text: Paragraph (2) 315.TheCommission adopted theparagraph. Paragraph (3) 316.Itwassuggested thatthequestion astowhether anawardmustbefiled, registered ordeposited should belefttoeachState.Itwasalsosuggested that itwouldbeinconsistent foraStatetorequire awardstoberegistered butto enforce thoseawardseventhoughtheywerenotregistered. 317.TheCommission deleted theparagraph. * * * Article 36.Grounds forrefusing recognition orenforcement 318.Thetextofarticle36asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Recognition oren£orcement·ofan arbitralaward, irrespective ofthe country inwhichitwas made, may berefused only: -61-"(a)attherequest ofthepartyagainst whomitisinvoked, ifthat partyfurnishes tothecompetent courtwhererecognition orenforcement issoughtproofthat: "(i)theparties tothearbitration agreement referred toin article 7were,underthelawapplicable tothem,undersome incapacity, orthesaiaagreement isnotvalidunderthelawto whichtheparties havesubjected itor,failing anyindication thereon, underthelawofthecountry wheretheawardwasmade,or "(ii)thepartyagainst whomtheawardisinvoked wasnotgiven propernoticeoftheappointment ofthearbitrator(s) or ofthe arbitral proceedings orwasotherwise unabletopresent hiscase,or "(Hi)theawarddealswithadispute notcontemplated byornot falling withinthetermsofthesubmission toarbitration, orit contains decisions onmatters beyondthescopeofthesubmission to arbitration, provided that,ifthedecisions onmatters submitted to arbitration canbeseparated fromthosenotsosubmitted, thatpart oftheawardwhichcontains decisions Onmatters submitted to arbitration may berecognized andenforced, or "(iv)thecomposition ofthearbitral tribunal orthearbitral procedure wasnotinaccordance withtheagreement oftheparties or,failing suchagreement, wasnotinaccordance withthelawof thecountry wherethearbitration tookplace,or "(v)theawardhasnotyetbecomebinding ontheparties orhasbeen setasideorsuspended by acourtofthecountry inwhich,orunder thelawofwhich,thatawardwasmade,or "(b)ifthecourtfindsthat: "(i)thesubject-matter ofthedisputeisnotcapable ofsettlement byarbitration underthelawofthisState,or "(ii)therecognition orenforcement oftheawardwouldbecontrary tothepublic policy ofthisState. "(2)Ifanapplication forsetting asideorsuspension ofanawardhasbeen madetoacourtreferred toinparagraph (1) (a) (v) ofthisarticle, the courtwhererecognition orenforcement issoughtmay,ifitconsiders it proper, adjournitsdecision and may also,ontheapplication oftheparty claiming recognition orenforcement oftheaward,ordertheotherpartyto provide appropriatesecurity." 319.TheCommission rejected aproposal thatarticle 36should be made applicable onlytointernational commercial arbitration awardsmadeinaStateotherthan "thisState". Itwasfeltthatthegeneral policydecision toretainchapter VIII onrecognition andenforcement applicable toawardsirrespective ofwheretheywere madeshouldbeconfirmed. -62-Paragraph (1) 320.Thesuggestion was made thatarticle 36should beinterpreted inthesense thatanawardwouldnotberecognized wherethecourtfoundthatthearbitral tribunal hadproceeded without jurisdiction orhadinfringed theexclusive jurisdiction ofthecourtbeforewhichtherecognition orenforcement wassought. Itwassuggested thatthatmattermighthavebecomeofgreater importance inlight oftheCommission's decision inrespect ofarticle 1 (2) (c) thatanarbitration wasinternational iftheparties hadexpressly agreedthatthesUbject-matter of thearbitration agreement related tomorethanonecountry. 321.TheCommission adopted theproposal tomodifyarticle 36 (1) (a)(i)to conform tothechangepreviously madeinarticle 34 (2) (a)(i).Thechange involved replacing thewords"theparties" withthewordsHaparty"andthewords "were,underthelawapplicable tothem,undersomeincapacity," withsuchwordsas "lacked thecapacity toconclude suchanagreement". TheCommission adopted the suggestion forthepurpose ofmaintaining textual harmony betweenarticles 34 and36.However, theCommission expressed theviewthatthemodification didnot entail anysubstantive discrepancy betweenarticle 36 (1) (a)(i)andthe corresponding provision inthe1958NewYorkConvention. 322.TheCommission decided, inlinewithitsdecision onarticle 34 (2) (a)(H)
analysis: This text appears to be related to international law, specifically the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards across different countries. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a legal context. The content also touches on the concept of jurisdiction, public policy, and the interaction between arbitration and national courts.