Chapter five is the most programmatic of all. It grew out of uneasiness about my role as coach of teams participating in international moot court competitions. These competitions claim to bring litigation practice into legal education. However, although I see the value of mooting, I increasingly felt that these competitions were neither reflecting practice nor what academic training should be about. The chapter is an attempt to articulate my uneasiness as well as to come up with an alternative. It contains a critique on international moot court competitions, based on a comparison between two traditions of rehearsing in European theatre. The first understands rehearsing as mimicking an ideal model as closely as possible. Most existing international moot court competitions, I argue, fit this tradition. The second is the Brechtian tradition, which understands rehearsing as experimenting an echo of Kierkegaard’s notion of "repetition forward." In the last part of the chapter, I rethink international moot court competitions along Brechtian lines. Instead of training students to outperform others according to pre-fixed criteria, I seek to develop a moot noncompetition, which brings students and staff together in a common experimental environment where the boundaries of litigation are probed.

This contribution considers Jessup’s vision liberated from its grounding assumption that the transnational arises only to deal with the ad hoc situation when other efforts under the law of a state, any state, fails. The Section “Transnational Law as Manifesto” explores the contemporary approach to transnational law and its more radical possibilities. These possibilities are radical not in the sense of requiring a substantial break with the past but in the sense of suggesting the ways in which Jessup’s vision ultimately requires a shifting of perspectives about the relationship of law to the state, the state to the societal sphere, and both to transnational law and the multinational enterprise. The next Section “Jessup’s Big Bang and Beyond” attempts to move beyond Jessup’s core premise of a situational and ad hoc transnational law as a complement to traditional state based law. The last section, “From Transnational Law to the Law of Transnational Spaces,” considers the parallel development of the problem of transnational law and the transnational enterprise. After 60 years, transnational law remains essentially the law of the in-between, and the enterprise remains the object reified as spatial gap filler in the management of economic relations.