-59-memberStates andmightcreateotherdifficulties intheapplication ofthe Convention. Furthermore, retention inthemodel law ofprovisions onenforcement ofdomestic awardsraised proble~s ofco-ordination withtheprovisions onsetting asideinarticle 34and,insomeiStates atleast,wereunnecessary inviewofthe existing lawwhichtreated domestic awardsasself-enforcing byequating themwith judgements oflocalcourts. 309.Theprevailing view,howevet, wastoretainprovisions covering bothdomestic andforeign awards. Itwaspointed outthattheexistence andgenerally satisfactory operation ofthe19S8NewYorkConvention, towhichmanyStates adhered, was nocompelling reasonfordeleting thedraftchapter onrecognition and enforcement. There_was agreatnumberofStates, infactamajority ofallStates members oftheUnitedNations, thathadnotratified oracceded tothat Convention. someofthose State~might,forconstitutional orotherreasons, find iteasiertoadopttheprovisio~ onrecognition andenforcement aspartofthe modellawthan to~~~t.ify otacce~e tothatConvention. Amodellawonarbitration wouldbeincomplete ifitlacked,provisions onsuchanimportant subject as recognition andenforcement ofa,rbitral awards. Asregards thoseStatesthatwere parties tothatConvention, thepraftchapter mightprovide supplementary assistance byproviding aregime!fornon-convention awards, without adversely affecting theoperation ofthatConvention. Itwaspointed out,inthatrespect, thatthemodellaw,asexpressed, initsarticle 1(1),wassubject toanysuch treaty, thatanyStateadopting !themodellawcouldconsider incorporating certain restrictions, forinstance, basepontheideaofreciprocity, andthatarticles 35 and36wereclosely modelled on !theprovisions ofthatConvention. Furthermore, theconcept ofuniform treatment! ofallawardsirrespective ofthecountry of origin wasbeneficial forthefunctioning ofinternational commercial arbitration. 310.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, decided toretaininthemodel law the chapter onrecognition andenforcement ofawards, irrespective ofwheretheywere made.Itwasnotedthatitwas'compatible withthatdecision andinfactdesirable toinvitetheGeneral Assembly oftheUnitedNations torecommend tothoseStates thathadnotalready donesoto,consider adhering tothe1958NewYorkConvention. * * * Article 35.Recognition anden~orcement 311.Thetextofarticle 35asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Anarbitral award, ir~espective ofthecountry inwhichitwasmade, shallberecognized asbinding and,uponapplication inwritingtothe competent court,shallbe~nforced subject totheprovisions ofthisarticle andofarticle 36. "(2)Thepartyrelying onqnawardorapplying foritsenforcement shall supplytheduly authentica~ed original awardoradulycertified copythereof, andtheoriginal arbitration agreement referred toinarticle 7oraduly certified copythereof. Iftheawardoragreement isnotmadeinanofficial -60-language ofthisState,thepartyshallsupply adulycertified translation thereof intosuchlanguage.* "(3)Filing, registration ordeposit ofanawardwithacourtofthecountry wheretheawardwas made isnotapre-condition for.itarecognition or enforcement inthisState. ,,* The conditions setforthinthisparagraph areintended toset maximum standards. ItWOUld,thus,notbecontrary totheharmonization tobe achieved bythemodel law ifaStateretained evenlessonerous conditions." Paragraph (1) 312.Itwasnotedthatthescopeofapplication ofarticles 35and36 wasnot identical tothatofthe1958NewYorkConvention andthattheclassification of awards wasnotthesameasinthatConvention. Articles 35and36covered only thoseawardsarising outofan.international commercial arbitrationin thetermsof article 1,evenasregards awardsmadeinaforeign State.Itwasunderstood that thatdidnotmeanthattheStateinwhichtheawardwasmademusthaveitself adopted themodel law inorderforthoseprovisions toapplytotheenforcement oftheaward. 313.Itwasnotedthatarticle 35 (1)didnotdetermine thepointoftimewhenart awardbecamebinding. Asregards foreign arbitral awards, thatquestion wouldhave tobeanswered, inconformity withtherulelaiddowninarticle 36 (1) (a)(v),by thelawoftheStateinwhich,orunderthelawofwhich,theawardwasmade. As regards awardsmadeintheStatewhererecognition orenforcement issoughtunder article 35,thediscussion ofthatissuewassubsequently heldinthecontext of article 31(seeabove,paras.256-258). 314.TheCommission adopted theparagraph.
**Analysis**
This text appears to be discussing the creation of a model law on international commercial arbitration, specifically focusing on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The language used is technical and legal, suggesting a focus on the framework and procedures for resolving disputes between parties. The text also mentions international conventions and treaties, indicating an international scope.

**Category**
International Trade, Industry