text: (above, para.286),toreplace insubparagraph (1)(a)(H)thewords"appointment ofthearbitrator(s)" bythewords"appointment ofanarbitrator". 323.Itwasproposed thatsubparagraph (b)(ii)bedeleted sinceinsomecommon law jurisdictions theterm"public policy" mightbeinterpreted asnotcovering notions ofprocedural justice. However, theCommission wasagreedthatthesubparagraph should beretained underthesameunderstanding whichtheCommission expressed in connection witharticle 34 (2) (b) (ii)(seeabove,paras.296-297). 324.Paragraph (1) was adopted withthemodifications indicated above. Paragraph (2) 325.TheCommission adopted theparagraph. * * * D.Discussion ofothermatters Article headings 326.TheCommission decided toretainthefootnote annexed totheheading of article 1inordertoinformtherecipients ofthemodellawaboutthe understanding oftheCommission thatarticle headings wereforreference purposes onlyandwerenottobeusedforpurposes ofinterpretation. Counter-claim 327.TheCommission recalled asuggestion madeinthecontext ofarticle 23for addinga newprovision thatanyprovision ofthemodel law referring totheclaim wouldapply,mutatis mutandis, toacounter-claim (seeabove,para.201).Onthe basisofaproposal prepared bytherepresentatives ofCzechoslovakia andthe -63-UnitedStates, theCommission decided toaddthefollowing provision toarticle 2 asnewsubparagraph (f): 11(f)wbereaprovision ofthisLaw,otherthaninarticles 25(a) and~2.tp(2) (a),referstoaclaim,italsoapplies toacounter-claim, and wher~t;it referstoadefence, italsoapplies toadefence tosuch count~f'-C laim• 11 Burdenofproof 328.Itwasproposed tomakeclearinthemodellawthateachpartywastohavethe burdenofproving thefactsrelied ontosupport hisclaimordefence. Insupport oftheproposal itwasstatedthat,absent suchclarification, someparties might notbediligent orsomearbitral tribunals mightmisconceive theirroleasbeing investigatory. TheCommission decided nottoinclude intbemodellawaprovision onthatpoint. Insupport ofthedecision itwasstatedthatcertain aspects of burdenofproofmightberegarded tobeissuesofsubstantive lawandtherefore subject totheprovisions ofarticle 28;moreover, suchaprovision could unnecessarily interfere withthegeneral principle ofarticle 19according towhich itwasforthepartIes,"andsubordinate1y forthearbitraltribuna1, todetermine therulesofprocedure. However, itwasunderstood thatitwas agenerally recognized principle thatreliance ofapartyon afactinsupport ofhisclaimor defence required thatpartytoprovethefact. Evidence ofwitnesses 329.Aproposal was made toprovide inthemodellawthatevidence ofwitnesses mightalsobepresented intheformofwritten statements signed bythem,sinceit wouldbeusefulifthemodellawdispelled anydoubtaboutthatcost-saving, and sometimes theonlyavailable, methodoftakingevidence ofwitnesses. The Commission didnotadopttheproposal sinceitwasconsidered bettertoleavea pointofdetailliketheoneproposed undertheaegisofthegeneral principle of article 19. Reciprocal application ofarticles 35and36 330.Aproposal was made toinclude inarticle 35,orinafootnote toarticle 35, anindication that,following theexample ofthe1958NewYorkConvention, articles 35and36mightbe made subject tothecondition ofreciprocity asregards therecognition andenforcement offoreign arbitral awards. However, inresponse totheproposal itwasstatedthattheideaof.reciprocity mightbeappropriate in aconvention butwasnotdesirable inaunification by wayofamodellaw.Itwas alsostatedthat,sinceareciprocity provision wouldhavetobe adetailed one specifying whatkindofreciprocity wasmeantanditwouldbedifficult toagreeon aunified approach tothequestion, itwasbettertoleavetheformulation ofany reciprocity provision toeachStateadopting themodellaw.TheCommission, after deliberation, adopted theviewthat,whiletheuseofterritorial linksin international commercial arbitration shouldnotbepromoted, eachStatethatwanted tosubject theapplication oftheprovisions onrecognition orenforcement of foreign awardstoarequirement ofreciprocity shouldexpress therequirement in itslegislation, specifying thebasisorconnecting factor andthetechnique used byit.
analysis: The text appears to be a discussion and decision-making process for the adoption of a model law on international commercial arbitration. The language used is technical and focused on the rules and procedures for arbitration, with no mention of economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues. The text also does not touch on health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, culture, or science and technology. The most fitting category appears to be one related to international trade and commerce.