universal application tointrodupe aconcept whichwasnotknownin,andunlikely tobeaccepted by,manyStates. iFurthermore, itwasstatedthattherightto selectprovisions ofdifferent l~wsfordifferent partsoftherelationship (the so-called depecage) wasrecognized bymostlegalsystems evenunderthemore traditional approach; ifthere w~saneedforclarification onthatpointthe reportshouldexpress theunderstanding oftheCommission thatsucharightwas included inthefreedom ofthep~rties todesignate thelawapplicable tothe substance ofthedispute. 234.Inthelightofthatdiscussion theCommission decided toamendthefirst sentence ofparagraph (1)toreadasfollows: "Thearbitral tribunal shalldecide thedispute inaccordance withtpelawchosen bytheparties asapplicable tothe substance ofthedispute." Itw~sagreedthattheformulation wouldallowparties todesignate portions oftheleg~lsystems fromdifferent Statestogovern different aspects oftheirrelatiionship. Itwasalsoagreedtostateinthereport thatStateswhenenacting themodellawwerefreetogivetheterm"law"awider interpretation. Itwasunderstopd thatparties mightagreeintheircontracts to applyrulessuchasthoseinint~rnational conventions notyetinforce. I 235.Asregards thesecond sente~ce ofparagraph (1),itwasagreedthattherule ofinterpretation ofthepartiesi' designation ofthelawofagivenStatewas usefulinthatitmadeclearthajt,unlessotherwise expressed insuchagreement, thedispute wasto.bedecided i~accordance withthesUbstantive lawofthatState andnotbythesubstantive lawasdetermined bytheconflict oflawsrulesofthat State. 236.Inthesubsequent discussiQn onparagraph (2),viewsweredivided asto whether thearbitral tribunal should berequired toapplyconflict oflawsrules whichitconsidered applicable iinordertodetermine thesubstantive lawtobe applied orwhetheritcould dir~ctly determine theapplicable lawitconsidered appropriate intheparticular c~se. Underoneview,themodel law shouldprovide guidance tothearbitral tribun~l byproviding thattheapplicable law was tobe determined by adecision onthejapplicable conflict oflawsrules.Itwasnoted that,although acourt,under t~emodellawandmostnational laws,couldnot reviewthedecision ofthearbi~ral tribunal ontheconflict oflawsrulesand consequently ontheapplicable substantive law,adesirable effectoftherule contained inparagraph (2) was thatthearbitral tribunal wouldbeexpected togive reasons foritsdecision onthechotceoftheconflict oflawsrule.Furthermore, thatapproach wouldprovide theparties withagreater degreeofpredictability or certainty thantheapproach of~llowing thearbitral tribunal todetermine directly thelawapplicable tothesUbst~nce ofthedispute. 237.Underanother view,itwas Inot appropriate tolimitthepowerofthearbitral tribunal todecideonthelawapplicable tothesubstance ofthedispute by requiring ittodecidefirston ianexisting conflict oflawsrule.Inpractice an arbitral tribunal didnotneces~arilY firstdecideonconflict oflawsrulesbut oftenarrived atadecision on~ubstantive law by more directmeans.Itwas suggested thatitwouldnotbe~ppropriate fora model law on international commercial arbitration todisregard suchpractices whichdeveloped onthebasisof abroadscopeofpartyautonomy 'recognized inmanylegalsystems. FUrthermore, it wasdoubtful whether therequirement ofapplying firstaconflict oflawsrule -46-would,infact,provide ahigherdegreeofcertainty thanadirectdetermination of thegoverning lawsince,ontheonehand,theconflict oflawsrulesoftendiffered fromonelegalsystemtoanother andsince, ontheotherhand,thereasons which ledthearbitral tribunal toselecttheappropriate applicable lawwereoften similar totheconnecting factors usedinconflict oflawsrules.Itwasalso pointed outthatthefreedom ofthearbitral tribunal underparagraph (2)should notbenarrower thantheoneaccorded totheparties underparagraph (1). 238.Inviewofthedivision ofviewsonparagraphs (1)and(2),itwassuggested thatarticle 28mightbedeleted sinceitwasnotnecessary fora law on arbitral procedure todealwiththelawrelative tothesubstance ofthedispute. Moreover, sincethemodellawdidnotprovide forcourtreviewofanawardonthegroundof wrongapplication ofarticle 28,itservedaslittlemorethanaguideline forthe arbitral tribunal. However, therewaswidesupport intheCommission forretaining article 28.Itwaspointed outthatthemodellawwouldbeincomplete without a
**Analysis**
This text appears to be related to the development of a model law on international commercial arbitration, which suggests a focus on international trade and commerce. The text discusses the freedom of parties to choose the law applicable to their dispute, the role of the arbitral tribunal, and the relationship between the arbitral tribunal and the national laws of the parties involved. The text also touches on the principles of conflict of laws and the need for clarity and predictability in the arbitral process.

**Category**
International trade, Industry