theopportunity tointerrogate himandtopresent expertwitnesses inorderto testify onthepointsatissue." 218.Aproposal was made toamendtheopening wordsofparagraph (1)toread: "Unless otherwise agreed bytheparties before anarbitrator isappointed, •••". Underoneviewtheproposal wasdesirable sinceitmightbeofgreatimportance to aperson whenaskedtoserveasanarbitrator whether thearbitral tribunal would -42-beempowered toorderanexpertise. Therulesunderwhichthearbitrators wouldbe expected tofunction should becleartothemfromthebeginning. 219.However, undertheprevailing viewtheparties shouldalways havetherightto decidethat t~earbitral trfbunal wasnotfreetoappoint experts. Eventhoughthe parties couldpeexpected tohaveconfidence inthearbitrators theyhadnamedto settletheirdispute, they m~ghtnothaveconfidence intheexpertorexperts that thearbitral tribunal proposed toappoint. Moreover, theappointment ofexperts mightIncrease thecostsofthearbitration beyondtheamounttheparties were willing tospend. Ifthejointrefusal oftheparties topermitthearbitral tribunal toappoint anexpert wasofsuchimportance tothearbitrators, theywere freetoresign.Ifsuchresignation was alikelyresult,itcouldbeassumed that theparties wouldcarefully consider theirdecision andtheriskthatthemoney already spentonthearbitration wouldbewasted. Sincearticle 26represented a compromise between thecommon lawsystemofadjudication inwhichappointment of experts bythecourtortribunal wasnotusualandthecivillawsysteminwhich suchappointments werecommon, thebalance ofthecompromise shouldnotbe disturbed.e220.Aproposal todeletethewords"Unless otherwise agreed bytheparties," was notretained. 221.TheCOmmission adopted article 26. * * * Article 27.Courtassistance intakingevidence 222.Thetextofarticle 27asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Inarbitral proceedings heldinthisStateorunderthisLaw,the arbitral tribunal orapartywiththeapproval ofthearbitral tribunal may request fromacompetent courtofthisStateassistance intakingevidence. Therequest shallspecify: "(a)thenamesandaddresses oftheparties andthearbitrators; "(b)thegeneral natureoftheclaimandthereliefsought; "(c)theevidence tobeobtained, inparticular, "(i)thenameandaddress ofanypersontobeheardaswitness or expertwitness andastatement ofthesubject-matter ofthe testimony required; "(ii)thedescription ofanydocument tobeproduced orproperty to beinspected. "(2)Thecourtmay,withinitscompetence andaccording toitsrulesontaking evidence, execute therequest either bytakingtheevidence itselforby ordering thattheevidence beprovided directly tothearbitral tribunal." -43-Paragraph (1) 223.TheCommission wasinagree~ent thatinconformity withageneral decision previously takenthescopeofapplication ofthearticle should belimited territorially. Subject todraft'ing changes calledforasaresultofthedecision yettobetakenonthespecific itextinregardtoterritorial scopeofapplication ofthemodellawasawhole, the!Commission decided todeletethewords"orunder thisLaw". 224.Subsequently, inlightofthedecision toadoptthetextofarticle 1 (1bis) (seeabove,para.81),theCommission alsodecided todeletethewords"heldin thisState"asbeingunnecessary since,exceptasprovided inthatarticle, the entire modellawapplied onlytoiarbitral proceedings heldin"thisState". 225.TheCommission wasalsoiniagreement thatthequestion ofinternational assistance inthetakingofevid~nce inarbitral proceedings shouldnotbegoverned bythemodellaw.Itnotedthat'theHagueConference onPrivate International Law wasstudying thepossibility of~reparing aprotocol tothe1970HagueConvention onTakingofEvidence AbroadinCivilorCommercial Matters toextendits application toarbitral proceedi~gs andthattheHagueConference wouldbe interested intheviewsofarbitiration experts whether suchaprotocol wouldbe desirable. . 226.TheCommission didnotadoptaproposal tolimitparagraph (1)toan indication thatacompetent courcmightberequested toassistintakingevidence without referring towhetheritiwasthearbitral tribunal ortheparties whomight maketherequest tothecourt.Itwasnotedthatthecurrent provision was a compromise between thoselegal ~ystems inwhichonlythearbitral tribunal might request thecourtforassistance' andthosel,egalsystems inwhichapartymight request thecourtforassistance.,Inthecurrent texteitherthearbitral tribunal orapartymightrequest suchassistance, butinthelattercaseonlyifthe arbitral tribunal approved.
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the rules and procedures for international arbitration, specifically in the context of a model law on international commercial arbitration. The language used is technical and focused on the legal aspects of arbitration, with no mention of economic development, natural resources, or other categories typically associated with international cooperation or development.

**Category**
International trade, Industry