adopting themodellawshouldmakeavailable theservices ofitsCourtreferred to inarticle 6forappointing anarbitrator underarticle 11inthosecaseswherethe defendant hadhisplaceofbusiness in"thisState"and,possibly, inthosecases wheretheclaimant hadhisplaceofbusiness in"thisState", provided thatthe courtinthedefendant's country didnotperform thatfunction. 111.Inthesubsequent discussion concerning theterritorial scopeofapplication ofthemodellaw,theCommission decided nottoextendtheapplicability of articles 11,13and14tothetimebeforetheplaceofarbitration wasdetermined. (Thatdiscussion isreported above,paras.79-81.) *** -23-Article 12.Grounds forchallenge 112.Thetextofarticle 12ascOnsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Whenapersonisappro~ched inconnection withhispossible appointment asanarbitrator, heshall4isclose anycircumstances likelytogiveriseto justifiable doubtsastohi~impartiality orindependence. Anarbitrator, fromthetimeofhisappointment andthroughout thearbitral proceedings, shallwithout delaydisclose anysuchcircumstances totheparties unlessthey havealready beeninformed Ofthem by him. "(2)Anarbitrator may becnallenged onlyifcircumstances existthatgive risetojustifiable doubtsastohisimpartiality orindependence. Aparty maychallenge anarbitrator appointed byhim,orinwhoseappointment hehas participated, onlyforreasons ofwhichhebecomes awareaftertheappointment hasbeenmade." Paragraph (1) 113.TheCommission adopted paragraph (1). Paragraph (2) 114.Itwasnotedthatparties sometimes agreedthatarbitrators hadtohave certain professional ortradequalifications anditwasproposed thatthemodellaw shouldrespect thataspectofpalttyautonomy byincluding inparagraph (2)a reference toanyadditional grounds forchallenge onwhichtheparties might agree. Whilesomedoubtwasexpreased astothenecessity formaking suchan addition toarticle 12,theCommission decided toadopttheproposal andrequested anad hocworking party, composed oftherepresentatives ofAlgeria, Indiaandthe UnitedStates, toprepare adraftreflecting thedecision. 115.Onthebasisofaproposal ~ythead hocworking party,theCommission adopted thefollowing amended wording ofthefirstsentence ofarticle 12(2):"An arbitrator may bechallenged onlyifcircumstances existthatgiveriseto justifiable doubtsastohisimpClrtiality orindependence, orifhedoesnot possess qualifications agreedtoibytheparties." 116.Divergent viewswere expres~ed astotheword"only"inthefirstsentence of paragraph (2).Underoneview, ~hewordshould bedeleted because theremightbe grounds forchallenge whichwouldnotnecessarily becovered bythewords "impartiality orindependence". By wayofexample, itwassuggested that,without calling intoquestion theintegrityorimpartiality ofanarbitrator, his nationality mightbe asoundgroundforchallenge inviewofthepolicies followed byhisGovernment. 117.Underanother view,theword"only"wasusefulinthatitexcluded other grounds forchallenge notdealtwithinthemodellaw.Itwaspointed outthatin mostcasesofthetypefalling within theexample citedabovethecircumstances wouldinanyeventgiverisetojustifiable doubtsastotheimpartiality or independence ofthearbitrator. 118.Underyetanother view,thefirstsentence ofparagraph (2)should be interpreted aslimiting thegrounds forchallenge tothegrounds provided inthe -24-modellawevenwithout theword"only". However, inordertomakethatpoint clear, someproponents ofthatviewsuggested theretention oftheword"only". 119.TheCommission decided toretaintheword"only"inthefirstsentence of paragraph (2).Indoingso,theCommission observed thatthecorresponding provision ofarticle 10(1)oftheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, onwhichthe discussed provision ofthemodellawwasmodelled, didnotcontain theword "only". However, itwassuggested thattheUNCITRAL Arbitration Rulesas contractual rulescouldnotaffecttheapplication ofanyothergrounds for challenge provided inmandatory rulesintheapplicable law,whereasitmightbe desirable thatthemodellawprevented suchothergrounds forchallenge frombeing applied ininternational commercial arbitration. * * * Article 13.Challenge procedure 120.Thetextofarticle 13asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(I)Theparties arefreetoagreeon aprocedure forchallenging an arbitrator, subject totheprovisions ofparagraph (3)ofthisarticle.
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the adoption of a model law on international commercial arbitration, specifically focusing on the grounds for challenging an arbitrator and the procedure for doing so. The language used is technical and legal, with references to international arbitration rules and provisions. This suggests that the text is related to international commerce and trade, and may have implications for the resolution of disputes between businesses.

**Category**
International trade, Industry