text: berecorded asanaward,butthattheformalrequest neededtobe made by onlyone ofthem. * * * -48------------~--------------------------------------- Article 31.Formandcontents ofaward 251.Thetextofarticle 31asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: 11(1) The awardshallbe made inwriting andshallbesigned bythearbitrator orarbitrators. Inarbitral proceedings withmorethanonearbitrator, the signatures ofthemajority ofallmembers ofthearbitral tribunal shall suffice, provided thatthereasonforanyomitted signature isstated. "(2)Theawardshallstatethereasons uponwhichitisbased,unlessthe parties haveagreedthatnoreasons aretobegivenortheawardisanaward onagreed termsunderarticle 30. "(3)Theawardshallstateitsdateandtheplaceofarbitration asdetermined inaccordance witharticle 20(1).Theawardshallbedeemedtohavebeen madeatthatplace. "(4)Aftertheawardismade,acopysigned bythearbitrators inaccordance withparagraph (1)ofthisarticle shallbedelivered toeachparty." Paragraphs (1)and(2) 252.Paragraphs (1)and(2)wereadopted. Paragraph (3) 253.Various viewswereexpressed inrespect ofaproposal madetoamendthe secondsentence ofparagraph (3)toreadliTheawardshallbedeemedtohavebeen madeatthatplaceandonthatdate." Underoneviewtheamendment wasdesirable becauseitwouldmakethesecondsentence consistent withthefirstsentence. Moreover, thedateoftheawardmightbesignificant inanumberofdifferent contexts. Sinceanawardmightbecirculated amongthearbitrators bymailfor theirsignature, itmightbedifficult toknowthedateoftheaward. Theonly datethatcouldbecertain wasthedateontheaward, evenifthatdatewas a deemeddate. 254.Underanother viewtherewas abasicdifference between theplacestated on theawardbeingdeemedtobetheplaceoftheawardandthedatestatedonthe awardbeingdeemedtobethedateoftheaward. Theformerisanirrebuttable presumption toassure theterritorial linkbetween theawardandtheplaceof arbitration. Thelattermustberebuttable, sincethearbitrators, aswellasthe parties, mighthavereasons forstating thedateoftheawardtobeearlier or laterthanthedateitwasactually rendered. 255.TheCommission, afterdiscussion, didnotadopttheproposal. Dateonwhichawardbecomes binding 256.Itwasobserved thataccording toarticle 36 (1) (a)(v)ofthemodellawand article V (1)(e)ofthe1958NewYorkConvention recognition orenforcement ofan awardmightberefused iftheawardhadnotyetbecomebinding ontheparties and thatarticle 35 (1)indealing withthebinding natureofanawarddidnotspecify themoment when anawardbecamebinding. Inthelightofthatobservation itwas proposed thatthemodellawshoulddefinethatmoment. TheCommission considered thefollowing threevariants ofapossible rule:anarbitral awardbecomes binding -49-ontheparties asof(a)thedate;onwhichtheawardismade,(b)thedateonwhich theawardisdelivered totheparities, or(c)thedateonwhichtheperiodoftime formaking anapplication forsetiting asidetheawardexpires. 257.Therewasgeneral approval oiftheideathatitwouldbeusefultohavesucha prOVISIon, although somedoubtwasraisedastowhetheritwas necessary~ Inthat regarditwaspointed outthatunderarticle 34 (3)thesetting asideprocedure already specified thatitwasthedateonwhichthepartymakingtheapplication received theawardthatcommencedi thethree-month periodafterwhichapplication forsetting asidecouldnotbema~e. Therewaslittleagreement astothedateon whichtheawardshould become bin~ing. Theprevious discussion haddemonstrated thedifficulties ofrelying either Onthedatestated ontheawardorthedateof theaward. Asregards thedateonwhichoneorbothparties werenotified ofthe award,thepractical difficulties ofestablishing thatdateinthevarious factual situations arising inarbitration weredescribed. Moreover, itwasdifficult to conceive ofanawardbecoming bin~ing ontheparties ondifferent datessimply because theywerenotified ofitpndifferent dates. 258.Afterdiscussion theCommissiion didnotadopttheproposal. Resjudicata 259.Aproposal was made toinclu~e inarticle 31 aprovISIon clarifying thatthe awardmadeinthe·formprovidedinarticle 31hadtheeffectofresjudicata. Whilenotdisagreeing withtheqeneraIprinciple thatawards werebinding onthe parties, theCommission didnotadopttheproposal becauseitwasconsidered that thetermresjudicata was acompl!ex onewhichcouldhavedifferent applications in various legalsystems. * * * Article 32.Termination ofproce~dings 260.Thetextofarticle 32asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Thearbitral Proceedings areterminated bythefinalawardorby agreement oftheparties oribyanorderofthearbitral tribunal inaccordance withparagraph (2)ofthisairticle. "(2)Thearbitral tribunal "(a)shallissueanorderforthetermination ofthearbitral proceedings whentheclaimant withdiraws hisclaim,unlesstherespondent objects
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the rules and procedures for arbitration, including the form and content of awards, the termination of proceedings, and the binding nature of awards. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a focus on legal and regulatory matters.