text: 227.ItwasnotedthatparagrapH (1)indicated onlythecourttowhichtherequest should beaddressed, butthattherouting bywhichthatrequest shouldreachthe courtwouldbedetermined bylocialprocedures. Anobservation was made thatStates adopting themodellawmight wis~toentrust thefunctions ofcourtassistance in takingevidence tothecourtorptherauthori tyspecifiedinarticle 6andthat thatshould bereflected byappropriate drafting. 228.TheCommission decided todelete thesecondsentence ofparagraph (1), including subparagraphs (a),(b)and(c),onthegrounds thattheyentered into excessive detailthatdidnot n~edtobeexpressed inthemodellaw. 229.TheCommission didnotadoptaproposal toadda newprovision totheeffect that,whereevidence waspossessed by apartyandthepartyrefused tocomplywith anordertoproduceit,thearbitral tribunal should beexpressly empowered to interpret therefusal tothat p~rtyls disadvantage. Itwassuggested, andnot contradicted intheCommission, thatsuchaprovision wasunnecessary sincethe arbitral tribunal already hadthatpower,particularly underarticle 25(c). Paragraph (2) 230.TheCommission decided toplaceafullstopafterthewords"execute the request" andtodelete theremai!nder ofthesentence. Itwasfeltthattherewas -44-noneedtoindicate themannerinwhichthecourtshouldexecute therequest. Moreover, insomecountries itwouldbedifficult toimagine thecourtordering thattheevidence beprovided directly tothearbitral tribunal. * * * CHAPTER VI.MAKING OFAWARDANDTERMINATION OFPROCEEDINGS Article 28.Rulesapplicable tosubstance ofdispute 231.Thetextofarticle 28asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Thearbitral tribunal shalldecidethedispute inaccordance withsuch rulesoflawasarechosen bytheparties asapplicable tothesubstance of thedispute. Anydesignation ofthelaworlegalsystemofagivenState shallbeconstrued, unlessotherwise expressed, asdirectly referring tothe substantive lawofthatStateandnottoitsconflict oflawsrules. "(2)Failing anydesignation bytheparties, thearbitral tribunal shallapply thelawdetermined bytheconflict oflawsruleswhichitconsiders applicable. "(3)Thearbitral tribunal shalldecide exaequoetbonoorasamiable compositeur onlyiftheparties haveexpressly authorized ittodoso." Paragraphs (1)and(2) 232.Inthediscussion onparagraph (1),theCommission wasdivided onthequestion whether themodellawshouldrecognize therightoftheparties tosubject their legalrelationship to"rulesoflaw".Underoneview,themodellawshould recognize thatrightoftheparties sinceitwasnotappropriate ininternational commercial arbitration tolimitthefreedom oftheparties tochoosing thelawofa givenState. Whilerecognizing thenovelandimprecise character oftheterm "rulesoflaw",whichtodatehadbeenadopted onlyinoneinternational convention andtwonational laws,itwasstatedinsupport thatitwouldprovide thenecessary flexibility toallowparties ininternational commercial transactions toSUbject theirrelationship tothoserulesoflawwhichtheyregarded asthemostsuitable onesfortheirspecific case.Itwouldenable them,forexample, tochoose provisions ofdifferent lawstogoverndifferent partsoftheirrelationship, orto selectthelawofagivenStateexceptforcertain provisions, ortochoosethe rulesembodied inaconvention orsimilar legaltextelaborated onthe international level,evenifnotyetinforceornotinforceinanyState connected withtheparties ortheirtransaction. Itwaspointed outthat,as regards anyinterest oftheStatewherethearbitration tookplace,torecognize suchfreedc>m was notessentially different fromallowing thedesignation ofthelaw ofaStatewhichwasinno wayconnected withtheparties ortheirrelationship. Furthermore, sincearticle 28 (3)permitted theparties toauthorize thearbitra1 tribunal todecide exaequoetbono(asamiable compositeur), therewas noreason todenytheparties therighttoagreeonrulesoflawwhichoffered morecertainty thantherulestobeapplied inanexaequoetbonoarbitration. 233.Underanother view,article 28 (1)shouldlimititselftoproviding thata dispute shallbedecided inaccordance withthelawchosen bytheparties. That wasinlinewiththesolution adopted inmanyinternational textsonarbitration (e.g.1961GenevaConvention, 1966ECAFERulesforInternational Commercial -45-Arbitration andStandards forCo~ciliation, 1976UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1975 ICCRules). Thattraditional approach provided agreater degreeofcertainty than thenovelandambiguous notionol:"rulesoflaw",whichmightcauseconsiderable difficulties inpractice. Itw~~notappropriate foramodellawdesigned for
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the drafting of a model law for international commercial arbitration, focusing on the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on legal and regulatory matters.