text: 48.Itwassuggested thattheterm"award" should bedefined inthemodellaw. Suchadefinition, whichwouldbeusefulforallprovisions wherethetermwas used,couldalsoclarify thevarious possible typesofawards, suchasfinal, partial, interim orinterlocutory awards. 49.TheCommission wasagreedthat,whileadefinition wasdesirable, amore modest approach should betakeninviewoftheconsiderable difficulty offinding anacceptable definition andinviewofthefactthatotherlegaltextson arbitration, e.g.the1958NewYorkConvention andmanynational laws,didnot define theterm.Itwasagreedtodetermine inthecontext ofarticle 34andany otherprovision wheresuchdetermination wasneeded(e.g.articles 31and33)which typesofdecisions werecovered bythosearticles. 50.Astoadecision toadda newsubparagraph (f)inrespect ofcounter~claims, seebelow,paragraph 327. * * * Article 4.Waiverofrighttoobject 51.Thetextofarticle 4asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Apartywho knows oroughttohaveknownthatanyprovision ofthisLawfrom whichtheparties mayderogate oranyrequirement underthearbitration agreement hasnotbeencomplied withandyetproceeds withthearbitration without stating hisobjection tosuchnon-compliance without delayor,ifa time-limit isprovided therefor, withinsuchperiodoftime,shallbedeemed tohavewaivedhisrighttoobject." 52.Divergent viewswereexpressed astowhether article 4should beretained. Underoneview,theprovision wastoovagueandpossibly inconflict withrelevant provisions ofnational lawand,asregardsitseffect, toorigidinthatitmight operate unfairly against aparty. Forthosereasons, thequestion ofwaiveror estoppel shouldeither beleftentirely totheapplicable national lawor,ifit wasdeemedabsolutely necessary tohaveawaiverruleinregardtocertaine provisions, thequestion should beaddressed onlyintheindividual articles ofthe modellawconcerning thoseprovisions. 53.Theprevailing view,whichtheCommission adopted, wasthatageneral waiver rulealongthelinesofarticle 4should bemaintained, sincesucharulewould helpthearbitral process function efficiently andingoodfaithandwouldhelp achieve greater uniformity inthematter. 54.Asregards thecontents ofarticle 4,various suggestions weremade.Itwas suggested that,astotheimputed knowledge ofaparty,thewording "oroughtto haveknown"shouldeither bedeleted orbe made moreprecise andlessrigidby requiring ordinary careorreasonable diligence. Notingthatthosewordswerenot contained inthecorresponding provision intheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (article 30),theCommission decided todelete themsincetheymightcreate more problems than they solved. -12-55.A$ugge$tion wa$madetodeletethereference tothenon-mandatory provisions oflaw and thearbitration agreement. TheCommission didnotadopttheproposal sincetheremaining provision wouldbetoovagueand,sinceitwouldalsocover non-compliance withmandatory provisions oflaw,itwouldbetoorigid. 56.Theviewwasexpressed thatthewords"without delay"weretoovagueandtoo rigid.Itwas,therefore, proposed toestablish instead aperiodoftimeorto softentherequirement byusingwording suchas"within reasonable time".Itwas noted,inthatcontext, thatthetimeelement wasimportant inviewofthefact thataperiodoftimeasreferred toinarticle 4 wasnotcontained inany provision ofthemodellawandwasrarelycontained inarbitration agreements. The Commission, afterdeliberation, decided tousethewording "without unduedelay" instead offixingaperiodoftime,sincenoperiodoftimecouldbeappropriate in allcases. 57.Asregards theeffectofawaiverunderarticle 4,theCommission wasagreed thatitwasnotlimited tothearbitral proceedings butextended tosubsequent courtproceedings inthecontext ofarticles 34and36.Itwasnoted,however, thatwhereanarbitral tribunal hadruledthatapartywasdee~edtohavewaived hisrighttoobject, thecourtcouldcometoadifferent conclusion initsreview ofthearbitral procedure underarticle 34or,provided theproceedings were conducted underthemodellaw,article 36. * * * Article 5.Scopeofcourtintervention 58.Thetextofarticle 5asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Inmatters governed bythisLaw, no courtshallintervene exceptwhereso provided inthisLaw." 59.Divergent viewswereexpressed astotheappropriateness oftheprovision. Thediscussion focused on twoobjections. Thefirstobjection wasthatthe provision, whichaddressed anissueoffundamental practical importance, didnot giveaclearanswertothequestion whether inagivensituation courtintervention
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the development of a model law on arbitration, focusing on the definition of terms, waiver of rights, and court intervention. The language used is technical and legal, suggesting that the text is related to the administration of justice and dispute resolution. The context of the discussion is international, as it references the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, indicating that the model law is intended to be applied globally.