text: wouldpossibly bedeniedenforcement underthe1958NewYorkConvention, adoption ofthatextension inthemodellawmighteventually leadtoaninterpretation of article II(2)ofthatConvention whereby arbitration agreements evidenced inthe minutes ofarbitral tribunals wouldbeacceptable. Itwasnotedthat,ifthe suggestion wereadopted, thecondition ofrecognition andenforcement laiddownin article 35 (2)ofthemodellaw,i.e.supplyoforiginal orcertified copyofthe arbitration agreement referred toinarticle 7,mighthavetobemodified to accommodate thatinstance ofsubmission (cf.document A/CN.9/264, note91).The Commission, afterdeliberation, decided toextendthescopeofparagraph (2)along thelinesofthesuggestion. 88.Toimplement thatdecision theCommission decided toaddtotheendofthe secondsentence ofarticle 7 (2)suchwording as"orinanexchange ofstatements ofclaimanddefence inwhichonepartyhasalleged andtheotherpartyhasnot deniedtheexistence ofanagreement". * * * Article 8.Arbitration agreement andsubstantive claimbeforecourt 89.Thetextofarticle 8asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Acourtbefore whichanactionisbrought inamatter whichisthe subject ofanarbitration agreement shall,ifapartysorequests notlater thanwhensubmitting hisfirststatement onthesubstance ofthedispute, refertheparties toarbitration unlessitfindsthattheagreement isnull ~ andvoid,inoperative orincapable ofbeingperformed. "(2)Where,insuchcase,arbitral proceedings havealready commenced, the arbitral tribunal maycontinue theproceedings whiletheissueofits jurisdiction ispending withthecourt." 90.Itwassuggested thatparagraph (2)couldbereadtoapplyonlyifthe arbitral proceedings hadcommenced priortothecommencement ofthejudicial proceedings. TheCommission agreedthatthetextofparagraph (2)should be amended soastomakeclearthatapartywasnotprecluded frominitiating arbitral proceedings bythefactthatthematter hadbeenbrought before acourt. 91.Therewas adivergence ofopinion intheCommission astowhether thetext should beamended soastopreclude thepossibility thatproceedings mightgo forward concurrently inboththearbitral tribunal andthecourt. Underoneview, ifthearbitral proceedings hadalready commenced, thecourtshouldnormally postpone itsruling onthearbitral tribunal's jurisdiction untiltheawardwas made. Thatwouldprevent theprotraction ofarbitral proceedings andwouldbein linewitharticle VI(3)oftheEuropean Convention onInternational Commercial -19-Arbitration (Geneva, 1961). Underanother view,oncetheissueastowhether the arbitration agreement wasnullandvoidwasraisedbefore thecourt,priority should beaccorded tothecourtproceedings byrecognizing apowerinthecourtsto staythearbitral proceedings or,atleast, byprecluding thearbitral tribunal fromrendering anaward. 92.Theprevailing viewwastoleavethecurrent textofparagraph (2)unchanged onthatpoint. Permitting thearbitral tribunal tocontinue theproceedings, including themakingofanawa~d,whiletheissueofitsjurisdiction wasbefore thecourtcontributed toapromptresolution ofthearbitration. Itwaspointed outthatexpenses wouldbesav~dbyawaiting thedecision ofthecourtinthose caseswherethecourtlater ru~edagainst thejurisdiction ofthearbitral tribunal. However, itwasfor!that reasonnotrecommendable toprovide fora postponement ofthecourt's rulingonthejurisdiction ofthearbitral tribunal. Furthermore, wherethearbitral tribunal hadserious doubtsastoitsjurisdiction, itwouldprobably either proce~ toafinaldetermination ofthatissueinaruling on apleareferred toinartic~e 16(2)or,inexercising thediscretion accorded toitbyarticle 8(2),await ~hedecision ofthecourtbeforeproceeding withthe~ arbitration. 93.ItwasnotedthatobjectiQns totheexistence ofavalidarbitration agreement werereferred toinarticles 8i(1),16(2),34 (2) (a)(i)and36(1)(a)(i), whichapparently allowed apartywishing toobstruct ordelaythearbitration to raisethesameobjection atfo~rdifferent stages. TheCommission wasagreedthat, whileitwasnotpossible inamodellawtosolvepotential conflicts ofcompetence between courtsofdifferent Statesorbetween anysuchcourtandanarbitral tribunal, whenconsidering thosearticles account should betakenoftheneedfor innerconsistency withaviewtioreducing theeffects ofpossible dilatory tactics. 94.TheCOmmission, afterdeliberation, adopted article 8,subject tomodifying
analysis: This text appears to be discussing the development of international arbitration agreements and the rules governing their enforcement. It seems to be focused on the legal aspects of arbitration, rather than any specific industry or sector. The text also mentions the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, which suggests a connection to international trade and commerce.