with questions from Judges) 2 minutes: Court Recess: Preparation for Rebuttals 4 minutes: Rebuttal – the Complainant (with questions from Judges) 4 minutes: Rebuttal – the Respondent (with questions from Judges) 6 minutes: additional questions from the judges 4 minutes: Closing Statement – the Complainant (no question) 4 minutes: Closing Statement – the Respondent (no question) 1 minute: Closing Statement by the Instructor Responsibilities of the Research Group Week 1 of the Project: Identify as a group several articles (two per researcher) relevant to the court case at hand. Divide the articles among researchers to take charge in figuring out the economic issues and arguments therein. Each researcher is to write a two-page synopsis (typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins) of the articles he/she is in charge of. At the beginning of the synopsis, you should provide appropriate citations for the original articles to which the synopsis pertains. Each synopsis should contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments relevant to the case. (Underline the statistics and economic arguments.) The Chief Researcher will collect the synopses and email them by the specified dateline to (i) the discussion session TA, (ii) members of his/her Research Group, and (iii) member of his/her Lawyer Group. Each research synopsis will be assigned an individual score. See Rubric 1A for the criteria. The synopses will be made available (by the TA) to the panel judges by the specified date. Week 2 of the Project: Each Research Group member is to gain further insight into the issue at hand by reading the synopses of other researchers. The researcher is to conduct additional reading as necessary. The Chief Researcher is to coordinate with the Chief Counsel of the Lawyer Group to schedule a meeting at the early part of the week, with all the team members attending. At this meeting, the 3 researchers will (i) inform the Lawyer Group of the underlying economic issues and arguments in the articles and (ii) work with the Lawyer Group to develop a list of talking points for oral arguments and potential rebuttals in the court. There are participation points for researchers for this event, assigned by the Chief Counsel of your team (Rubric 1B). During the Court Session: The Research Group will serve as the supporting staff for the Lawyer Group. There are participation points for researchers for this event, assigned by your TA (Rubric 1B). Your score will depends on how active you are in supporting the Lawyer Group during the court session. Responsibilities of the Lawyer Group Week 2 of the Project: Each Lawyer Group member is to learn about the issue at hand by reading the synopses of the Research Group of his/her team. Meanwhile, the individual is to prepare a set of questions that he/she still has about the court case and conduct research as necessary. The Chief Counsel is to coordinate with the Chief Researcher of the Research Group to schedule a meeting at the early part of the week with all the team members attending. At this meeting, the Lawyer Group members will learn more about the underlying court case issues by asking questions to the Research Group members (using their question lists). Working with the Research Group, the Lawyer Group will develop a list of talking points for oral arguments and rebuttals in the court. Based on the talking points, the Lawyer Group is to write a two-page court brief (typed, 1.5 linespacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins), serving as a written summary of the team’s arguments. This court brief should contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments relevant to the case. (Underline the statistics and economic arguments.) The Chief Counsel will submit the court brief to the discussion session TA by the specified deadline. A team score will be assigned to the court brief. See Rubric 2A for the criteria. The court brief will be made available (by the TA) to the panel judges prior to the court date. Week 3 of the Project: The Chief Counsel will schedule several meetings with his/her Lawyer Group members to (i) expand its court brief to develop elaborate and well-articulated arguments for presentations during the court session and, (ii) practice for the court session. (Note: During the court session, a member of the Lawyer Group will be responsible for delivering the opening statement, two members will take turns to deliver the primary and secondary oral arguments, one member will offer rebuttals and one member will offer the closing statement. (While notes are allowed in the presentation, you are advised not to simply read from your notes.) During the Court Session: The Lawyer Group is to deliver oral arguments and rebuttals, and respond to inquiries from the bench. Individual scores will be assigned for the oral production in the court. See Rubric 2B. 4 Responsibilities of the Judge Panel Week 2 and Week 3 of the Project: Each judge will learn about the issue by reading the synopses and briefs of both sides. The Chief Judge will then call a meeting in which the judge panel is to prepare two sets of questions that it wants to explore with the Complainant and the Respondent. To even out the load, the Chief Judge will assign different questions to individual judges to explore with the Complainant/Respondent during the court session. Individual judges are to conduct, as necessary, additional reading relevant to the assigned questions. The Chief Judge