text: welltheadvisability ofappointing anarbitrator ofanationality otherthan thoseoftheparties." Paragraphs (1)and(2) 101.TheCommission adopted tho~eparagraphs. Inthatconnection, itwasnoted thatthemodel law didnotcont~in anexpress provision totheeffectthatthe arbitral tribunal hadtobecomposed ofimpartial andindependent members. Itwas understood, however, that that agreedprinciple wassufficiently clearfromother provisions ofthemodellaw,iniparticular article 12whichsetforththegrounds forchallenge. . Paragraph (3) 102:TheCommission adopted subparagraph (a),subject toreplacing thewords "within thirtydaysafterhavingbeenrequested todosobytheotherparty" by suchwordsas"within thirtydaysofreceipt ofsuchrequest fromtheotherparty". 103.Asuggestion was made tolaydowninsubparagraph (b) atime-limit, a.s was doneinrespect oftheprovision ofsubparagraph (a).TheCommission wasagreed thatnosuchtime-limit was req~ired insubparagraph (b)sincethepersons expected toagreeweretheparties thems~lves whoseinability toreachanagreement became evident byarequest ofoneof~hemtotheCourt. Accordingly,subparagraph (b) wasadopted initscurrent form~ Paragraph (4) 104.Itwasnotedthattheterm'"appointing authority" usedinsUbparagraph (c) was notdefined inthemodellaw.TheCommission wasagreedthatthetermshould be replaced byappropriate wordingi andthesubparagraph berevised alongthefollowing lines: "(c)athirdparty, inc~uding aninstitution, entrusted bytheparties with afunction inconnection withtheappointment ofarbitrators failstoperform this function". Itwasnotedthatsuchamodification madeitunnecessary toinclude in article 2 adefinition ofthet~rm"appointing authority". -22-Paragraph (5)andsuggestions relating tofunctions ofCourt 105.TheCommission adopted paragraph (5). 106.Inrespect ofthefunctions oftheCourtenvisaged underparagraphs (3),(4) and(5),anobservation was made basedontheconcern whichhadearlier been expressed inthecontext ofarticle 2 (e)(seeabove,para.42).Itwasobserved thattheprovisions ofarticle 11dealing withthefunctions oftheCourt,in particular ifreadtogether withtheprovisions ofthemodellaw onreceipt of written communications, couldbeinterpreted asprecluding theCourtfromapplying domestic procedural ruleswhich, byrequiring, forinstance, acertain formof service oradvertising, wouldhelptoreducetheriskofapartybeingcaughtin arbitral proceedings without hisknowledge. TheCommission decided toclarify that theprovision onreceipt ofcommunications didnotapplytocourtproceedings or measures butonlytothearbitral proceedings proper, including anystepsinthe appointment process byaparty, anarbitrator oranappointing authority. 107.Asagreedinthecontext ofthediscussion ontheterritorial scopeof application and any possible exceptions thereto (seeabove,paras.76-77), the Commission considered whether courtassistance intheappointment process, as provided forinarticle 11(3),11 (4) and 11 (5),should bemadeavailable even beforetheplaceofarbitration wasdetermined, sinceitwasthedetermination of theplaceofarbitration whichtriggered thegeneral applicability ofthe(model) lawinaStatethathadenactedit. 108.Underoneview,themodel law neednotcontain anysuchprovision sinceitwas difficult tofindanacceptable connecting factorand,aboveall,therewasnO pressing needinviewoftheinfrequency ofcaseswhereparties hadagreedneither on aplaceofarbitration noron anappointing authority andsinceeveninsuch rarecasestheexisting applicable laworlawsmightcometotheirassistance with acoherent system. 109.Theprevailing view,however, wasthatapractical problem existed andthe modellawshouldprovide forsuchassistance inordertofacilitate international commercial arbitration byenabling thediligent partytosecuretheconstitution of thearbitral tribunal. Astowhidhshouldbetheconnecting factor, thefollowing proposals weremade: (a)placeofbusiness ofdefendant, (b)placeofbusiness of claimant, (c)placeofbusiness ofeitherclaimant ordefendant. 110.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, tentatively concluded thataState
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the adoption of model law provisions related to international commercial arbitration, specifically focusing on the appointment of arbitrators and the role of the court in this process. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting that the text is related to legal or regulatory matters.