text: 282.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, decided toadopttheproposal. Itwas notedthatinthecontext ofarticle 34theneedforharmony withthe1958NewYork Convention waslessstrongthaninthecontext ofarticle 36. 283.Asregards thesecondgroundsetforthinsUbparagraph (a)(1),aproposal was madetoSUbstitute thewords"orthereisnovalidarbitration agreement" forthe words"orthesaidagreement isnotvalidunderthelawtowhichtheparties have SUbjected itor,failing anyindication thereon, underthelawofthisState". It waspointed outthattheconflict oflawsrulecontained inthatlatterwording, whichwastakenfromthe1958NewYorkConvention, wasinappropriate inthatit declared asapplicable, failing achoiceoflaw bytheparties, thelawofthe placeofarbitration. Theplaceofarbitration, howev~r,was notnecessarily -55-connected withthesubject-matter ofthedispute. Itwasunjustified toletthe lawofthatStatedetermine the:issuewithglobaleffect, whichwouldbetheeffect ofasetting asidebyvirtueofarticle 36 (1) (a)(v)ofthemodel law or article V(1)(e)ofthe1958 N~wYorkCOnvention; itwasalsosaidthatsucha resultwouldbeinconflict withamoderntrendtodetermine theissuein accordance withthelawofthemaincontract. 284.Itwasstatedinreplythatitwaspreferable toretainthepresent textnot simplybecauseitwasthewording ofthe1958NewYorkConvention butalsobecause therulewasinsubstance asoundone.Itwaspointed outthattherulerecognized partyautonomy, whichwasimportant inviewofthefactthatsomelegalsystems applied thelexfori.Furtherm9re, tousetheplaceofarbitration. asasecondary criterion wasbeneficial inthatitprovided theparties withadegreeofcertainty whichwaslacking undertheproposed formula. Therewerealsodoubtsastowhether infactatrendcouldbediscerped infavourofdetermining thequestion ofthe validity ofthearbitration agr~ement according tothelawofthemaincontract. 285.TheCOmmission, afterdeliperation, didnotadopttheproposal. Accordingly, ~ subparagraph (a)(i)wasadopteo initsoriginal form,subject tomodifying the .., firstgroundalongthefollowin<j lines: "apartytothearbitration agreement referred toinarticle 7lackedthecapacity toconclude suchanagreement". Subparagraph (a)(ii) 286.The COmmission decided to~eplace insubparagraph (a)(ii)thewords ."appointment ofthearbitrator (a)"bythewords"appointment ofanarbitrator". It wasunderstood thatinarbitral proceedings withmorethanonearbitrator failure togivepropernoticeoftheappointment ofanyone ofthemconstituted aground forsetting asideanaward. 287.Asregards thegroundthat:aparty"wasotherwise unabletopresent hiscase", itwassuggested thatthewording should bealigned withthatusedin article 19(3).The COmmission accepted thesuggestion butpostponed its implementation untilafteradecision wasreached inrespect ofarticle 19(3).It wassuggested, inthatconnection, thatthealignment, coupled withtheinclusion ofthesecondprinciple embodi~ inarticle 19(3),couldgo alongwaytowards meeting theaboveexpressed concern abouttherestrictive listofgrounds contained ~ inparagraph (2)(seeabove,para.277). (See,however, below,para.302.) • Subparagraph (a)(iii) 288.Inthecontext ofthe"discUssion ofthesubparagraph, asuggestion was made to clarify, eitherinthatarticleior inarticle 16,thatapartywho had failedto raiseapleaastothejuriSdiction ofthearbitral tribunal inaccordance with article 16 (2)wouldbeprecluded fromrelying onsuchobjection insetting aside proceedings. Itwasnotedthatthesamequestion ofpreclusion orwaiverarose withregardtoothergrounds set:forthinarticle 34 (2)(a),inparticular subparagraph (a)(i).Itwasrecognized thatthefailure toraisesuchpleacould nothavetheeffectofawaiveriinallcircumstances, especially wheretheplea undersubparagraph (2) (b) was ~hatthedispute wasnon-arbitrable orthatthe awardwasinconflict withpublicpolicy. 289.The COmmission decided not:toembarkon anin-depth discussion withaviewto elaborating acomprehensive proyision covering alleventualities anddeta.ils. It -56-wasagreed nottomodify thetextand,thus,toleavethequestion tothe interpretation, andpossibly regulation, bytheStatesadopting themodellaw. Subparagraph(a) (iv) 290.Asregards thestandards setforthinthesubparagraph, itwasunderstood that priority wasaccorded totheagreement oftheparties. However, wherethe agreement wasinconflict withamandatory provision of"thisLaw"orwherethe parties hadnotmadeanagreement ontheprocedural pointatissue,theprovisions of"thisLaw",whether mandatory ornot,provided thestandards against whichthe
analysis: This text appears to be discussing the development of a model law or convention related to international arbitration, specifically the grounds for setting aside an arbitration award. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on legal and regulatory matters. The content also touches on principles of party autonomy and the need for clarity and certainty in arbitration proceedings.