will submit the questions to be explored to the discussion session TA one day by the specified deadline. During the Court Session: The judges are to listen to the oral arguments of the Complainant and the Respondent. The judges can ask questions during oral arguments, such as pointing out the inadequacy and problem areas in the argument and raise contentious points. The judges are to be inquisitive and critical. A team score will be assigned to the panel, based on the quality and quantity of the questions asked. All judges need to ask questions to avoid a team penalty of 10% of the available points. See Rubric 3A for the criteria. Week 4 of the Project: Within three days after the court is adjourned, the Chief Judge is to call a meeting with all judges in the panel attending. Before the meeting, each judge is to reflect on his or her initial opinion on the court case and the underlying rationale. At the meeting, each judge will discuss his or her opinion on the court case and the underlying reasons, followed by a vote. A majority of the judges must agree on a decision. Before adjourning, the Chief Judge is to orally state the majority opinion of the court as well as the underlying reason(s). The Chief Judge will then write the majority opinion and the rationale. Other judges will write "concurring opinions" or “dissenting opinions.” (A concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision but expresses similar or different reasoning, and a dissenting opinion disagrees with the decision. A judge can write an opinion that concurs with one part of the majority opinion but disagrees with another part.) Each judge’s opinion is to be two pages in length (typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins). Each opinion should contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments relevant to the case. (Underline the statistics and economic arguments.) The court opinions should also contain critiques of the briefs and oral arguments of the two sides. See Rubric 3B for criteria. The Chief Judge will collect the opinions and submit them to the discussion session TA no later than 7 days after the court date. Each court opinion will be assigned an individual score. 5 Important Dates for Mock Trial #1 R = Researchers L = Lawyers J = Judges Jan 27: TA TA completes assigning students to teams and roles for Mock Trial #1, by 3:00 pm, January 27 (Friday). Jan 27 ~ Feb 2: R Researchers identify articles and each produces a synopsis. Chief Researcher emails the synopses to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Synopses are due at 11:00 pm, February 2 (Thursday). Feb 3: TA TA emails the synopses of the Respondent and Complainant to the judges by 10:00 am, February 3 (Friday). Feb 3 ~ Feb 9: L & R Lawyers and researchers read the synopses and meet to develop the team’s talking points. J Judges read the synopses. Feb 10 ~ Feb 16: L & R Lawyers develop team’s court brief. Chief Counsel emails the court brief to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Court briefs are due at 11:00 pm, February 16 (Thursday). J Judges read the synopses. Feb 17: TA TA emails the court briefs of the Respondent and Complainant to the judges by 10:00, February 17 (Friday). Feb 17 ~ Feb 23 All Get ready for Midterm 1 Feb 23 ~ Mar 2 L Lawyers practice for the court session. J Judges read the court briefs and review the synopses, and meet to produce two lists of questions; one for the Respondent and one for the Complainant. Chief Judge emails the Question lists to the TA. Question lists are due at 11:00 pm, March 2 (Thursday). March 3: All Court Session for Mock Trial #1 (Friday) Mar 3 ~ Mar 9 J Judges meet to deliberate & produce court opinions. Chief Judge emails court opinions to the TA. Court opinions are due at 11:00 pm, March 9 (Thursday). Mar 10 ~ Mar 24: TA TA posts scores and verdict of Mock Trial #1 by noon, March 24 (Friday) 6 Important Dates for Mock Trial #2 R = Researchers L = Lawyers J = Judges Mar 3: TA TA completes assigning students to teams and roles for Mock Trial #2, by 3:00 pm, March 3 (Friday). Mar 3 ~ Mar 9: R Researchers identify articles and each produces a synopsis. Chief Researcher emails the synopses to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Synopses are due at 11:00 pm, March 9 (Thursday). March 10: TA TA emails the synopses of the Respondent and Complainant to the judges by 10:00 am, March 10 (Friday). Mar 10 ~ Mar 23: L & R Lawyers and researchers read the synopses and meet to develop the team’s talking points. J Judges read the synopses. Mar 24 ~ Mar 30: L & R Lawyers develop team’s court brief. Chief Counsel emails the court brief to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Court briefs are due at 11:00 pm, March 30 (Thursday). J Judges read the synopses. Mar 31: TA TA emails the court briefs of the Respondent and Complainant to the judges by 10:00 am, March 31 (Friday). Mar 31 ~ Apr 6 All Get ready for Midterm 2 Apr 6 ~ Apr 13 L Lawyers practice for the court session. J Judges read the court briefs and review the synopses, and meet to produce two lists of questions; one for the Respondent and one for the Complainant. Chief Judge emails the Question lists to the TA. Question lists are due at 11:00 pm, April 13 (Thursday). April 14: All Court Session for Mock Trial #2 (Friday) Apr 14 ~ Apr 20 J Judges meet to deliberate & produce court opinions. Chief Judge emails court opinions to the TA. Court opinions are due at 11:00 pm, April 20 (Thursday). Apr 21 ~ Apr 28: TA TA posts scores and verdict of Mock Trial #2 by noon, April 28 (Friday) 7 International Court for Dispute Settlements (ICDS-ApEc) Case #1: The TPP TPP Supporters v. TPP Detractors Trade negotiators from 12 Pacific Rim nations reached an agreement on October 5, 2015, putting forward a set of common rules that would govern trans-Pacific trade and business investment among the eventual signatory nations. