text: courtsoftheparticular Stateadopting themodellawirrespective ofwherethe placeofarbitration waslocated orunderwhichlawthearbitration wasconducted. 76.Asregards thecourtfunctions referred toinarticle 6,i.e.thoseenvisaged inarticles 11(3),11(4),13(3),14and34(2),itwaSagreedthatadecision should bemadeinthecontext ofthediscussion oneachofthosearticles whether thebasiccriterion wouldbeappropriate. Inthatconnection, itwassuggested thatanextension oftheterritorial scopeofapplication mightbedesirable with regardtothecourtfunctions envisaged inarticles 11,13and14soastomake available theassistance ofthecourtspecified inarticle 6evenbeforetheplace ofarbitration orothergeneral connecting factorfortheapplicability ofthe (model) lawofaparticular Statehadbeenestablished. Various suggestions were madeastowhichshould bethespecial connecting factorforthatpurpose: (a)defendant hasplaceofbusiness inthisState; (b)claimant hasplaceof business inthisState; (c)claimant ordefendant hasplaceofbusiness inthis State; (d)arbitration agreement wasconcluded inthisState; (e)forcertain instances: placeofresidence ofarbitrator concerned isinthisState. 77.Whilesomedoubts wereexpressed astothepractical needforandfeasibility ofsuchanextension, othersfeltthatsuchaneedexisted inmanycases. The Commission wasagreedthatthequestion should bedecided inthecontext ofits discussion oftherelevant articles (i.e.articles 11,13and14). 78.TheCommission requested theSecretariat toprepare, onthebasisoftheabove discussion, draftprovisions ontheterritorial scopeofapplication ofthemodel lawingeneral, including suggestions astopossible exceptions tothegeneral scope. ·79.TheSecretariat prepared thefollowing draftofa newparagraph (1bis)of article 1forconsideration bytheCommission: -16-"(1bis)Theprovisions ofthis~wapplyiftheplaceofarbitration isin theterritory ofthisState. However, thoseprovisions onfunctions ofcourts ofthisStatesetforthinarticles 8,9,35and36applyirrespective of whether theplaceofarbitration isintheterritory ofthisState;those provisions onfunctions ofcourtsofthisStatesetforthinarticles 11,13 and14applyevenwheretheplaceofarbitration isnotyetdetermined, provided thattherespondent [ortheclaimant) hashisplaceofbusiness in theterritory ofthisState." TheSecretariat addedthesuggestion that,iftheCommission weretodecidethat thecourtassistance envisaged inarticles 11,13and14neednotbe made available inthosecaseswheretheplaceofarbitration wasnotyetdetermined, thefollowing shortversion ofparagraph (1bis)mightbesufficient: "(1bis)Theprovisions ofthis ~w,exceptarticles 8,9,35and36,apply iftheplaceofarbitration isintheterritory ofthisState." 80.Indiscussing theaboveproposal, theCommission decided that,forreasons statedinsupport ofthestrictterritorial criterion (seeabove,para.73),the applicability ofthemodellawshould dependexclusively ontheplaceof arbitration asdefined inthemodellaw.Astothequestion ofextending the applicability ofarticles 11,13and14tothetimebeforetheplaceofarbitration wasdetermined, somesupport wasexpressed forsuchanextensiOn sinceitwas important toprovide courtassistance inthecaseswhereparties couldnotreachan agreement ontheplaceofarbitration. However, theprevailing viewwasthatthe modellawshouldnotdealwithcourtassistance tobeavailable beforethe determination oftheplaceofarbitration. Insupport oftheprevailing viewit wasstatedthatneither theplaceofbusiness oftheclaimant nOrtheplaceof business ofthedefendant provided anentirely satisfactory connecting factorfor thepurpose ofdetermining whether courtassistance should beprovided. Moreover, aprovision ofthatkindinthemodellawmightinterfere withotherrulesoncourt jurisdiction. Itwasalsopointed outthatevenwithout suchanextension ofthe applicability ofthemodellawapartymightbeabletoobtaincourtassistance underlawsotherthanthemodellaw.Previous discussion astowhether the applicability ofarticles 11,13and14should beextended tothetimebeforethe placeofarbitration wasdetermined isreported below,paragraphs 107-110 (article 11),paragraph 133(article 13),paragraph 143(article 14)and paragraph 148(article 15withreference toarticle 11). 81.TheCommission agreedthataprovision implementing thatdecision, whichhad tobeincluded inarticle 1,should beformulated alongthefollowing lines: "The provisions ofthisLaw,exceptarticles 8,9,35and36,applyonlyiftheplaceof arbitration isintheterritory ofthisState". * * * CHAPTER II.ARBITRATION AGREEMENT Article 7.Definition andformofarbitration agreement 82.Thetextofarticle 7asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows:
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the territorial scope of application of a model law, specifically regarding the provision of court assistance in arbitration proceedings. The context suggests that the model law is related to international arbitration, and the discussion revolves around the territorial reach of the law and the availability of court assistance before the place of arbitration is determined. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on legal and regulatory matters.