offraud,orthatevidence wasfalseordiscovered onlylater,itwasstatedthat suchextension wascontrary totheneedforspeedy andfinalsettlement ofdisputes ininternational commercial relationships. 301.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, decided toincorporate in subparagraph (a)(H)thetext<Ifarticle 19(3). 302.Inconnection withthesub$equent decision totransfer theprovlSlon of article 19(3)tothebeginning'of chapter Vofthemodellawasaseparate article 18bis(seeabove,para.176),theCommission reversed itsdecision to incorporate insubparagraph (a)'(ii)thetextofarticle 19(3)andrestored the textofsubparagraph (a)(ii)a.ithadbeenelaborated bytheWorking Group. The reasons fortherestoration ofthetextofsubparagraph (a)(H)werethatthe alignment betweenarticles 34a~d36 wasthought tobemoreimportant thanthe alignment between articles 34a~d18bisandthatitwasthe.Commission's understanding that,inspiteof!ther~lting difference between thetextof article 18bisandarticle 34(2)(a)(ii),anyviolation ofarticle 18biswould constitute agroundforsetting: asidetheawardunderarticle 34 (2) subparagraph (a)(ii), subparag~aph (a)(iv)orsubparagraph (b)andthatthe concerns whichledtothepropo$al toamendsubparagraph (a)(ii)were,therefore, already met. . -58-303.Itwasunderstood thatanawardmightbesetasideonanyofthegrounds listedinparagraph (2)irrespective ofwhether suchground hadmaterially affected theaward. Paragraph (3) 304.TheCommission didnotadoptaproposal tomaketheperiodoftimeset·forth inparagraph (3)subject tocontrary agreement bytheparties. TheCommission adopted paragraph (3)initscurrent form. Paragraph (4) 305.Divergent viewswereexpressed astotheappropriateness oftheprovlslon. Underoneview,theparagraph should bedeleted sinceitdealtwithaprocedure whichwasoflimited practical relevance andknownonlyincertain legalsystems. Furthermore, theprovision wasobscure, inparticular, asregards therelationship between thecourtandthearbitral tribunal andasregards thescopeofthe function expected fromthearbitral tribunal inacaseofremission. Inthat respect, itwasproposed that,iftheprovision weretoberetained, itshould be restricted todefects whichwereremediable without reopening theproceedings or thatguidelines should beelaborated astothestepsexpected fromthearbitral tribunal. 306.Theprevailing view,however, wasthattheprovlslon should beretained. The merefactthattheprocedure ofremitting theawardtothearbitral tribunal was notknowninalllegalsystems was nocompelling reasonforexcluding itfromthe realmofinternational commercial arbitration whereitshouldproveusefuland beneficial. Itwaspointed outinsupport thattheprocedure, wherefound appropriate bythecourt, would.enablethearbitral tribunal tocurecertain defects whichotherwise wouldnecessarily leadtothesetting asideoftheaward. Furthermore, thegeneral wording ofparagraph (4) was advantageous inthatit provided thecourtandthearbitral tribunal sufficient flexibility tomeetthe needsoftheparticular case. 307.TheCommission didnotadoptaproposal todeletetherequirement thatthe remission procedure oftheparagraph mustberequested by aparty. After deliberation, theCommission adopted theparagraph initscurrent form. * * * CHAPTER VIII. RECOGNITION ANDENFORCEMENT OFAWARDS 308.Divergent viewswereexpressed astowhether themodellawshouldcontain provisions ontherecognition andenforcement ofbothdomestic andforeign awards. Underoneview,thedraftchapter onrecognition andenforcement should be deleted. Itwasnotappropriate toretaininthemodellawprovisions whichwould coverforeign awards, inviewoftheexistence ofwidelyadhered-to multilateral treaties suchasthe1958NewYorkConvention ontheRecognition andEnforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. ItwasstatedthatthoseStateswhichhadnotratified or acceded tothatConvention shoUld beinvited todoso,butthataStatewhich decided nottoadheretothatConvention wasunlikely toadoptthealmostidentical ruleslaiddowninarticles 35and36.Itwaspointed outthatprovisions on recognition andenforcement offoreign awards werenotneeded bythoseStates which adhered tothe1958NewYorkConvention. Inaddition, suchprovisions inthemodel lawmightcastdoubtontheeffectofthereciprocity reservation made by many
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the development of a model law on international commercial arbitration, focusing on the recognition and enforcement of awards, as well as the procedures for setting aside awards. The language used is technical and legal, indicating that the text is likely related to the field of international trade and commerce. The text also references international treaties and conventions, such as the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which further supports the connection to international trade and commerce.

**Category**
International trade