VZCZCXRO0205
PP RUEHRN
DE RUEHUNV #0455/01 2751432
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 021432Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0153
INFO RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1482
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1776
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0329
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 0071
RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1153

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 UNVIE VIENNA 000455 
 
DEPT FOR L/PIL, L/CID, L/EB 
EMBASSIES FOR ECON/POL 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC EINV ETRD UNCITRAL AU UN
SUBJECT: MEETING OF UNCITRAL WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRATION - REVISION 
OF THE UNCITRAL ARIBITRATION RULES 
 
REF: USUN 0194 
 
¶1. Summary.  The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 
Working Group II (on Arbitration) continues its revision of the 1976 
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.  The Working Group (WG), which had 
completed a second reading of Articles 1-26 at prior sessions, met 
in Vienna September 14-18, 2009, and continued the second reading, 
reaching Article 40 (there are 41 articles in the existing Rules), 
but unresolved issues remain.  The WG agreed to retain the majority 
rule for decision-making by three-arbitrator tribunals.  It also 
retained the characterization of awards as "final and binding."  It 
determined that accepting arbitration under the Rules constitutes a 
waiver of rights of appeal, review or recourse regarding an award 
except for applications for set-aside, and, in this connection, the 
Report of the working session stated that this provision would not 
implicate a party's right to raise grounds for non-enforcement of an 
award pursuant to the New York Convention.  It was agreed that, 
where parties fail to designate the applicable substantive law, the 
tribunal may apply the law that it determines to be appropriate. 
Language remains to be worked out relating to default (failure to 
submit a statement of claim); waiver of the right to object to 
non-compliance with the Rules or the arbitration agreement; and a 
new possibility of seeking an award after issuance of a termination 
order.  A number of unresolved issues also remain relating to costs. 
 The WG will convene again in February with the goal of completing a 
text for referral to the UNCITRAL Commission for consideration at 
its annual meeting next summer.  End summary. 
 
¶2. The WG was attended by representatives of UNCITRAL member states 
and other UN member states as well as observers from a number of 
governmental or private organizations.  The U.S. delegation included 
a representative of the Legal Adviser's Office and two private 
advisers. 
 
---------------- 
Issues Resolved... 
---------------- 
¶3. Three principal issues were resolved by the WG in this session. 
 
¶4. Decision-making by the tribunal (Article 31):  The issue was 
whether to retain the existing rule, whereby when there are three 
arbitrators, decisions must be made by a majority.  The proposed 
alternatives were variants of the rule that has been adopted by a 
number of arbitral institutions (e.g., the ICC and LCIA), whereby if 
the arbitrators cannot reach a majority, the decision shall be made 
by the presiding arbitrator alone.  Differing views were expressed 
regarding the frequency with which such situations arise; the 
incentives that either formula would provide to arbitrators to reach 
agreement; the credibility of awards under each approach; and the 
risk of a presiding arbitrator acting arbitrarily.  There were 
numerous proponents of the approach of providing for a decision by 
the presiding arbitrator where there was no majority, but also 
significant support (including from the U.S.) for keeping the 
majority rule.  As the Chair did not find general consensus in favor 
of change, the existing rule was retained.  It was emphasized, 
however, that in cases where the arbitrators are having difficulty 
reaching a majority, the parties have the ability to agree to give 
the decision-making authority to the presiding arbitrator, or to 
choose some other method of deciding. 
 
¶5. Form and effect of an award (Article 32):  There were two main 
issues here.  The first was whether to retain language stating that 
awards are "final and binding."  It was suggested that the meaning 
of "final" was ambiguous, and that different types of awards (e.g., 
interim, partial) might not have the same "final and binding" 
character.  In response, it was observed that "final and binding" 
was found in many arbitration rules and had not created problems in 
practice.  It was decided to retain that phrase, as the U.S. 
delegation favored.  The second issue concerned how to express the 
concept that parties, in accepting arbitration under the Rules, 
thereby waive certain rights of appeal, review or recourse regarding 
an award.  Language to that effect was agreed that expressly 
excludes from the waiver applications for setting aside an award. 
It was also understood in the WG that such waiver does not encompass 
actions to resist recognition or enforcement of an award, for 
example on the basis of the grounds set forth in the New York 
Convention. 
 
¶6. Applicable law (Article 33):  The question was what the default 
choice of law rule should be for the tribunal to apply where the 
parties fail to designate the applicable law governing the substance 
of the dispute:  (1) the law with which the case has the closest 
connection, or (2) the law that the tribunal determines to be 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000455  002 OF 002 
 
 
appropriate.  There was broad support for the latter, as it was seen 
as desirable to give the tribunal flexibility in this regard, and 
the second alternative was adopted. 
 
--------------- 
...But Unresolved 
Issues Remain 
--------------- 
 
¶7.  Nevertheless, a number of issues discussed during this session 
remain unresolved. 
 
¶8. Default (Article 28):  The current text under review provides 
that, where a claimant has failed to communicate its statement of 
claim, the tribunal shall issue an order for termination of the 
proceedings unless the respondent has submitted a counterclaim. 
Concerns were expressed that this was too limiting, and did not take 
into account other circumstances in which issues in dispute - such 
as a request for an award on costs - might still require a decision 
by the tribunal.  The Secretariat was asked to draft new language, 
for review at the next session, to provide the tribunal with more 
flexibility. 
 
¶9. Waiver of right to object (Article 30):  The current text of the 
Rules states that, where a party knows that any provision of the 
Rules has not been complied with yet proceeds with the arbitration 
without stating its objection without undue delay, it shall be 
deemed to have waived its right to object.  A number of delegations 
said that proving actual knowledge was too difficult a standard to 
meet, and suggested instead that the standard should be "knew or 
should have known."  Others were concerned that such a standard 
might be difficult to apply in practice, as the circumstances could 
vary widely in terms of, e.g., the sophistication of the parties or 
their counsel.  A majority of delegates provisionally favored a 
standard such as that the failure to object was "justifiable" and 
the Secretariat will seek to set forth a workable standard along 
those lines in new language. 
 
¶10. Additional award (Article 37):  The current text contemplates a 
situation where a party, after receiving the initial award, requests 
that the tribunal make an additional award as to omitted claims.  A 
concern was raised that situations may also arise in which a party 
may feel that claims have been omitted (e.g., for costs) after a 
termination order has been issued.  There was general support for 
applying Article 37 in those circumstances, but the best means of 
doing so was not resolved.  Bracketed alternatives will be 
considered at the next WG meeting. 
 
¶11. Costs (Articles 38-40):  These articles were discussed but a 
number of unresolved issues remain.  One question identified is how 
the tribunal should communicate to the parties its fees and the 
manner in which they were computed.  Another is whether the 
tribunal's statement of costs (the quantitative total, and not their 
allocation between the parties) should be included in the award or 
addressed separately.  A remaining question not addressed at the 
latest session is whether the tribunal should be permitted to charge 
the parties for costs associated with issuing an interpretation to 
an award, a correction to an award, or an additional award. 
 
---------- 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶12. The WG will next meet for a week in February 2010, with the 
objective of completing a text that can then be submitted to the 
UNCITRAL Commission for consideration at its annual meeting next 
summer.  In order to achieve this, the WG will need to work 
efficiently; in addition to completing its second reading through 
Article 41 and dealing with the pending issues identified above in 
Articles 28-40, there remain a number of still unresolved issues in 
earlier articles. 
 
DAVIES