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is monumental, the largest regional trade accord in history, including nations ranging from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia that account for two-fifths of global GDP and one-third of world trade. The TPP seeks to address urgent trade issues ranging from tariffs and quotas, environmental and labor standards, intellectual property rights, financial services, e-commerce, and cross-border Internet communications. Given its far-reaching implications and given that a congressional approval is required for its enactment, the TPP trade accord has quickly emerged as a point of tension in the current U.S. election debates, drawing both intense opposition and earning enthusiastic praise at the same time. The TPP proponents in the U.S. maintain that the trade accord seeks to level the playing field by imposing rigorous labor, environmental and intellectual property standards on U.S. trading partners. The advocates also maintain that, by removing restrictions on the service sector in developing nations, the TPP accord would be beneficial to U.S. service industries, which are responsible for a vast majority of private sector jobs. Finally, the TPP supporters argue that the accord would lower thousands of tariffs in a number of nations around the Pacific Rim, leveling the playing field and benefiting U.S. exporters. On the other hand, the TPP critics in the U.S. argue that the accord is mainly a giveaway to business, encouraging further export of manufacturing jobs to low-wage nations. They are particularly adamant about the accord’s provisions that allow multinational corporations to challenge individual nations’ environmental and labor regulations and court rulings before special tribunals. Some critics are also concerned about TPP’s excessive copyright protection, which can restrict fair use, stifle innovation and delay the availability of generic products, especially in the pharmaceutical area. The Tasks The ICDS-ApEc is charged with the task of recommending whether the U.S. Congress should approve or reject the TPP trade agreement as proposed. The TPP detractors (the Complainants) are to advocate for rejecting the trade agreement (from the perspective of the United States), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in their favor. The TPP supporters (the Respondents) are to advocate for approving the trade agreement (from the perspective of the United States), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in their favor. The Judge Panel is to weigh the evidence and arguments of both sides, with the goal of rendering a decision on whether the United States Congress should approve or reject the TPP trade agreement. All the arguments should be done from the perspective of the Constitution of ICDS-ApEc. 8 International Court for Dispute Settlements (ICDS-ApEc) Case #2: Brexit “Leave” Supporters v. “Remain” Supporters A combination of the words “Britain” and “exit,” Brexit has been used to describe the exit of Britain from the 28-nation European Union (EU). A referendum was held on June 23, 2016, asking British voters: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?” Before the referendum, the “Leave” supporters maintained that leaving the EU is necessary for Britain to control its immigration policies, restore its independence from Brussels’ control, and to protect its interests on issues such as trade, financial and labor regulations, and social spending. On the other hand, the “Remain” supporters argued that staying in the EU is paramount to the safeguard of the nation’s export markets in Europe, the upholding of London’s position as the leading global financial center in Europe, and the growth of Britain’s national economy which is the fifth largest in the world. More than 17 million Britons voted to leave the EU on June 23, 2016, compared with 16 million who voted to remain. While the referendum is not legally binding, it is difficult to envision that the government would ignore the will of the voters. The process of leaving begins only after the British government invokes a provision of the EU treaty known as Article 50. Once the formal withdrawal process is invoked, Britain would need to negotiate the terms of its extraction from the EU within two years, and could not change its mind and stay in the Union (save a unanimous vote of the other 27 member nations in the EU). Mrs. Theresa May, the new British Prime Minister, is to manage the exit, negotiating with her EU counterparts. While she has vowed to respect the will of the voters, she seems to be in no hurry to invoke Article 50 of the treaty. After all, sentiments on Brexit may yet change in Britain. Even if they don’t, avoiding a deadline will give Mrs. May time to work out the least damaging deal with her EU counterparts. The Tasks You are to re-enact the Brexit debate, but this time the decision will be made in the court of ICDS-ApE, rather than through a referendum. The “Leave” campaign (the Complainant) is to advocate for leaving the EU (from the perspective