UNCITRAL: Day 4, UNCITRAL sleeps in, but resumes working toward a draft resolution

This morning certain delegates were absent from the UNCITRAL committee. When they came later into the committee, their excuses were of this sort: “The delegation of USA did not hear the alarm clock”, “Too much party, chair!”, “Norbert said work hard and party harder”, and similarly in that vein.

The committee was nonetheless assured of its own importance, and began working and negotiating with passion in order to have a draft resolution to vote upon in the afternoon, together with a report for the crisis in the Suez Canal brought to the committee yesterday.

Delegates are working on different aspects of the Model Law on arbitration that needs to be updated.

The USA, France and Canada are working toward a proposal to introduce certain articles or principles regarding confidentiality. The delegate of USA, speaking on behalf of his colleagues, stated: “This work focuses on the necessity to protect privacy of the parties, a goal strongly supported by all democratic countries.”

The French delegation has shown a particular interest in the importance of eliminating and dealing with corruption, adding a new paragraph 5 to article 34. Hereafter confidentiality, another new addition to the 2006 Model Law inserted as article 7 (bis), and also to the importance of the possibility for the extension of the competence of the arbitration to include daily penalties to deal with non-compliance by one of the parties, a new paragraph 6 to article 17C.

The French delegation has wished to change the current article 10 of paragraph 2 to better comply with the will of the parties, and also introduce the importance of an Arbitration Headquarters with regards to agricultural goods, being Paris, but negotiations are at a standstill on this matter.

UK, Argentina, USA, Panama, Canada, Russia, Australia and India are working on the revision of article 5, “Extent of court intervention”, in order to allow an extension of courts interference with regards to arbitral awards on international commercial disputes. The countries managed to reach an agreement as far as violations of substantive and procedural norms are concerned as chosen by the parties and in matters governed by the Law itself. The above provision is referred to as a general principle.

The Canadian delegation has worked on the introduction of an amendment to article 28(2) regarding substantive law. These efforts were made in order to make the arbitrations more efficient and tailor-made to the specific needs of the commercial parties, considering principally the ones dealing with agricultural goods.

The level of detail of the debate is impressive, but it is hoped that the committee will be equally thorough in its preparations of gossip for online submission.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>