prepare, inthelightoftheabovediscussion andproposals, arevised version of paragraph (1)andtheaccompanying footnote forconsideration bytheCommission. 24.The ad hocworking partysuggested replacing, inarticle 1(1),thewords "international commercial** arbitration" bythewords"international arbitration in commercial** matters, including services andothereconomic relations". Italso suggested revising theopening partofthefootnote asfollows: "**The t~rm 'commercial' should begivenawideinterpretation Soastoinclude, butnotbe limited to,thefollowing: anytradetransaction forthesupplyorexchange of goodsorservices; distribution agreement; •••". -'7-25.Itwasnotedthattheproposed textdidnotusetheterm"international commercial arbitration", whichhadcometobe awell-known terminthefield. Afterdiscussion, theCommission decided that,inspiteoftheacknowledged difficulties, itwouldbebettertoretaintheoriginal textofarticle 1(1)and torevisethefootnote asfollo~s: "**Theterm'commercial' should begivenawide interpretation soastocovermatters arising fromallrelationships of.a commercial nature, whether contractual ornot.Relationships ofacommercial natureinclude, butarenotlimited to,thefollowing transactions: anytrade transaction forthesupplyofgoodsorservices; distribution agreement; •••". 26.TheCommission wasoftheviewthatwiththerevision ofthefootnote itwas sufficiently clearthatthequalification ofarelationship ascommercial didnot depend onthenatureoftheparties. Therefore, itwasfeltthatitwasnot necessary toexpressitexplicitly inthetexteitherofarticle 1 (1)orofthe footnote. TheCommission wasalsooftheviewthattheprovision asdrafted did nottouchonanyruleonsovereign immunity. Paragraph (2):"international" 27.TheCommission adopted subparagraph (a)andwasagreedthattheprovision wouldcoverthebulkofcasesencountered ininternational commercial arbitration. 28.Divergent viewswereexpressed astotheappropriateness ofretaining subparagraph (b)(i).Underoneview,theprovision should bedeleted for essentially tworeasons. Onereason wasthattherewas nojustification to'qualify apurelydomestic relationship asinternCitional simplybecause aforeign placeof arbitration waschosen. Partyautonomy wasunacceptable heresinceitwouldenable parties toevademandatory provisions oflaw,including thoseproviding for exclusive courtjurisdiction, except whererecognition orenforcement ofthe "foreign" awardwaslatersoughtinthatState. Theotherreason wasthatthe provision covered notonlythecasewheretheplaceofarbitration wasdetermined inthearbitration agreement butalsothecasewhereitwasdetermined onlylater pursuant totheagreement, forexample byanarbitral institution orthearbitral tribunal. Itwasfeltthatthelattercasecreated uncertainty astowhatwasthe applicable lawandastotheavailability ofcourtservices beforetheplaceof arbitration wasdetermined. Underanother view,onlythelatterreason was convincing and,therefore, subparagraph (b)(i)should bemaintained without the words"orpursuant to". 29.Theprevailing viewwastoretaintheentireprovision of subparagraph (b)(i).Itwasnotedthattheprovision onlyaddressed thequestion ofinternationality, Le.whether the(model) lawforinternational casesorthe sameState's lawfordomestic casesapplied. Itwasthought thattheprinciple of partyautonomy shouldextendtothatquestion. TheCommission, inadopting that view,wasagreed, however, thattheconcern relating tonon-arbitrability, which hadalsobeenraisedina moregeneral senseandinparticular inthediscussion on paragraph (1)andtheaccompanying footnote (above, para.22),should bemetby a clarifying statement inaseparate paragraph ofarticle 1alongthefollowing lines: "ThisLawdoesnotaffect anyotherlawofthisStatewhichprovides thata certain dispute orsubject-matter isnotcapable ofsettlement byarbitration". 30.Asregards subparagraphs (b)(ii)and(c),theCommission wasagreedthat theirrespective scopewasnoteasilydetermined inaclearmanner. Inparticular, subparagraph (c)wasregarded asunworkable duetoitsvagueambit. Whilethere -8-wassomesupport formaintaining theprovlslon, thoughpossibly insomemodified form,theCommission, afterdeliberation, decided todeletesubparagraph (c). 31.However, inordertobalance thereduction inscopeduetothatdeletion, it wasproposed toaddanopting-in provision, eitheronlytosubparagraph (b)(ii)or asareplacement forsUbparagraph (c).Itwasthought thatsuchaprovision
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing a revision of a law related to international commercial arbitration, specifically the definition of "commercial" and the scope of international arbitration. The language used is technical and legal, indicating that the text is related to a specific field of law. The discussion also touches on issues of party autonomy, sovereign immunity, and non-arbitrability, which are all relevant to the field of international arbitration.

**Category**
International trade, Industry