Introduction

It seemed appropriate to choose for this liber amicorum in honour of Dr Briner a topic related to the ICC Rules of Arbitration. As Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Dr Briner has travelled around the world promoting their use. Originally issued in 1922, these Rules are the basis on which ICC established its predominant position in the field of international commercial arbitration.

The ICC Rules of Arbitration have been modified on several occasions. My contribution is based on the most recent revision dating from 1998. Several excellent commentaries have been published on this version. 1 With the assistance of the Secretariat of the ICC Court, these Rules currently work satisfactorily. However, they may again be subject to revision sometime in the future.

As the scope of this article is necessarily limited, I have chosen to deal with a specific aspect of the ICC Rules of Arbitration: the Terms of Reference. Should the Rules be revised, the requirement to draw up Terms of Reference will certainly be discussed again. In this contribution it will be suggested that Article 18 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration be replaced by a provision on preparatory meetings. Were this suggestion to be accepted, it would also have other consequences for the Rules.

I shall begin by discussing Article 18, looking first at its history (I) and then giving a short commentary on its provisions (II). In section III, I shall deal with the suggestion of replacing Article 18 with a provision on preparatory meetings. A distinction will be made between the first preparatory meeting, which shall be convened as soon as the arbitral tribunal has received the file from the Secretariat, and any further preparatory meetings that may subsequently be convened. [Page693:]

The following sections deal with the consequences should my suggestion for a new Article 18 be accepted. Article 19 (New Claims), which refers to Article 18, would have to be revised (IV). Also, it might be considered necessary to find another means of drawing attention to the place of arbitration, the reference to which in Article 18 would disappear (V).

I. History of Article 18

The requirement to draw up Terms of Reference is a characteristic of the ICC Rules of Arbitration. No other important arbitration institution contains a similar requirement. 2 It therefore seems appropriate to briefly describe the history of this article.

When the first version of the Rules appeared in 1922, arbitration laws generally required a submission when a dispute coming within the scope of an arbitration clause in the underlying contract arose. The 1922 Rules required the Secretariat of the Court to draw up a 'form of submission'. Although in 1923 the Geneva Protocol on arbitration clauses recognized the binding force of the arbitration clause, as did the French arbitration law of 31 October 1925, the 'form of submission' remained in the ICC Rules until 1955 when it was replaced by 'Terms of Reference' to be drawn up by the arbitrators.

The origin of the Terms of Reference therefore goes back to a situation which has completely changed. Arbitration laws-apart from those of some Latin American States-no longer require a submission (compromis) when a dispute falling within the scope of the arbitration clause in the underlying contract arises. However, within the ICC Commission on Arbitration, in which I have participated since the 1950s, the Terms of Reference have always been an issue whenever a revision of the Rules was being drafted.

When the Rules were revised in 1975, the provision on the Terms of Reference was approved by only a small majority. K.-H. Böckstiegel, in his article in the collection of essays in honour of F.A. Mann (1997), observed that 'the Rules could very well do without that provision. In quite a few cases the omission of that provision would save all participants in the process considerable effort[Page694:]

and time without draw-backs for the finding of justice.' 3 Reference may also be made to the critical analysis of the Terms of Reference by A. Kassis, who concludes: 'Malgré ces atténuations de son caractère choquant, le procédé de l'acte de mission n'en reste pas moins vicié et inconciliable avec le droit de l'arbitrage.' 4

Criticism of the Terms of Reference, especially the requirement that the issues should be determined, may have influenced the change made in 1998. In the 1975 version, Article 13 required that the Terms of Reference include a 'definition of the issues to be determined' (Article 13(1)(d)). Since 1998, Article 18, which has replaced the former Article 13, provides that the Terms of Reference shall include 'unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate, a list of issues to be determined'. I will come back to this change in the next section.

II. Provisions of Article 18

Before further discussing my suggestion of replacing Article 18 with a provision on preparatory meetings, the current situation may be briefly described and commented upon.

