whichtheCommission referred totheDrafting Group. Paragraph (3) 131.Subsequently, theCommissioQ decided toalignarticle 13 (3)tothemodified version ofarticle 16(3)(see b~low,para.161)andreplaced theperiodoftimeof fifteen daysbythirtydays. 132.Asregards thewords"which ldecLsLonshallbefinal", theCommission was agreedthatthewording wasinte~ded tomeanthatnoappeal wasavailable against thatdecision andthatthatunderstanding mightbe made clearbyappropriate wording. Subject tothosemodifications, paragraph (3) was adopted bythe Commission. -26-133.TheCommission discussed whether themodellawshouldprovide forCourt assistance forthefunctions envisaged inarticle 13 (3)evenbeforetheplaceof arbitration hadbeendetermined. TheCommission wasagreedthatthemodellaw couldnoteffectively conferinternational competence onthecourtofoneStateto theexclusion ofthecompetence ofanother State. Whatthemodellawcoulddowas todescribe thosecases, byusingconnecting factors suchastheplaceofbusi'ness ofthedefendant oroftheclaimant, inwhichtheparticular Statewouldrenderthe Courtassistance envisaged underarticle 13(3).Itwaspointed out,however, that theremightbelessneedforsuchassistance thanintheappointment process since courtcontrol on achallenge waseitherprovided intheapplicable arbitration law or,oncethemodellawapplied inthecase,couldbeexercised inthesetting aside proceedings under arti~le 34. 134.InthesUbse~uent discussion concerning theterritorial scopeofapplication ofthemodellaw,theCommission decided nottoextendtheapplicability of articles 11,13and14tothetimebeforetheplaceofarbitration wasdetermined. (Thatdiscussion isreported above,paras. 79-81.) 41 * * * Article 14.Failure orimpossibility toact 135.Thetextofarticle 14asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Ifanarbitrator becomes dejureordefactounabletoperform hisfunctions orforotherreasons failstoact,hismandate terminates ifhewithdraws from hisofficeoriftheparties agreeonthetermination. Otherwise, ifa controversy remains concerning anyofthesegrounds, anypartymayrequest the Courtspecified inarticle 6todecide onthetermination ofthemandate, whichdecision shallbefinal." 136.Itwasnotedthatarticle 14,unlikearticles 11and13,didnotexpressly givetheparties thefreedom toagreeOn aprocedure incasesofanarbitrator's inability orfailure toact.Itwasunderstood, however, thattheprovision was notintended topreclude parties fromvarying thegrounds whichwouldgiveriseto thetermination ofthemandate orfromentrusting athirdpersonorinstitution withdeciding onsuchtermination. 137.Asregards thegrounds fortermination setforthinthearticle, various suggestions weremade. Onesuggestion wastodeletethewords"dejureor defacto"sincetheywereunnecessary andapotential sourceofdifficulty in interpretation. TheCommission didnotadoptthesuggestion forthesakeof harmony withthecorresponding provision intheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (article 13(2». 138.Another suggestion wastodescribe moreprecisely whatwasmeantbythewords "failstoact",forinstance, byadding suchwordsas"withduedispatch andwith efficiency" or"withreasonable speed". Itwasstatedinreplythatthecriteria ofspeedandefficiency, whileimportant guidelines fortheconduct ofan arbitration, shouldnotbegiventheappearance ofconstituting absolute and primary criteria forassessing thevalueofanarbitration. Itwaspointed out thatthecriterion ofefficiency wasparticularly inappropriate inthecontext of article 14sinceitcouldopenthedoortocourtreviewandassessment ofthe substantive workofthearbitral tribunal. Therewerelessreservations to -27-expressing theideaofreasonable speed,whichwasregarded asaconcretization of thetimeelement inherent intheterm"failure toact". 139.Whileconsiderable support.~as expressed forleaving thewording ofarticle 14 unchanged, whichcorresponded wi!ththewording foundinarticle 13 (2)ofthe UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules,theCommission, afterdeliberation, wasagreedthatthe expression "failstoact"should: bequalified bysuchwordsas"withreasonable speed". Itwasunderstood that:theaddition servedmerelytoclarify thetextand shouldnotbeconstrued asattaching tothewords"failstoact"ameaning different fromtheonegivento:thewording intheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. 140.Aproposal was made forred:rafting article 14withaviewtocovering alsothe
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a discussion about the drafting of an international arbitration model law, focusing on the specific articles related to the appointment and functions of arbitrators, as well as the termination of their mandate. The language used is formal and technical, indicating that the text is likely related to international trade, commerce, or business. The concepts discussed, such as the scope of application, appointment, and termination of arbitrators, are also relevant to these fields.

**Category**
International trade, Industry