text: provided amoreprecise testthantheonesetforthinsubparagraph (c).In response tothatproposal, aconcern wasexpressed thatsuchasubjective criterion wouldenableparties freelytolabelasinternational apurelydomestic case. Others, however, considered thatanysuchconcern wasoutweighed bytheadvantages ofasystemthatprovided certainty totheparties thattheirtransaction wouldbe recognized asinternational, acharacterization thatshouldproperly fallwithin thescopeofpartyautonomy. Inresponse tothatconsideration theviewwas expressed thatitwasinconceivable thatanystatewhichdeemeditnecessary to retain aspecial lawfordomestic caseswouldwanttoallowparties toevadethat system. 32.TheCommission requested anadhocworking party, composed ofthe representatives ofAustralia, Finland, India,theUnionofSovietSocialist Republics andtheUnitedStates, toprepare adraftofanopting-in provision and ofaprovision toimplement theproposal onnon-arbitrability. Theworking party wasalsorequested toprepare, forconsideration bytheCommission, adraft provision whichwouldexpress thecharacter ofthemodellawasalexspecialis withregardtoallmatters governed bytheLaw. 33.Astotheopting-in provision, theadhocworking partysuggested replacing thewording insubparagraph (c)bythefollowing newprovision: "(c)Theparties haveexpressly agreedthatthesubject-matter ofthearbitration agreement relates tomorethanonecountry". Whiletheconcern previously expressed abovein paragraph 31 wasrestated, itwaspointed outthatcourts wereunlikely togive effecttosuchanagreement inapurelydomestic case.Afterdiscussion, the Commission adopted thesuggested provision. 34.Astotheprovision onnon-arbitrability, thead hocworking partysuggested addingthefollowing newparagraph toarticle 1:"ThisLawshallnotaffectany otherlawofthisStatebyvirtueofwhichcertain disputes maynotbesubmitted to arbitration ormay besubmitted toarbitration onlyaccording toprovisions other thanthoseofthisLaw." TheCommission adopted thesuggested paragraph. 35.Astotheprovision expressing thelexspecialis character ofthemodellaw, theadhocworking partysuggested addingthefollowing newparagraph toarticle 1: "ThisLawprevails overotherprovisions oflawofthisStateastomatters governed bythisLaw." TheCommission decided nottoinclude thesuggested formulation inarticle 1because ofaconcern thattheproposed provision linked a somewhat imprecise delimitation of"matters governed bythisLaw"witha categorical rule. However, itwasunderstood that,sincethemodellawwas designed toestablish aspecial legalregime, incaseofconflict itsprovisions, ratherthanthoseapplicable toarbitrations ingeneral, wouldapplyto international commercial arbitrations. Paragraph (3) 36.TheCommission adopted theprovlslon, subject tothedeletion oftheword "relevant" andtoclarifying thatthesecondsentence didnotrelatetothefirst sentence buttoparagraph (2). ** * -9-Article 2.Definitions andrulesofinterpretation 37.Thetextofarticle 2asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Forthepurposes ofthisLaw: "(a)'arbitral tribunal' meansasolearbitrator orapanelof arbitrators, "(b)'court' meansabodyororganofthejudicial systemofacountry, "(c)whereaprovision ofthisLawleavestheparties freetodetermine a certain issue,suchfreedom includes therightoftheparties to authorize athirdparty,including aninstitution, tomakethat determination, "(d)whereaprovision ofthisLawreferstothefactthattheparties haveagreedorthattheymayagreeorinanyotherwayreferstoan agreement oftheparties, suchagreement includes anyarbitration rules referred tointhatagreement, "(e)unlessotherwise agreed bytheparties, anywritten communication is deemedtohavebeenreceived ifitisdelivered totheaddressee personally orifitisdelivered athisplaceofbusiness, habitual residence ormailing address, or,ifnoneofthesecanbefoundafter makingreasonable inquiry, thenattheaddressee's last~known placeof business, habitual residence ormailing address. Thecommunication shall bedeemedtohavebeenreceivedonthedayitissodelivered." Subparagraphs (a),(b)and(d) 38.TheCommission adopted subparagraphs (a),(b)andCd)ofthearticle. Subparagraph (c) 39.During thediscussion onsubparagraph (c),asuggestion was made toexpress by anappropriate reservation thatthefreedom oftheparties toauthorize athird
analysis: The text appears to be related to international commercial arbitration, discussing specific provisions and definitions within a model law. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a focus on legal and regulatory aspects. The content does not seem to be related to specific industries or sectors, but rather to the framework for resolving international commercial disputes.