of Britons), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in its favor. The “Remain” campaign (the Respondent) is to advocate for remaining in the European Union (from the perspective of Britons), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in its favor. The Judge Panel is to weigh the evidence and arguments of both sides, with the goal of rendering a decision on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU. All the arguments should be done from the perspective of the Constitution of ICDS-ApEc. 9 Rubric 1A: Synopsis of Individual Researcher (individual points, accounting for 80% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 3.2 pts) Criteria Low Medium High Rating follow all required formats (two pages, typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins) No (0 pts) partially (5 pts) yes (10 pts) include at least three relevant economic arguments include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) include at least three relevant statistics include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) choice of article(s) articles are not relevant and are too simplistic (0 ~ 4 pts) articles are relevant but are too simplistic (5 ~ 7 pts) articles are relevant and are at the right level (8 ~ 10 pts) critical analysis fails to identify, summarize, or explain the main issues (0 ~ 4 pts) identifies main issues but does not summarize or explain them clearly or sufficiently (5 ~ 7 pts) identifies and summarizes main issues and explains why/how they are problems (8 ~ 10 pts) include historical perspectives and moral and ethical considerations Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) writing (organization, spelling, grammar, citations, etc.) Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Bonus for the Chief: Upon a majority vote from other members of the research group, the Chief Researcher will receive a bonus of 5% of the allocated semester points for the project (i.e., 5% * 3.2 semester points = 0.16 semester points). If more than one persons want to serve as the Chief, the TA will decide by flipping a coin. Ideally, an individual should serve as the Chief only one time. 10 Rubric 1B: Contribution to Group Discussion of Individual Researcher (individual points, accounting for 20% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 0.8 pts) Criteria Low Medium High Rating During the Meeting with the Oral Argument Group (scores to be assigned by the Chief Counsel) Attendance* was absent (0 pts) was present (10 pts) Contribution** Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) During the Court Session (scores to be determined by the TA) Attendance was absent (0 pts) was present (10 pts) Contribution Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Assigning Scores by the Chief Counsel of the Team: * The Chief Counsel of the team is to assign either zero or ten points to each researcher, depending on whether the researcher was absent or present in the joint meeting of the two groups. ** Subject to the approval of the majority of the Oral Argument Group members, the Chief Counsel is to assign a score between zero and ten to each researcher, depending on the researcher’ contribution to the discussion in the joint meeting of the two groups. The Chief Counsel will inform the discussion session TA of the above two scores of the researchers. An individual researcher can file a complaint to the instructor if he/she thinks that the assigned score is grossly unfair. In such a case, an investigation will ensue and the instructor will have the right to modify the score as appropriate. 11 Rubric 2A: Court Brief of the Lawyer Group (group points, accounting for 20% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 0.8 pts) Criteria Low Medium High Rating follow all required formats (two pages, typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins) No (0 pts) partially (5 pts) yes (10 pts) include at least three relevant economic arguments include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) include at least three relevant statistics include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) critical analysis fails to formulate and clearly express the team’s point of view, or fails to anticipate objections to the team’s point of view (0 ~ 4 pts) formulates a vague point of view, or anticipates minor but not major objections to the team’s point of view (5 ~ 7 pts) not only formulates a clear and precise point of view, but also acknowledges rival positions and provides convincing replies to these (8 ~ 10 pts) include historical perspectives and moral and ethical considerations Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) writing (organization, spelling, grammar, citations, etc.) Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Allocation Rules for the Team Score: Say, there are G persons in the group and the group earns P points in this activity, then there are in total P*G points earned. Half of the earned points will be allocated evenly among group members, with each having 0.5P points. The allocation of the remaining half of the earned points (i.e., 0.5*P*G) will be made by the group members themselves. The Chief Counsel of the group is to inform the discussion session TA of the group’s allocation decision. (An individual can file a complaint to the instructor if he/she thinks that the group’s allocation decision is grossly unfair. In such a case, an investigation will ensue and the instructor will have the right to veto the group’s allocation decision.) 