text: -36-agreement bytheparties, thepurpose oftheaboveproposal couldbeachieved by a provision inthearbitration rules,asisoftenfoundinstandard rulesofarbitral institutions, totheeffectthatthearbitral proceedings commenced on thedateOn whicharequest forarbitration wasreceived bythearbitral institution. * * * Article 22.Language 188.Thete:xtofarticle 22asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Theparties arefreetoagreeonthelanguage orlanguages tobeusedin thearbitral proceedings. Failing suchagreement, thearbitral tribunal shall determine thelanguage orlanguages tobeusedintheproceedings. This agreement ordetermination, unlessotherwise specified therein, shallapplyto anywritten statement by aparty,anyhearing andanyaward,decision orother communication bythearbitral tribunal. "(2)Thearbitral tribunal mayorderthatanydocumentary evidence shallbe accompanied by atranslation intothelanguage orlanguages agreed upon by the parties ordetermined bythearbitral tribunal." 189.TheCommission notedthatthedetermination ofthelanguage orlanguages of thearbitral proceedings involved bothamatterofprinciple and amatterof practicality. Theprinciple, setforthinarticle 19(3),wasthattheparties mustbetreated withequality andeachpartymustbegivenaful!opportunity of presenting hiscase.Atthesametime,itwasrecognized thatextensive interpretation oforalproceedings andtranslation ofwritten documents would increase thecostsofthearbitration and,inthecaseofextensive translations, prolong theproceedings. 190.Aproposal thatarticle 22shouldspecifically provide that,failing agreement oftheparties, thelanguage orlanguages tobeusedintheproceedings should be determined bythearbitral tribunal inaccordance witharticle 19 (3) was not accepted asbeingunnecessary. ForthesamereasontheCommission didnotaccept a proposal tostateexpressly thatapartyhad arighttoexpress himself inhisown language provided hearranged forinterpretation intothelanguage oftheproceedings. 191.Yetanother proposal wasthatthearbitral proceedings should beconducted in thelanguages oftheparties unlesstheparties agreedononelanguage orthe arbitral tribunal, onthebasisofanexpress mandate conferred toitbythe parties, determined thelanguage oftheproceedings. Theproponents ofthat proposal suggested that,ifthiswasnotaccepted, themodellawshouldprovide thatanypartywhoselanguage wasnotchosenasthelanguage oftheproceedings had therightofpresenting hiscaseinhislanguage, andthecostsoftranslation and interpretation should formpartofthecostsoftheproceedings. However, the proposal wasnotaccepted sinceitwasconsidered tobetoorigidandnotcapable ofproviding asuitable solution forthewidevariety ofsituations whicharosein practice. Itwasthought tobeappropriate toleavethedetermination ofthe language orlanguages oftheproceedings tothearbitral tribunal, whichwasinall circumstances boundbyarticle 19(3). 192.Notingthattheword"translation" inparagraph (2) was notdefined, a proposal was made thatatranslation should bedulycertified. Theproposal was -37-notaccepted onthegroundthatageneral requirement ofcertification of translations wouldunnecessarily! addtothecostsofproceedings. 193.Itwasnotedthatwhere pro~eedings weretobeconducted inmorethanone language, itmightbereasonable andnotprejudicial totheinterests ofthe parties ifadocument wastransl~ted intoonlyoneofthelanguages ofthe proceedings. Consequently, itw~sproposed thatarticle 22shouldprovide expressly thatitwouldnotbep~rsecontrary tothemodellawifina multi-language arbitration thea~bitral tribunal decided thataparticular document didnothavetobetranslated in~oallthelanguages oftheproceedings. Whilethe Commission wasoftheviewthat ~uchcost-saving practices werenotprohibited by article 22,itreferred totheDtafting Groupthequestion whether thetext expressed thatviewwithsufficient clarity. 194.TheCommission adopted arti~le 22,subject tothereviewbytheDrafting Group asindicated intheprevious par~graph. Inordertoemphasize thefundamental natureoftheprinciples embodie~ inarticle 19 (3) and toclarify thatthey
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the rules and procedures for international arbitration, specifically the language to be used in the proceedings. The text highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties are treated equally and have a full opportunity to present their case, while also acknowledging the practical considerations of language and translation.