text: paragraph (1).Onesuggestion !wastomakeclearinthemodellawth(itthe freedom oftheparties toagreeonthe,procedure should be acontinuing onethroughout the arbitral proceedings. Theothersuggestion wastopermittheparties 'todetermine rulesofprocedure afterthea~bitrators hadaccepted theirdutiestotheextent thearbitrators agreed. 172.Neither suggestion wasad~pted. Although theprovision asitnowstood implied thattheparties had aicontinuing righttochangetheprocedure, the arbitrators couldnotinfactqeforcedtoacceptchanges intheprocedure because theycouldresigniftheydidnotwishtocarryoutnewprocedures agreedtobythe parties. Itwasnotedthatthetime-frame allowed forchanging theprocedures to befollowed couldbesettled between theparties andthearbitrators. Paragraph (2) 173.Anobservation was made that,sinceinsomelegalsystems aquestion of ~ admissibility, relevance, materiality andweightofevidence wouldbeconsidered to be amatterofsubstantive law,thequestion aroseastotherelationship between thesecondsentence ofparagra~h (2)andarticle 28. 174.Itwasunderstood that th~objective ofparagraph (2) was torecognize a discretion ofthearbitral tribunal whichwouldnotbeaffected bythechoiceof lawapplicable tothesubstance ofthedispute. 175.TheCommission adopted paraqraph(2). Paragraph (3) 176.TheCommission wasagreedthattheprOV1Slon contained inparagraph (3) constituted afundamental princiiple whichwasapplicable totheentirearbitral proceedings andthat, therefor~, theprovision should formaseparate article 18bistobeplacedatithebeginning ofchapter Vofthemodellaw.That decision wastentatively madei'nthecontext ofthediscussion ofarticle 22(see below,paras. 189-194) andconf,irmed inalaterdiscussion ofarticle 19(3). * * * Article 20.Placeofarbitratipn 177.Thetextofarticle 20as!considered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Theparties arefreetoagreeontheplaceofarbitration. Failing such agreement, theplaceofaribitration shallbedetermined bythearbitral tribunal. "(2)Notwithstanding theprovlslons ofparagraph (1)ofthisarticle, the arbitral tribunal may,unl,essotherwise agreed bytheparties, meetatany placeitconsiders appropr'iate forconsultation amongitsmembers, forhearing witnesses, experts orthe~arties, orforinspection ofgoods,otherproperty, ordocuments." -34-178.Aproposal was made toaddtotheendofthesecondsentence ofparagraph (1) thewords: "having regardtothecircumstances ofthearbitration, including the convenience oftheparties"~ Itwasstatedinsupport oftheproposal thatthe venueofarbi~ration wasotconsiderable practical importance andthatinclusion of theconvenienceOfthepar.ties asaguiding factorcouldmeettheconcernfeltby somepersons; jnparticu1a,,ri,n developing countries, thataninconvenient location mightbeimposed onthem.itwasnotedthattheconcern wasalsofeltinother countries. 179.Divergent viewswereexpressed astotheappropriateness oftheproposed wording. Underoneviewtheadditional wordswereunnecessary sincetheyexpressed aprinciple whichwasalready implicit inarticle 19(3).Particular opposition wasexpressed tothewords"including theconvenience oftheparties". Itwassaid tobeunbalanced tomention onlysomecircumstances tobetakenintoconsideration bythearbitrators indetermining theplaceofarbitration, sinceotherfactors suchasthesuitability oftheapplicable procedural law,theavailability of procedures forrecognition orenforcement ofawardsunderthe1958NewYork Convention orothermultilateral orbilateral treaties or,eventually, whether a Statehadadopted themodellawmightbeofatleastequalimportance. Itwasalso notedthatarticle 16 (1)oftheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rulesprovided thatin determining theplaceofarbitration thearbitrators weretohaveregardtothe circumstances ofthearbitration butthattheconvenience oftheparties wasnot mentioned. Itwassuggested thatadiscrepancy between th~twotextsonthatpoint wasundesirable. 180.However, theprevailing viewwasthatthemodellawshouldrefertothe convenience oftheparties asacircumstance ofgreatimportance inthe determination oftheplaceofarbitration ininternational commercial arbitration. Itwasunderstood atthesametimethattheconvenience oftheparties should be interpreted asinclUding theabove-mentioned considerations regarding the applicable procedural lawandtherecognition andenforcement ofawards.
analysis: This text appears to be a discussion on the model law for international commercial arbitration, focusing on the rules and procedures for arbitration. The topics covered include the freedom of parties to agree on the procedure, the discretion of the arbitral tribunal, and the place of arbitration. The text does not seem to be related to any specific industry or sector, but rather to the legal framework for international commercial arbitration.