Article 18(1) states that upon receipt of the file from the Secretariat-i.e. the Request for Arbitration and the Answer-the arbitral tribunal shall draw up Terms of Reference, which shall include the elements listed in subsections

(a) to (g). The Terms of Reference are thus drawn up at a very early stage of the arbitral proceedings, at a time when the arbitral tribunal has at its disposal only the Request for Arbitration and the Answer. No statements of claim and defence will have yet been exchanged. The discussion of the contents of the Terms of Reference and in particular the drawing up of the list of issues will take place with the parties and/or their representatives (their lawyers) on the basis of the Request for Arbitration and the Answer.

Article 18(2) states in the first sentence that the Terms of Reference shall be signed by the parties and the arbitrators. This paragraph then goes on to set a time limit of two months from the date on which the file is transmitted to the arbitral tribunal. The latter shall 'transmit' the Terms of Reference, signed by it and the parties, to the ICC International Court of Arbitration. [Page695:]

Upon a request from the arbitral tribunal or on its own initiative, the Court may extend the time limit of two months. Requests for extensions are not uncommon. The discussions on the formulation of the issues to be determined by the arbitral tribunal may be lengthy, as each of the parties will, as far as possible, try to obtain a formulation favourable to its own position.

Article 18 is silent about what the ICC Court does upon the transmission of the Terms of Reference. Approval of the Terms of Reference by the Court, as required in earlier versions, has been replaced by their transmission to the Court. However, it may be expected that the Court will return the Terms of Reference to the arbitral tribunal if they do not comply with the requirements listed in Article 18(1)(a)-(g). 5

Article 18(3) deals in the first sentence with the situation in which any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or refuses to sign. In that case they shall be submitted to the Court 'for approval'. This paragraph does not deal with a refusal by an arbitrator to sign the Terms of Reference: approval by the Court has been provided only in the case of parties' refusing to sign.

The second sentence states that 'the arbitration shall proceed' when the Terms of Reference have been signed in accordance with paragraph 2 or approved by the Court under paragraph 3. The transmission to the Court (paragraph 2) and the submission to the Court for approval (paragraph 3) serve the same purpose.

Article 18 does not describe the function of the Court in either case. The role of the Court with respect to approval may not differ from its role with respect to transmission.

Article 18(4) was added in 1998: when drawing up the Terms of Reference, or as soon as possible thereafter and after consulting the parties, the arbitral tribunal, shall establish 'in a separate document' a provisional timetable that it intends to follow for the conduct of the arbitration. This 'separate document' should be distinguished from the Terms of Reference, of which it does not form part. [Page696:]

In this separate document dates may be fixed for the exchange of a statement of claim and a statement of defence, but it may be too early at this stage to fix dates for the hearing of witnesses or for the appointment of an expert by the arbitral tribunal. The timetable and any subsequent modifications made to it shall be communicated to the Court and the parties.

Changes made in 1998

In the 1975 Rules, Article 13(1)(d) required that the Terms of Reference contain a description of the issues to be determined. This has become, in Article 18(1) of the 1998 Rules: 'This document shall include the following particulars: . . .

(d) unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate, a list of issues to be determined . . .'

The word 'unless' allows for exceptions, thus giving the arbitral tribunal the discretionary power to decide not to include a list of issues to be determined by it. 6 As far as I know, there are no data available showing the use made by arbitrators of this exception, but I expect it will only seldom be the case. However, in any case the omission of a list of issues, which was sometimes done in practice, 7 is now recognized in Article 18.

In 1998, the requirement under (c) for 'a summary of the parties' respective claims' to be included in the Terms of Reference was also modified, with the addition of: 'and of the relief sought by each party, with an indication to the extent possible of the amounts claimed or counterclaimed'.

Lastly, a modification was also made in 1998 to Article 16 of the1975 Rules relating to new claims and counterclaims. This change will be discussed below in section IV in connection with the present Article 19. Before this, however, I will turn to my suggestion of replacing Article 18 with a provision on preparatory meetings. [Page697:]

III. Preparatory meetings

1. Preliminary remarks

Abandoning the Terms of Reference would, in the words of K.-H. Böckstiegel, 'save all participants in the process considerable effort and time'. 8 In their place, the ICC Rules of Arbitration could contain a provision on preparatory meetings.

