@ Good Gosh,

Thanks for your answer. However, if you read carefully my previous message, you will realize that I pointed out at least two times "among the BEST law schools". Obviously, you cannot compare universities of the global south (Latin-America, Africa or Asia) with US or UK top law schools because the difference is huge even though institutions from the former may win this kind of competitions occassionally. They are not at the same league. So your question about if the Andes is better than UCL seems to be rhetorical and, with due respect, a little out of context. The answer is quite obvious.
However and, this is my opinion, what you can do is to compare universities which are at the same level. Here the differences are subtle and any argument in favour of one or the other counts.
About the frecuency of participation in Jessup, at least in the last ten years universities such as CLS, HLS, NYU, Oxbridge have often participated. So why Columbia has been successful several times and not NYU which is supposedly number 1? Not even once!!! I guess the answer has to do something with quality of students and of courses in international law.
Should you take your time, you can download Jessup files in which it is precised how far those universities reached in recent competitions.
When you say that this kind of results is arbitary, you can also say the same about rankings, opinions included on this board, etc, etc.
Jessup competition is a good place to integrate research and litigation skills. Participants are evaluted by a pannel consisting of experts from different institutions and organizations. So how arbitrary is when a university reaches four times the final winning three of them??
And, as I said, these results may be ONLY one point, among many others, to think over when choosing a place to study LLM in international law.

it would seem very arbitrary indeed. for example, one of the funny things about law programmes in the US, columbia included, is that students take these mooting competitions for credit as part of their degrees. that means that all their preparation and participation is counted as part of their studies. in the UK, by contrast, students' mooting preparation is over and above their degree work. another point: US law students are around 5 years or so older than their british counterparts, giving them another advantage.

in any case, it seems that if you want to determine where best to read international law, what matters most is not some mooting competition but rather the faculty at each respective institution..

@ Good Gosh,

Thanks for the precision.
In such a situation we could only compare among US institutions. In this case, however, CLS is still ahead.
With regard to difference in age average, can you hyperlink your source? Is there any statistic on this that you can please share?
Last but not least, since Jessup and alike competitions are more practical-oriented, we can come to the conclusion of how important is in the US law schools the building of practical skills and not only academic ones. This may actually be a weakness of UK law schools in international law and your comment indeed helped to notice it.

re: age difference: law is generally read by undergraduates in the UK, whereas it's read by graduates in the US. JDs in the US tend to be 24/25, LLBs in the UK are 19/20.

as for the different emphasis on practical study, i wouldn't go that far. the main point is that in the UK you only get academic credit for academic work. if you intend to practise at the bar, for example, it is expected of you to moot anyways, but it won't count as part of your degree. extracurriculars such as mooting are precisely that: activities undertaken over and above regular academic study.

Thanks for the answers and good luck with your LLM studies. At the end of the day, universities mentioned in our discussion are all excellent and you cannot go wrong by attending any of them.

yep, they're all fantastic institutions, and anyone in a position to choose is very lucky indeed...

Something that should be considered as a criterion to establish which institution may be considered the best in public international law among TOP law schools is international law moot court competitions results. ... the results of the best law schools such as Columbia, NYU, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge are as follows:
Columbia: 3 times winner (2006, 1965, 1963) 1 time second place (2010)

@ oldtimer,

Thanks for joining the debate. As I said before -I am getting tired of repeating it- the Jessup and similar competitions may be one but not the only factor to be evaluated.
And, also again, one can compare universities which based on factors such as professors, prestige, rankings, courses, etc are at the same level. You make a mistake when you compare universities whose programs are not match for institutions like CLS, HLS, Oxbridge, NYU, LSE regardless of their success on Jessup and similar moot courts.
A second point, if you are really informed of international law, you must know that many of the participants in Jessup or other moot courts competitions end up working in international law field. So you should not underestimate the importance of these events as a landmark in an international career. It is not only the competition as such but what you can obtain from it: contacts, internship offers and then job offers.
Last point, unless you are inside an international organization, you cannot easily get access to data on universities of procedence of its staff. However, let me tell you that in the international organizations in which I have been an important number of legal officers and interns were from New York based universities.
That is why I decided to enrol at Columbia and not in HLS or Oxbridge even after being accepted in all of them.
Nevertheless, as I said before, all of them are terrific options and depending on what is your concrete area within the vast universe of international law, where you want to work, whether you seek to be an academic or a practitioner, etc, etc any of those can be the best for YOU and for YOUR plans.

@ oldtimer,
Thanks for joining the debate. As I said before -I am getting tired of repeating it- the Jessup and similar competitions may be one but not the only factor to be evaluated.

And, also again, one can compare universities which based on factors such as professors, prestige, rankings, courses, etc are at the same level.

You make a mistake when you compare universities whose programs are not match for institutions like CLS, HLS, Oxbridge, NYU, LSE regardless of their success on Jessup and similar moot courts.

A second point, if you are really informed of international law, you must know that many of the participants in Jessup or other moot courts competitions end up working in international law field

So you should not underestimate the importance of these events as a landmark in an international career. It is not only the competition as such but what you can obtain from it: contacts, internship offers and then job offers.

Last point, unless you are inside an international organization, you cannot easily get access to data on universities of procedence of its staff. However, let me tell you that in the international organizations in which I have been an important number of legal officers and interns were from New York based universities.

That is why I decided to enrol at Columbia and not in HLS or Oxbridge even after being accepted in all of them.

Nevertheless, as I said before, all of them are terrific options and depending on what is your concrete area within the vast universe of international law, where you want to work, whether you seek to be an academic or a practitioner, etc, etc any of those can be the best for YOU and for YOUR plans.

Dear Oldtimer, Just one thing: I referred to international organizations outside US so no bias -as you said- related to NYC location. About the rest of your answers I respect them as I expect you respect mine. Good luck and goodbye.