wasavailable orexcluded. Thesecondobjection wasthattheprovision, read together withthefewProvisions ofthemodellawwhichprovided forcourt intervention, presented anunacceptably restrictive scopeofjUdicial control and assistance. 60.Inadvancing thefirstobjection, itwaspointed outthatinmanycasesitwas notpossible toknowwhether amatter wasgoverned bythelaw.Ifaparticular matter wasnotexpressly mentioned inthelaw,itwaspossible thatthedrafters hadconsidered thematter anddecided thatthelawshouldnotcoverit,thatthe drafters hadconsidered thematteranddecided nottogivethecourtauthority to intervene orthatthedrafters hadfailedtoconsider thematteratall. Especially sincetheparties, arbitral tribunals andcourts whowouldbecalled upontoapplythelawinthefuturewouldnothaveeasyaccesstothedrafting history, theywouldoftennotknowintowhichcategory aparticular matterfell. 61.Inresponse tothatobjection, itwaspointed outthattheproblem wascommon toanylexspecialis and,infact,alltextsfortheunification oflaw.Sinceno suchtextwascomplete ineveryrespect, whatwasnotgoverned byitmustbe -13-governed bytheotherrulesofdomestic law.Therefore, itwasnecessary, though admittedlyoftendifficult, todetermine thescopeofcoverage oftheparticular text.Yet,inthegreatmajority ofcasesinwhichthequestion ofcourt intervention becamerelevant, theanswercouldbefoundbyusingthenormalrules ofstatutory interpretation, takingintoaccount theprinciples underlying thetext ofthemodellaw. 62.Inadvancing thesecondobjection, itwasemphasized thatarticle 5expressed anexcessively restrictive viewastothedesirability andappropriateness ofcourt intervention during anarbitration. Itwastotheadvantage ofbusinessmen who engaged ininternational commercial arbitration tohaveaccesstothecourtswhile thearbitration wasstillinprocess inordertostopanabuseofthearbitral procedure. Furthermore, alimitation oftheauthority ofthecourtstointervene inarbitral proceedings mightconstitute anunwarranted interference inthe prerogatives ofthejudicial power, andmightevenbecontrary totheconstitution insomeStates. Finally, eveniftheauthority ofthecourttointervene in supervision ofanarbitration mighthavetobelimited, thecourtshouldhavea broader powertoactinaidofthearbitration. Itwassuggested, asapossible meansofsoftening theextremely rigidcharacter ofarticle 5,togivetheparties ~ toanarbitration theauthority toagreeon a more extensive degreeofcourt supervision andassistance intheirarbitration thanwasfurnished bythemodellaw. 63.Inresponse tothatsecondobjection, itwaspointed outthatresortto intervention by acourtduringthearbitral proceedings wasoftenusedonlyasa delaying tacticandwas more oftenasourceofabuseofthearbitral proceedings thanitwas aprotection against abuse. Thepurpose ofarticle 5 wastoachieve certainty astothemaximum extentofjudicial intervention, including assistance, ininternational commercial arbitrations, bycompelling thedrafters tolistinthe (model) law oninternational commercial arbitration allinstances ofcourt intervention. Thus,ifaneedwasfeltforaddinganother suchsituation, it should beexpressed inthemodellaw.Itwasalsorecognized that,although the Commission mighthopethatStates wouldadoptthelawasitwasdrafted, sinceit was amodellawandnotaconvention, anyStatewhichmighthaveconstitutional problems couldextendthescopeofjudicial intervention whenitadopted thelaw without violating anyinternational obligation. 64.Asregards thesuggestion toenableparties toagreeon awiderscopeofcourt intervention, thequestion wasraisedastowhether theparties couldbeexpected _ todraftanagreement onthepointthatwouldadequately dealwiththeproblems. Moreover, theconcern wasexpressed thatinstitutional arbitration rulesmight include aprovision extending therightofcourtintervention andthatsomeparties who had agreedtotheuseofthoserulesmightbeSUbject tocourtintervention theyhadnotexpected. 65.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, adopted thearticle initscurrent form. * * * Article 6.Courtforcertain functions ofarbitration assistance andsupervision 66.Thetextofarticle 6asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "TheCourtwithjurisdiction toperform thefunctions referred toin articles 11(3),(4),13(3),14and34 (2)shallbethe•••(blanks tobe filled byeachStatewhenenacting themodellaw)." -14-67.TheCommission wasagreedthatarticle 6,bycalling uponeachstateto designate acourtforperforming thefunctions ofarbitration assistance and
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the drafting of a model law on international commercial arbitration, specifically focusing on the role of courts in arbitration proceedings. The language used is technical and legal, indicating a focus on the regulation of commercial activities.

**Category**
International trade, Industry