Such meetings place an emphasis on collaboration between arbitrators and the parties. As the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration states in Article 19, insofar as the parties do not agree on the procedure, the arbitral tribunal has the power to conduct the arbitration is such a manner as it considers appropriate. 9

Below, I shall deal firstly with the initial preparatory meeting convened as soon as the arbitral tribunal has received the file from the Secretariat and then with preparatory meetings convened when witnesses are to be heard or the arbitral tribunal intends to appoint an expert. 10 The ICC Court should be kept informed by receiving minutes of the preparatory meetings (subsection 4). Lastly, on the basis of the suggestions made in the course of this section, I shall present the proposed new text of Article 18 in full (subsection 5).

Reference to preparatory meetings may already be found in the rules of some other arbitration institutions. Article 16(2) of the International Arbitration Rules of the AAA (American Arbitration Association), as amended and effective 1 July 2003, states (emphasis added):

The tribunal, exercising its discretion, shall conduct the proceedings with a view to expediting the resolution of the dispute. It may conduct a preparatory conference with the parties for the purpose of organizing, scheduling and agreeing to procedures to expedite the subsequent proceedings. [Page698:]

Also, Article 47 of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Arbitration Rules, effective 1 October 1994, states (emphasis added):

The Tribunal may, in general, following the submission of the Statement of Defense, conduct a preparatory conference with the parties for the purpose of organizing and scheduling the subsequent proceedings.

Were my proposals to be accepted, Article 18 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration would need a new formulation.

2. First preparatory meeting

Paragraph 1 of the new Article 18 should in my opinion be reserved for the first preparatory meeting that would replace the Terms of Reference. This meeting should be obligatory, like the meeting for drawing up the Terms of Reference, and the word 'shall' should be used to express this obligation. Paragraph 1 might read:

1. As soon as it has received the file from the Secretariat, the Arbitral Tribunal shall convene a meeting with the parties and/or their lawyers for the purpose of organizing and scheduling the subsequent proceedings.

At the first preparatory meeting a timetable will undoubtedly be fixed for the exchange of statements of claim and defence and, as the case may be, the submission of further written statements from the parties. It is not unusual for a party to request an extension of the agreed timetable and it may be agreed at the first preparatory meeting that a decision on such a request will be left to the chair of the arbitral tribunal.

There is more, however, that may be regulated on this occasion than simply the timetable for submitting written statements. Another subject of discussion could be the language or languages of the arbitral proceedings, which, according to Article 16, will be determined by the arbitral tribunal. The same applies to the place of arbitration. As a general rule, the parties will already have determined the place. If not, they have a last opportunity to do so at this meeting. Otherwise the place will be fixed by the Court, as provided in Article 14.

In many arbitrations, the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal may be at issue. It may be opportune to discuss and decide at the preliminary meeting that the arbitral tribunal will first render a preliminary award on this issue. [Page699:]

This may also be the case when the parties have not agreed on the law applicable to their contract. Each may have insisted on the application of its own substantive law when negotiating the contract. Rather than prolong negotiations, they may have left the issue open. In this case, too, a preliminary award on the applicable law may contribute to the effective conduct of the arbitration.

These are just a few examples of subjects that may be discussed and determined at this first preparatory meeting. I have deliberately refrained from specifying the subjects to be discussed and determined-as it would not be an exhaustive list-preferring instead the general wording given above for paragraph 1.

In my opinion, the replacement of Article 18 with a provision along the lines suggested above would be an improvement. The real commencement of the arbitral proceedings would in that case no longer depend on the drawing up of the Terms of Reference, for which a period of two months with the-often used-possibility of extension has been provided (Article 18(2)). A party's refusal to take part in the discussion of the Terms of Reference or its refusal to sign them is a further cause of delay and requires the Terms of Reference as drawn up by the arbitral tribunal to be submitted to the Court for approval (Article 18(3)). All this would be avoided by providing instead for a preparatory meeting.