12 Rubric 2B: Oral Argument of Individual Lawyer (individual points, accounting for 80% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 3.2 pts) Criteria Low Medium High Rating flow of the oral presentation Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) critical analysis fails to present the major components of the main arguments at stake and fails to show their logical relations (0 ~ 4 pts) present the major components of the arguments, but fails to show their logical relations and fails to support the arguments with theory and empirical facts (5 ~ 7 pts) not only correctly reconstructs the arguments, but also support them with theory and empirical facts (8 ~ 10 pts) include historical perspectives and moral and ethical considerations Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) work as a team Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) respectful and responsive to judges’ questions Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) public speaking (While notes are allowed in the presentation, you are advised not to simply read from your notes.) mainly read from notes (0 ~ 4 pts) somewhere in between (5 ~ 7 pts) mainly not using notes (8 ~ 10 pts) Bonus for the Chief: Upon a majority vote from other members of the oral argument group, the Chief Counsel will receive a bonus of 5% of the allocated semester points for the project (i.e., 5% * 3.2 semester points = 0.16 semester points). If more than one persons want to serve as the Chief, the TA will decide by flipping a coin. Ideally, an individual should serve as the Chief only one time. 13 Rubric 3A: Questions from the Judge Panel (group points, accounting for 20% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 0.8 pts) (All judges need to ask questions to avoid a team penalty of 10% of the available points.) Criteria Low Medium High Rating Submit Questions to TA On Time more than 24 hrs after the court session (0 pt) within 24 hrs after the court session (5 pts) before the start of the court session (10 pts) Relevancy Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Depth Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) critical analysis fails to identify and evaluate any of the important assumptions behind the claims made; fails to identify info that counts as evidence for truth-claims and fails to evaluate its credibility; fails to identify and explain mistakes in the reasoning of others (0 ~ 4 pts) successfully identifies some common mistakes of reasoning but misses less common ones, and does not explain why or how they are mistakes (5 ~ 7 pts) not only identifies all mistakes of reasoning, but gives clear explanations of why they are mistakes (8 ~ 10 pts) include historical perspectives and moral and ethical considerations Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) work as a team Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Allocation Rules for the Team Score: Say, there are G persons in the group and the group earns P points in this activity, then there are in total P*G points earned. Half of the earned points will be allocated evenly among group members, with each having 0.5P points. The allocation of the remaining half of the earned points (i.e., 0.5*P*G) will be made by the group members themselves. The Chief Counsel of the group is to inform the discussion session TA of the group’s allocation decision. (An individual can file a complaint to the instructor if he/she thinks that the group’s allocation decision is grossly unfair. In such a case, an investigation will ensue and the instructor will have the right to veto the group’s allocation decision.) 14 Rubric 3B: Court Opinion of Individual Judge (individual points, accounting for 80% of the 4 semester points of this mock trial project; i.e., 3.2 pts) Criteria Low Medium High Rating follow all required formats (2 pages, typed, 1.5 linespacing, 12 point font, and 1״ margins) No (0 pts) partially (5 pts) yes (10 pts) include at least three relevant economic arguments include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) include at least three relevant statistics include 0 or 1 (0 or 3 pts) include 2 (6 pts) include 3 or more (9 or 10 pts) critical analysis fails to identify and evaluate any of the important assumptions behind the claims made; fails to identify information that counts as evidence for truth-claims and fails to evaluate its credibility; fails to identify and explain mistakes in the reasoning of others and fails to avoid them in his/her own reasoning (0 ~ 4 pts) successfully identifies and avoids some common mistakes of reasoning but misses less common ones, and does not explain why or how they are mistakes (5 ~ 7 pts) not only identifies and avoids all mistakes of reasoning, but gives clear explanations of why they are mistakes (8 ~ 10 pts) include historical perspectives and moral and ethical considerations Insufficient (0 ~ 4 pts) sufficient (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Writing (organization, spelling, grammar, citations, etc.) Poor (0 ~ 4 pts) acceptable (5 ~ 7 pts) excellent (8 ~ 10 pts) Bonus for the Chief: Upon a majority vote from other members of the judge panel, the Chief Judge will receive a bonus of 5% of the allocated semester points for the project (i.e., 5% * 3.2 semester points = 0.16 semester points). If more than one persons want to serve as the Chief, the TA will decide by flipping a coin. Ideally, an individual should serve as the Chief only one time.