text: asthearbitral tribunal mayconsider necessary inrespect ofthe subject-matter ofthedispute. Thearbitral tribunal mayrequire anypartyto provide security forthecostsofsuchmeasure." 165.Asuggestion was made thattheprovision shouldnotberetained sinceits~ scopewasnotclearly defined andbecauseitwasoflimited practical relevance in viewoftheavailability ofenforceable interim measures bycourts. Furthermore, thepowergranted tothearbittal tribunal couldoperate tothedetriment ofa partyifitlaterturnedouttbattheinterim measure wasnotjustified. Therefore, iftheprovision weJietoberetained, thatriskshould bereduced by enlarging theextentofthesecurity referred tointhesecondsentence tocover notonlythecostsofsuchinterim measure butalsoanypossible orforeseeable damagetoaparty. 166.TheCommission, after del~beration, decided toretainthearticle sinceitwas usefulinconfirming thatthearbitral tribunal's mandate included thefaculty of ordering suchmeasures, unlesstheparties hadagreedotherwise. Asregards the suggestion toenlarge theexter)tofthesecurity whichthearbitral tribunal might require fromapartyorthepaJtties, theCommission wasagreedthat,ontheone hand,anyimplied limitation or)security forthecostsofsuchmeasure shouldnot bemaintained butthat,onthe10therhand,areference tothedamages ofaparty wasnotappropriate sincethemodellawshouldnotdealwithquestions relating to -32-thebasisorextentofpossible liability fordamages. TheCommission, therefore, decided tousemoregeneral wording andtosaythatthearbitral tribunal might require anypartytoprovide "appropriate security". Itwaspointed outthatthe modification shouldnotleadtoaninterpretation ofthewords"security forthe costsofsuchmeasures", asusedinarticle 26 (2)oftheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rules,asexcluding thepossibility ofincluding intheamountofsuchsecurity any foreseeable damageofaparty. 167.Asregards therangeofinterim measures covered bytheprovlslon, itwas observed thatoneofthepossible measures was,underappropriate circumstances, an orderrelating totheprotection oftradesecrets andproprietary information. 168.Itwasnotedthattherangeofinterim measures covered byarticle 18 was considerably narrower thanthatenvisaged underarticle 9andthatarticle 18did notregulate thequestion ofenforceability ofsuchmeasures takenbythearbitral tribunal. Itwasobserved that,nonetheless,thereremained anareaof overlapping andpossible conflict between measures bythearbitral tribunal andby acourt. Therefore, asuggestion was made thatthemodellawshouldprovide a solution forsuchconflicts, forinstance, byaccording priority tothedecision of thecourts. 169.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, wasagreedthatthemOdellawshouldnot embody a solution forsuchconflicts. Itwasstatedthatanysuchsolution was a matterforeachStatetodecideinaccordance withitsprinciples andlaws pertaining tothecompetence ofitscourts andthelegaleffects ofcourt decisions. Itwasnoted,inthatcontext, thatarticle 9itselfneither created noraggravated thepotential ofsuchconflict sinceitdidnotregulate whether and towhatextentcourtmeasures wereavailable underagivenlegalsystembutonly expressed theprinciple thatanyrequest for,andthegranting of,suchinterim measure, ifavailable inalegalsystem, wasnotincompatible withthefactthat theparties hadagreedtosettletheirdispute outside thecourts byarbitration. * * * CHAPTER V.OONDUCT OFARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS Article 19.Determination ofrulesofprocedure .~170.Thetextofarticle 19asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Subject totheprovisions ofthisLaw,theparties arefreetoagreeon theprocedure tobefollowed bythearbitral tribunal inconducting the proceedings. "(2)Failing suchagreement, thearbitral tribunal may,subject tothe provisions ofthisLaw,conduct thearbitration insuchmannerasitconsiders appropriate. Thepowerconferred uponthearbitral tribunal includes thepower todetermine theadmissibility, relevance, materiality andweightofany evidence. "(3)Ineithercase,theparties shallbetreated withequality andeachparty shallbegivenafullopportunity ofpresenting hiscase." -33-Paragraph (1) 171.Twosuggestions ofdivergent significance weremadewithrespect to
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the rules and procedures for arbitration, specifically in the context of international trade and commerce. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on legal and regulatory matters. The text also touches on issues related to dispute resolution and the powers of an arbitral tribunal.