text: paragraph of article 21 and in paragraph 1 of article 22 which read “or property in which it has a legally protected interest” woult4 be deleted. The phrase “awl has a connection with the object of the claim or with the agency or instrumentality against which the proceeding was directed” in article 21, subparagraph (a), would also be cut out. Third, he was suggesting deletion of the word “non-governmental” in article 21, subparagraph (a), and in the M of article 23, paragraph 1. In addition, it would be useful to add the words “and used for monetary purpose” at, the end of article 23, paragraph 1 (c). 220. The second alternative for articles 21 to 23 took into account the suggestion that the original articles 21 and 22 should be merged. es/ Paragraph 1 of new article 21 stated the principle of non-execution against 991 The text of the second alternative rsubmitted by the Special Rapportour read as follows: “&&A&6-U, vtv from v of ce 1. No measures of constraint, includixlg measures of attachment, arrest and execution, against the property of a foreign State may be taken in the territory of a forum State unless and to the extent that! (a) the foreign State has expressly consented to the taking of such measures in respect of that property, as indicated8 (i) by arbitration agreement; (ii) by internatiJna1 agreement or in a written contra’?tl (iii) by a written consent given after a dispute between the parties has arisen: or (b) the foreign State has allocated or earmtirked its property for the satisfaction of the claim which is the object of that. proceodingr or (c) the property is in the territory of t.he forum State and is specifically in use or intended for use by the State for commercial
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and the constraints on taking measures against foreign states' property, specifically in the context of arbitration, international agreements, and property allocation. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a legal or regulatory context.