text: "(2)Failing suchagreement, apartywhointends tochallenge anarbitrator shall,withinfifteen daysoftheconstitution ofthearbitral tribunal or afterbecoming awareofanycircumstance referred toinarticle 12(2), whichever isthelater,sendawritten statement ofthereasons forthe challenge tothearbitral tribunal. Unlessthechallenged arbitrator withdraws fromhisofficeortheotherpartyagreestothechallenge, the arbitral tribunal shalldecide onthechallenge. "(3)Ifachallenge underanyprocedure agreed uponbytheparties orunder theprocedure ofparagraph (2)ofthisarticle isnotsuccessful, the challenging partymayrequest, withinfifteen daysafterhavingreceived noticeofthedecision rejecting thechallenge, theCourtspecified in article 6todecide onthechallenge, whichdecision shallbefinal;while sucharequest ispending, thearbitral tribunal, including thechallenged arbitrator, maycontinue thearbitral proceedings." General discussion onappropriateness ofcourtcontrol duringarbitral proceedings 121.TheCommission, beforeconsidering theprovisions ofarticle 13indetail, embarked on ageneral discussion ontheappropriateness ofcourtcontrol during arbitral proceedings. Divergent viewswereexpressed onthatmatter. 122.Underoneview,thecourtcontrol envisaged underarticle 13 (3) was inappropriate andshouldatleastbelimited, inordertoreducetheriskof dilatory tactics. Onesuggestion wastodeletetheprovision, thusexcluding court control duringthearbitral proceedings, ortorestrict itsapplication considerably, forexample, tothoserarecaseswherethesolearbitrator ora majority ofthearbitrators werechallenged. Another suggestion wastoreplace in paragraph (I)thewords"subject totheprovisions ofparagraph (3)ofthis article" bythewords"andthedecision reached pursuant tothatprocedure shallbe final". Thethrustofthesuggestion wastoallowthecourtcontrol envisaged in paragraph (3)onlyiftheparties hadnotagreed on aprocedure forchallenges and, inparticular, notentrusted aninstitution orthirdpersonwithdeciding onthe -25-challenge. Yetanother suggestion wastoletthearbitral tribunal decidewhether courtcontrol should beallowed immediately oronlyaftertheawardwasmade. The suggestion wasadvanced asapoasdbkesolution totheproblem thatunderarticle 13 achallenged arbitrator appeared itohavefullfreedom towithdraw andthatasa resultofsuchwithdrawal theparitywhoappointed thearbitrator mightbeadversely affectedbytadditional costsanddelay. 123.Underanother view,theweigntaccorded tocourtintervention in article 13 (3) wasnotsUfficienti inthattheprovision empowered thearbitral tribunal, including thechallenge~ arbitrator, tocontinue thearbitral proceedings irrespective ofthefactthattheichallenge waspending withtheCourt.Itwas statedinsupport oftheviewthaitsuchcontinuation wouldcauseunnecessary waste oftimeandcostsifthecourtLacersustained thechallenge. Atleast,itshould beexpressed inarticle 13thattnearbitral tribunal wasprecluded fromcontinuing theproceedings iftheCourtordelred astayofthearbitral proceedings. 124.Theprevailing view,however, wastoretainthesystem adopted inarticle 13 sinceitstruckanappropriate ballanoebetween theneedforpreventing obstruction ordilatory tactics andthedesir~ofavoiding unnecessary wasteoftimeandmoney. ~ 125.TheCommission, after delib~ration, adopted theprevailing view. Paragraph (1) 126.TheCommission adopted the~rovision. Paragraph (2) 127.TheCommission didnotadop~asuggestion toprovide inparagraph (2)thatthe mandate ofasolearbitrator who!waschallenged butdidnotwithdraw fromhis office terminated onaccount ofthechallenge. 128.TheCommission didnotadopqasuggestion toexclude thechallenged arbitrator fromthedeliberations andthedecision ofthearbitral tribunal onthechallenge. 129.Itwasnotedthatthechallenge procedure ofparagraph (2) was applicable toa solearbitrator aswellastothechallenge ofoneormorearbitrators ofa multi-arbitrator tribunal. Therefusal ofasolearbitrator toresign would constitute arejection ofthechC\llenge, makingavailable resorttothecourtunder paragraph (3). 130.TheCommission adopted paragraph (2),subject tocertain drafting suggestions
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a set of rules and procedures for arbitration, specifically focusing on the challenges that can be made to arbitrators and the role of courts in these proceedings. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting that the text is related to a specific field of law or international arbitration. The discussion also involves the Commission's deliberations and decisions, implying that the text is part of a larger document or agreement.