The Willem C. Vis Moot: key rhetorical functions for the oral pleadings
-
Paschal Maher
Abstract
The Willem C. Vis Moot is a global competition where university teams test their advocacy skills in the world of commercial arbitration. Being set in a simulated court, the competition opens a door to the legal professional skills that in many instances remain elusive to university law students. However, such an opportunity does not come without challenges. University students have not the benefit of previous exposure to such professional practices, and hence pleading before the Moot court can be an intimidating experience. Therefore, preparation is key, and this paper addresses the issues of legal counsel discourse that Moot participants need to be aware of when training for the finals. Analysing the winning teams’ pleadings over a period of 10 years, this paper outlines the main rhetorical functions that have been applied by these winning teams. Attending to issues of speech organisation, clarifying the contexts of arguments, regularly referring to the case facts and legal sources, and integrating and rebutting the points provided by opposing counsel were features that occurred consistently throughout the years under analysis. Participants in the Vis Moot can benefit from such insights, as it should make their preparations more efficient and ultimately their pleadings more effective.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my three raters, Chiara Belluci, Francesca Borio, David Wohlgemuth and for the valuable insights provided by my two reviewers.
References
Alasmary, Abdullah. 2025. Discourse-organising lexical bundles in academic law textbooks: A corpus-based analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04995-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Amsterdam, Anthony & Jerome Bruner. 2002. Minding the law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Anesa, Patrizia. 2012. Language and power in arbitration proceedings: Insights into theory and practice. In Vijay Bhatia, Christopher Candlin & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Discourse and practice in international commercial arbitration, 93–112. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Bergsten, Eric. 2016. Experiential education through the Vis Moot. Journal of Law and Commerce 34(1). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5195/jlc.2015.97.Suche in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay Kumar, Nicola Langton & Jane Lung. 2004. Legal discourse: Opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In Ulla Connor & Thomas Upton (eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics, 203–231. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.16.09bhaSuche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Viviana Cortes. 2004. If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3). 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371.Suche in Google Scholar
Bruce, Nigel. 2002. Dovetailing language and content: Teaching balanced argument in legal problem answer writing. English for Specific Purposes 23(3). 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00040-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert, Jo Ann Crandall & Veda Charrow. 1982. Characteristics and functions of legal language. In Richard Kittredge & John Lehrberger (eds.), Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains, 175–190. New York: de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, Siyuan. 2012. Advanced fundamentals of oral appellate advocacy in a Moot court. Singapore Law Review 30. 45–62.Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, Siyuan, Bethel Chan Ruiyi & Eden Li Yiling. 2017. Some reflections on the Willem C. Vis and Vis East international commercial arbitration Moots: Negotiating and bridging the civil-common divide. Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 6(1). 133–149.Suche in Google Scholar
Conley, John & William O’Barr. 1998. Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Corona, Isabel. 2015. Arbitration discourse. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Todd Sandel (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 61–66. MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1985. Legal discourse. In Teun van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 1, 273–289. London: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Denning, Alfred. 1979. The discipline of law. London: Butterworths.Suche in Google Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2011. Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1992. The expressive power of language. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 107. 348–352.10.2307/462645Suche in Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2011. Exercising power and control in arbitration proceedings. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24. 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9204-7.Suche in Google Scholar
Graves, Jack & Stephanie Vaughan. 2006. The Willem C. Vis international commercial arbitration Moot: Making the Most of an extraordinary educational opportunity. Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 10(2). 173–206.Suche in Google Scholar
Guglya, Leonila. 2008. Oral advocacy training: A beginner’s look at the Willem C. Vis international commercial arbitration Moot from a coaching perspective. Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 12(1). 125–138.Suche in Google Scholar