The current Article 18(3) regulates the situation in which a party refuses to sign the Terms of Reference or participate in drawing them up. If Article 18 is replaced with a provision on preparatory meetings, the signing of the Terms of Reference and participation in a meeting for drawing them up disappear. However, should the non-appearance of a party at the first preparatory meeting be dealt with?

Article 6 of the Rules regulates the effect of the arbitration agreement. If any party refuses or fails to take part in the arbitration or any stage thereof, the arbitration shall proceed notwithstanding such refusal or failure (Article 6(3)). In my opinion, this article covers a party's non-compliance with its obligation to participate in the first preparatory meeting for organizing and scheduling the subsequent proceedings. Besides, it is highly unlikely that a party would not appear at this initial meeting. Should, for example, a party be of the opinion that no agreement to arbitrate exists, it would be in its interest to request a preliminary award on jurisdiction. [Page700:]

However, it should be noted that replacing the current Article 18 with the obligation to convene a preparatory meeting does not mean that in an ICC arbitration Terms of Reference will never be drawn up. It is quite possible that at the first preparatory meeting a consensus will be reached on drawing up Terms of Reference, but this is not a must, as under the present Article 18, but rather a free decision when Terms of Reference are deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Terms of Reference would then become part of the minutes, which will be sent to the Court to inform it of what has been decided at the first preparatory meeting (see subsection 4 below).

3. Further preparatory meetings

A new provision on preparatory meetings should not be limited to the arbitral tribunal's first meeting with the parties at which the organization and scheduling of the arbitral proceedings is discussed and as far as possible determined. A preparatory meeting may also be useful at a later stage of the proceedings, as when witnesses are to be heard. The manner in which they will be heard may be discussed with the parties and a schedule for the hearing may be fixed. It should be remembered that finding suitable days on which the members of the arbitral tribunal, the parties' lawyers and the witnesses are all available is always a difficult task. Other matters, such as whether a party may be heard as witness, may be discussed as well. 11

When the arbitral tribunal intends to appoint an expert a preparatory meeting may again be useful. It is up to the arbitral tribunal to determine the expert's mandate, but consulting the parties on a draft mandate drawn up by the arbitral tribunal may avoid disputes later on. It may also be useful to consult the parties over the choice of expert, who should be impartial and independent like an arbitrator. Parties may know more about candidates than the arbitral tribunal or they may wish to suggest other candidates. Last but not least, the deposit to be made by the parties for remunerating the expert may also be discussed. 12

Such additional preparatory meetings could be the subject of the paragraph 2 of the new Article 18. Unlike the first preparatory meeting, there should be no obligation to convene these meetings although as a rule meetings for organizing[Page701:]

the hearing of witnesses or the appointment of an expert by the arbitral tribunal do take place. Again, I prefer the wording to be general rather than specific. Paragraph 2 might thus read:

2. At later stages of the proceedings the Arbitral Tribunal may also convene such a meeting for the efficient conduct of the arbitration.

4. Communication of minutes to the Court

The reference to informing the Court of the provisional timetable in paragraph 4 of the current Article 18 was added in 1998. Under this provision, when drawing up the Terms of Reference, or as soon as possible thereafter, the arbitral tribunal shall establish a provisional timetable 'in a separate document' 'after having consulted the parties'. The wording 'as soon as possible thereafter . . . after having consulted the parties' may be regarded as referring to the use of a preliminary meeting. Paragraph 4 ends with the requirement to communicate any subsequent modifications of the provisional timetable to the Court and the parties.

The new article replacing Article 18 would also have to deal with communication to the Court of the decisions taken at preparatory meetings, both the first such meeting and any others that are held thereafter. Minutes of all such meetings should be sent to the Court. This could be covered as follows in paragraph 3 of the new article:

3. Minutes of preparatory meetings will be made by the Arbitral Tribunal and will be communicated by it to the Court.

A question may arise in respect of the provisional timetable established at the first preparatory meeting. Paragraph 4 of the current Article 18 rightly provides that any modifications made to the provisional timetable shall be communicated to the Court. It is important for the Court to be informed of any extensions in order to be able to monitor the progress of an arbitration.

