text: supervision referred tointhearticle, wasusefulandbeneficial tointernational commercial arbitration. As aresultofasubsequent decision toprovide .for instant courtcontrol overanarbitral tribunal's rulingthatithadjurisdiction (seebelow,para.161),areference toarticle 16 (3) was included inarticle 6. 68.Itwasunderstood thataStatewasnotcompelled todesignate merelyone singlecourtbutwasfreetoentrust a number ofitscourtsoracertain category ofitscourtswithperforming thosefunctions. Thatpointcouldbe made clearby addingtothewords"theCourt"thewords"ortheCourts". 69.ItwasalsoagreedthataStateshouldnotbecompelled todesignate acourt inthetermsofarticle (2)(b)forallthefunctions referred toinarticle 6but should befreetoentrust thefunctions envisaged inarticles 11,13 and 14 toan organorauthority outsideitsjudicial systemsuchasachamber ofcommerce oran arbitral institution. 70.Asuggestion was made torecognize partyautonomy asregards thechoiceofthe foruminthosecaseswheremorethanonecourtwascompetent toperform the functions ofarbitration assistance andsupervision. Another suggestion wasto resolve anypossible positive conflict ofcourtcompetence byaccording priority to thecourtfirstseizedwiththematter. TheCommission didnotacceptthose suggestions since,insofarasthechoiceofforumwithinagivenStatewas concerned, theissuefellinthenational domainofregulating theorganization of andaccesstoitscourtsand,insofar astheissueandpossible conflict ofthe competence ofcourtsindifferent Stateswasconcerned, itcouldnoteffectively be settled by amodellaw. 71.TheCommission wasagreed, however, thatitwasdesirable todetermine the instances inwhichthecourtorcourtsofaparticular Statewhichhadadopted the modellawwouldbecompetent toperform thefunctions referred toinarticle 6.It wasnotedthatthequestion wasdirectly related tothegeneral matterofthe territorial scopeofapplication ofthemodellaw.TheCommission, therefore, embarked on adiscussion ofthatgeneral matter. Discussion onterritorial scopeofapplication 72.Divergent viewswereexpressed astowhether themodellawShouldexpressly stateitsterritorial scopeofapplication and,ifso,whichconnecting factor should bethedetermining criterion. Underoneview,itwasinappropriate to determine thatissueinthemodel law sincetheterritorial scopeofapplication of thelawasadopted inagivenStatewaseitherself-evident fromthefactofits enactmen.t orwastobedetermined bytheparticular Stateinaccordance withits general policies inthatregard, including itsstanceonconflict oflawsandon courtcompetence. Theprevailing view,however, wasthatitwasdesirable to determine thatissueinthemodellawinordertoachieve agreater degreeof harmony, thereby helping toreducetheconflict oflawsaswellasofcourt c:ompetence. 73.Asregards theconnecting factorWhichshoulddetermine theapplicability of the(model) lawinagivenState,therewaswidesupport fortheso-called strict territorial criterion, accOrding towhichthelawwouldapplywheretheplaceo.f arbitration wasinthatState. Insupport ofthatView,itwaspointed outthat thatcriterion wasusedbythegreatmajority ofnational lawsandthat,where -15-national lawsallowed parties tochoosetheprocedural lawofaStateotherthan thatwherethearbitration toOkplace,experience showedthatparties inpractice rarely madeuseofthatfaculty. Themodellaw,byitsliberal contents, further reduced theneedforsuchchoiceofa"foreign" lawinlieuofthe(model) lawof theplaceofarbitration; itwaspointed outthatthemodellawitselfallowed the parties widefreedom inshaping therulesofthearbitral proceedings, including thefaculty ofagreeing ontheprocedural provisions ofa"foreign" lawsolongas theydidnotconflict withthemandatory provisions ofthemodellaw. 74.Another viewwasthattheplaceofarbitration shouldnotbeexclusive inthe sensethatparties wouldbeprecluded fromchoosing thelawofanother Stateasthe lawapplicable tothearbitration procedure. AStatewhichadopted themodellaw mightwishtoapplyitalsotothosecaseswhereparties hadchosenthelawofthat Stateeventhoughtheplaceofarbitration wasinadifferent State.Itwas recognized thatsuchchoice mightbesubject tocertain restrictions, inparticular asregards fundamental notions ofjustice, reasons ofpublicpolicy andrulesof courtcompetence intrinsic tothelegalandjUdicial systemofeachState. 75.TheCommission wasagreedthatthebasiccriterion fortheterritorial scope ofapplication, whatever itsprecise finalwording, wouldnotgovern thecourt functions envisaged inarticles 8(1),9,35and36,whichwereentrusted tothe
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the development of a model law for international commercial arbitration, specifically focusing on the jurisdictional issues and territorial scope of application. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a legal or regulatory context. The discussion revolves around the organization of courts, arbitration tribunals, and the choice of law, which are all related to the functioning of international commerce.