Hafner, Christoph. 2018. Spoken interaction in an academic legal context: The discourse of the arbitration Moot. In Girolamo Tessuto, Vijay Bhatia & Jan Engberg (eds.), Frameworks for discursive contexts and practices of the law, 175–194. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Suche in Google Scholar
Hafner, Christoph & Christopher Candlin. 2007. Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4). 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Harrington, John, Lucy Series & Alexander Ruck-Keene. 2019. Law and rhetoric: Critical possibilities. Journal of Law and Society 46(2). 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12156.Suche in Google Scholar
Howe, Pat. 1990. The problem of the problem question in English for legal academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 9(3). 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90014-4.Suche in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.Suche in Google Scholar
Jensen, Christian. 2002. Legal problem questions: Analysing rhetorical strategies using “IRAC”. In C. Candlin (ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse, 463–498. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kreindler, Richard & Carlo Santoro. 2010. Rules on the taking of evidence in international arbitration: International Bar Association (IBA). London: International Bar Association.Suche in Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1997. Legal language: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00111.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Langton, Nicola. 2002. Hedging argument in legal writing. Perspectives 14(1). 16–51.Suche in Google Scholar
Lebovits, Gerald, Drew Gewuerz & Christopher Hunker. 2013. Winning the Moot court oral argument: A guide for intramural and intermural Moot court competitors. Capital University Law Review 41. 887–948.10.2139/ssrn.2160641Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 1975. A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Li, Meiqi & Ting Jiang. 2024. Exerting power through interruptions: A case study of arbitrators’ discourses in Chinese Arbitral Tribunals. Discourse Studies 26(1). 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231188501.Suche in Google Scholar
Lynch, Andrew. 1996. Why do we Moot? Exploring the role of mooting in legal education. Legal Education Review 7(1). 67–96. https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6104.Suche in Google Scholar
Maher, Paschal. 2016. The use of semi-technical vocabulary to understand the epistemology of a disciplinary field. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22. 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Metzler, Jeffrey. 2002-2003. The importance of IRAC and legal writing. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 80. 501–504.Suche in Google Scholar
Moens, Gabriel & Rajesh Sharma. 2014. Successful advocacy for the annual Willem C. Vis international commercial arbitration Moot. International Trade & Business Law Review 17. 204–223.Suche in Google Scholar
Naeem, Muhammad, Wilson Ozuem, Kerry Howell & Silvia Ranfagni. 2024. Demystification and actualisation of data saturation in qualitative research through thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 23. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241229777.Suche in Google Scholar
Rau, Gerald & Shih Yu-Shan. 2021. Evaluation of Cohen’s kappa and other measures of inter-rater agreement for genre analysis and other nominal data. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 53. 1–11.10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101026Suche in Google Scholar
Risse, Jörg, Markus Altenkirch, Ragnar Herbst, Annette Keilmann & Lisa Reiser. 2021. The complete (but unofficial) guide to the Willem C. Vis international commercial arbitration Moot, 6th edn. Munich: Verlag CH Beck.Suche in Google Scholar
Sandler, Paul. 2019. The art of persuasion: Essays on rhetoric in the courtroom. Baltimore, Maryland: Shapiro Sher Guinot and Sandler.Suche in Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2016. Rhetorical processes and legal judgments: How language and arguments shape struggles for rights and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316658789Suche in Google Scholar
Skinner, Anna. 1988. Writing in a law firm: Cognitive processes and texts grounded in social knowledge. Austin: University of Texas.Suche in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2004. Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Tessuto, Girolamo. 2011. Legal problem question genre across jurisdictions and cultures. English for Specific Purposes 30(4). 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.05.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical strategies in legal language. Tübingen: Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
White, James Boyd. 1985. Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as law: The arts of cultural and communal life. The University of Chicago Law Review 52(3). 684–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599632.Suche in Google Scholar
Ziccardi, Fabio. 2016. Evidence, oral testimony and cross interrogatory in international arbitration. In Vijay Bhatia, Christopher Candlin & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Discourse and practice in international commercial arbitration: Issues, challenges and prospects, 63–71. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