Extensions of the time limit set for the exchange of written pleadings will, as a rule, be delegated to the chair of the arbitral tribunal at the first preparatory meeting. Should this be dealt with in paragraph 3 of the new article? I raise this question as paragraph 4 of the current Article 18 does so. Paragraph 3 of the new article could do likewise, but this does not seem necessary, as it may be expected that the chair of the arbitral tribunal will act on this matter sua sponte. Nevertheless the question may be considered when discussing the replacement of the current Article 18. [Page702:]

5. New Article 18

In the preceding subsections I have progressively formulated the text of a new article, should my suggestion of replacing the current Article 18 with an article on preparatory meetings be accepted. This is no more than an initial draft for discussion. In full, the new text could read as follows:

Article 18

1. As soon as the Arbitral Tribunal has received the file from the Secretariat, the Arbitral Tribunal shall convene a meeting with the parties and/or their lawyers for the purpose of organizing and scheduling the subsequent proceedings.

2. At later stages of the proceedings the Arbitral Tribunal may also convene such a meeting for the efficient conduct of the arbitration.

3. Minutes of preparatory meetings will be made by the Arbitral Tribunal and will be sent to the Court.

Replacing the current Article 18 with an article on preparatory meetings would have consequences elsewhere in the Rules, first of all in respect of Article 19 relating to new claims.

IV. Article 19

1. Article 19 as of 1998

One of the particulars to be included in the Terms of Reference is a summary of the claims and counterclaims of the parties (see Article 18(1)(c)). When the Terms of Reference are drawn up, only the Request for Arbitration and the Answer are available. However, as the arbitration unfolds, the existing claims may be amended and new claims made. This matter has been dealt with in Article 19, which reads:

Article 19 New Claims

After the Terms of Reference have been signed or approved by the Court, no party shall make new claims or counterclaims which fall outside the limits of the Terms of Reference unless it has been authorized to do so by the Arbitral Tribunal, which shall consider the nature of such new claims or counterclaims, the stage of the arbitration and other relevant circumstances.

These new claims therefore should not 'fall outside the limits of the Term of Reference'. A similar provision existed in Article 16 of the 1975 version of the Rules: new claims or counterclaims made by the parties 'remain within the limits fixed by the Terms of Reference'. A party could contest whether this[Page703:] condition was met unless the new claims or counterclaims were 'specified in a rider to that document [the Terms of Reference]' signed by the parties. In 1998 the reference to a rider disappeared. Instead, the current Article 19 refers to authorization by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Under Article 19, the arbitral tribunal may thus be called upon to decide whether a new claim falls within or outside the Terms of Reference, as was previously the case under Article 16 of the 1975 Rules. Arbitral Tribunals have rendered different decisions on this issue. Is an increase in amount a new claim? Is a change in currency a new claim? Should a claim for set-off be treated as a claim? I will not elaborate further on these questions. 13 However, I deemed it appropriate to briefly present the current situation before dealing with the necessary revision of Article 19, were Article 18 to disappear.

2. Revision of Article 19

When the Terms of Reference disappear, provision needs to be made for new claims made in the course of arbitral proceedings. ICC would then be on the same footing as all other important arbitration institutions, which do not provide for Terms of Reference but regulate new claims. Article 44 of the WIPO Arbitration Rules of October 1994, for example, states as follows:

Subject to any contrary agreement by the parties, a party may amend or supplement its claim, counter-claim, defense or set-off during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to its nature or the delay in making it and to the provisions of Article 38(b) and (c). 14

This article uses the terms 'amend' and 'supplement' instead of referring to new claims or counterclaims. It also refers to a claim for set-off. In my opinion, a new Article 19 in the ICC Rules, formulated along these lines, would be an improvement. It would avoid many of the problems that arise under the present text and would give the arbitral tribunal greater freedom to decide on any amendments or supplements to claims, including those for set-off, which may arise in the course of an arbitration. The new text might read: [Page704:]

Article 19

During the arbitral proceedings any party may amend or supplement its claim, counterclaim, or claim for set-off, unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment or supplement because of the party's delay in making it, prejudice to the other party, or any other circumstances. A party may not resort to amendments or supplements which would fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

