text: 157.TheCommission adopted theprinciple underlying paragraph (3),namelythatthe competence ofthearbHral tribunal toruleonitsownjurisdiction wasSUbject to courtcontrol. However, therewas adivergence ofviewsastowhen and underwhat circumstances suchresorttoacourtshould beavailable. 158.Underoneview,thesolution adopted inparagraph (3) was appropriate inthat itpermitted suchcourtcontrol onlyinsetting asideproceedings and,asshould be clarified inthetext,inthecontext ofrecognition andenforcement ofawards. Thatsolution waspreferred toinstant courtcontrol sinceitwouldprevent abuse by apartyforpurposes ofdelayorobstruction oftheproceedings. 159.Underanother view,paragraph (3)should bemodified soastoempower the arbitral tribunal tograntleaveforanappealtothecourtorinsomeotherway, forinstance bymakingitsrUlingintheformofanaward,permitinstant court control. Itwasstatedinsupport thatsuchflexibility wasdesirable sinceit wouldenablethearbitral tribunal toassessineachparticular casewhether the riskofdilatory tactics wasgreater thantheopposite dangerofwasteofmoneyand time. Asregards thatpossible danger, thesuggestion was made toreduceits effect byproviding someorallofthesafeguards envisaged inthecontext ofcourt control overachallenge ofanarbitrator inarticle 13(3),i.e.short time-period, finality ofdecision, discretion tocontinue thearbitral proceedings andtorenderanaward. 160.Underyetanother view,itwasnecessary toallowtheparties instant resort tothecourtinordertoobtaincertainty intheimportant question ofthearbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. Various suggestions weremadeforachieving thatresult. Onesuggestion wastoadoptthesolution foundinarticle 13 (3)andthustoallow immediate courtcontrol ineachcasewherethearbitraltribunal ruledontheissue ofitsjurisdiction asapreliminary question. Another suggestion wastorequire thearbitral tribunal, ifsorequested by aparty,toruleonitsjurisdiction asa preliminary questiQn, whichrulingwould be subject toimmediate courtcontrol. Yetanother suggestion wastoreint.roduce inthetextprevious draft article 17.8/Itwaspointed outthat,ifdraftarticle 17werereintroduced in themodellaw,itmightnotbenecessary toadoptfortheconcurrent courtcontrol inarticle 16 (3)thestrictsolution whichwouldexclude anydiscretion onthe partofthearbitral tribunal. 161.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, decided nottoreintroduce previous draft article 17buttoprovide forinstant courtcontrol inarticle 16 (3)alongthe -31-linesofthesolution adopted. inarticle 13(3).TheCommission adopted article 16(3)inthefollowing modified form,subject <toredrafting bythe Drafting Group: "(3)Thearbitral tribunal: mayruleon apleareferred toinparagraph (2)of thisarticle eitherasapreliminary question orinanawardonthemerits. Ifthearbitral tribunal 4etermines inapreliminary rulingthatithas jurisdiction, anyparty m~yrequest, withinthirtydaysafter·havingreceived noticeofthatruling, th~Courtspecified inarticle 6todecidethematter, whichdecision shallnottiesubject toappeal, whilesucharequestis pending, thearbitral triQunal maycontinue thearbitral proceedings." 162.TheCommission decided toalignarticle 13(3)tothatmodified version of article 16(3)andthustorep~ace inarticle 13(3)thetime-period offifteen daysby atime-period ofthirtydaysandtheexpression "final" Qysuchwordsas "notSUbject toappeal". 163.ItwasnotedthatthesecQndsentence ofarticle 16(3)didnotcoverthecase wherethearbitral tribunal ruledthatithad nojurisdiction. Consequently, in suchacasearticle 16(3),readtogether witharticle 5,didnotpreclude resort toacourtforobtaining adecision onwhether avalidarbitration agreement existed. Itwasrecognized thatarUlingbythearbitral tribunal thatitlacked jurisdiction wasfinalasregatdsitsproceedings sinceitwasinappropriate to compelarbitrators who had madesucharulingtocontinue theproceedings. * * * Article 18.Powerofarbitral :tribunal toorderinterim measures 164.Thetextofarticle 18asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Unless otherwise agreed bytheparties, thearbitral tribunal may,atthe request ofaparty,orderanypartytotakesuchinterim measure ofprotection
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the principles and rules governing international arbitration, particularly the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and the circumstances under which parties may seek court review. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a context of international law and dispute resolution.