"clarification". Itwasalsosuggested thataninterpretation ofonlythemotives oftheawardbutnotitsdispositive portion mightbeallowed. Yetanother suggestion wasthatinterpretatibn oftheawardbythearbitral tribunal should be allowed onlyifbothparties requested theinterpretation. 269.TheCommission, afterdiscussion, decided thatarequest forinterpretation mightbemadeonlyifsoagreed bytheparties. 270.TheCommission adopted thesuggestion thatthewords"ifitconsiders the request tobejustified", found'inparaqrapb(3),shouldalsobeaddedto paragraph (1). 271.TheCommission wasoftheviewthatitwasnotnecessary toindicate any procedural details fortheLnt.erlpretatIonprocedure otherthanthattheotherparty mustbenotified oftherequest. Itwasnotedthatarticle 19(3),especially if itwassetoutasaseparate ar~icle, wouldgivethebasisforassuring procedural regularity andfairness totheBarties. * * * -52-CHAPTER VII.RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD Article 34.Application forsetting asideasexclusive recourse againstarbitral award- 272.Thetextofarticle 34asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Recourse toacourtagainst anarbitralaward made[intheterritory of thisState] [underthisLaw]maybemadeonlybyanapplication forsetting asideinaccordance withparagraphs (2)and(3)ofthisarticle. "(2)Anarbitral awardmaybesetasidebytheCourtspecified in"article 6 onlyif: "(a)thepartymakingtheapplication furnishes proofthat: "(i)theparties tothearbitration agreement referred toin article 7were,underthelawapplicable tothem,undersome incapacity, orthesaidagreement isnotvalidunderthelawto whichtheparties havesubjected itor,failing anyindication thereon, underthelawofthisState,or "(ii)thepartymakingtheapplication wasnotgivenpropernotice oftheappointment ofthearbitrator(s) or ofthearbitral proceedings orwasotherwise unabletopresent hiscase,or "(Hi)theawarddealswithadispute notcontemplated byornot falling withinthetermsofthesubmission toarbitration, or contains decisions onmatters beyondthescopeofthesubmission to arbitration, provided that,ifthedecisions onmatters submitted to arbitration canbeseparated fromthosenotsosubmitted, onlythat partoftheawardwhichcontains decisions onmatters notsubmitted toarbitration maybesetaside,or "(iv)thecomposition ofthearbitral tribunal orthearbitral procedure wasnotinaccordance withtheagreement oftheparties, unlesssuchagreement wasinconflict withaprovision ofthisLaw fromwhichtheparties cannotderogate, or,failing suChagreement, wasnotinaccordance withthisLaw,or "(b)theCourtfindsthat: "(i)thesubject-matter ofthedispute isnotcapable ofsettlement byarbitration underthelawofthisState,or "(ii)theawardoranydecision contained therein isinconflict withthepublicpolicyofthisState. "(3)Anapplication forsetting asidemaynotbe made afterthreemonths have elapsed fromthedateonwhichthepartymakingthatapplication hadreceived theawardor,ifarequest hadbeenmadeunderarticle 33,fromthedateon whichthatrequest hadbeendisposed ofbythearbitral tribunal. "(4)TheCourt, whenaskedtosetasideanaward, may,whereappropriate and sorequested by aparty, suspend thesetting asideproceedings foraperiodof -53-timedetermined byitinor~ertogivethearbitral tribunal anopportunity to resume thearbittal proceedfngs orto.take suchotheractionasinthe arbitral tribunal's opInion]willeliminate thegrounds forsetting aside." 273.TheCommission wasagreedthatthemodellawshould regulate thesetting aside ofarbitral awards anddecided tpretainprovisions alongthelinesofarticle 34. Paragraph (1) i 274.TheCommission adopted theprinciple underlying paragraph (1)toprovide for oneexclusive typeofrecourse against anarbitral award. Itwasunderstood that theapplication forsetting asid~wasexclusive inthesensethatitconstituted theonlymeansforactively attacking theaward. Apartywasnotprecluded from defending himself byrequesting tefusal ofrecognition orenforcement in proceedings initiated bytheoth~rparty. 275.Anobservation was made thatthewords"Recourse toacourt" weretoovague andthattheymightbe made more,precise byadding suchwordsas"competent for arbitration matters". I 276.Asregards thewordsplaced! between squarebrackets 11[intheterritory ofthis State] [underthisLaw]",itwasinotedthattheyaddressed thequestion ofthe territorial scopeofapplication, whichtheCommission haddiscussed atanearlier
**Analysis**
The text appears to be related to international arbitration and dispute resolution, specifically discussing the laws and procedures for setting aside arbitral awards. It does not seem to be related to any specific economic or social sector, but rather focuses on the legal framework for resolving disputes.

**Category**
International trade, Law and Justice