V. Place of arbitration

The place of arbitration is one of the particulars to be included in the Terms of Reference. This requirement, found in Article 18(1)(f), would disappear with the replacement of Article 18 by a provision on preparatory meetings. The place of arbitration may be determined at the first preparatory meeting if the parties have not already agreed on it, as may be the case. If determined at this meeting, it will be mentioned in the minutes communicated to the Court. If it proves impossible to reach agreement, Article 14 of the Rules would come to rescue with the Court fixing the place of arbitration. Given that the place of arbitration has important legal consequences, parties, in my opinion, have every interest in choosing it themselves and should not leave it to the Court.

Although the above remarks may suffice, a comparison with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules may be made. Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules states: 'Unless the parties have agreed upon the place where the arbitration is to be held, such place shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the arbitration.' This too could have been sufficient, yet UNCITRAL's model clause draws special attention to the place of arbitration with its recommendation that the parties may wish to consider adding to this clause: 'The place of arbitration shall be . . . (town or country)'.

In view of the importance of the place of arbitration, ICC's standard arbitration clause could do likewise by adding:

Parties may wish to consider adding: The place of arbitration shall be . . . (town or country)

In ICC's introduction to its standard arbitration clause, it is stated that parties are 'reminded' to stipulate in the arbitration clause the place of arbitration amongst other things. In my opinion, this reminder is easily overlooked. This would not be the case if ICC's model clause itself drew attention to the place of arbitration. In my opinion, it is only the place of arbitration that should be mentioned in the clause, and not the other items listed in ICC's introduction to the standard clause. [Page705:]

Conclusion

The suggestion to replace the current Article 18 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration with a provision on preparatory meetings follows a noticeable trend. Even when there is no provision for preparatory meetings in arbitration rules, arbitrators nonetheless use preparatory meetings for case management purposes.

Arbitration rules are regularly revised. There is no indication of a forthcoming revision of the ICC Rules but, if and when a revision is undertaken, it may be expected that the Terms of Reference will be discussed again. It is in anticipation of such a discussion that I suggest replacing the present Article 18 with a provision on preparatory meetings. [Page706:]

1
Reference may be made, inter alia, to Y. Derains & E. Schwartz, A Guide to the New ICC Rules of Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 1998); W.L. Craig, W.W. Park & J. Paulsson, Annotated Guide to the 1998 ICC Arbitration Rules (Oceana, 1998); as well as to the article by A. Reiner 'Le Règlement d'arbitrage de la CCI, version 1998' Rev. arb. 1998.25.

2
As far as I know, only the Euro-Arab Arbitration Rules and those of CEPANI (Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation) contain this requirement.

3
Cited in Y Derains & E. Schwartz, supra note 1 at 229, n. 502.

4
A. Kassis, Réflexions sur le Règlement d'arbitrage de la Chambre de commerce internationale (LGDJ, 1988) at 269. Part IV, pp. 225-269, deals in extenso with the Terms of Reference.

5
See Y. Derains & E. Schwartz, supra note 1 at 242: 'In rare cases where the Terms of Reference were found to conflict with the Rules, the Court, thus, refused to "take note" of them and returned them to the Arbitral Tribunal with the request that they be appropriately amended.'

6
Y. Derains & E. Schwartz, supra note 1 at 235, remark that the arbitral tribunal 'may reasonably determine that such a list should be omitted when, for example, its preparation would otherwise give rise to undue delay or other complications or where such a list cannot meaningfully be prepared'.

7
In arbitrations with Professor Goldman under the 1975 Rules, which did not contain the 'unless', we avoided the list of issues by using wording along the following lines: 'The issues to be determined by the arbitrators are those which are contained in the pleadings of the parties and those which may arise in the course of the arbitral proceedings.' In the commentaries cited supra note 1, this escape is referred to by W.L. Craig, W.W. Park & J. Paulsson at 117, and by A. Reiner at 19. Y. Derains & E. Schwartz at 234, n. 517, refer to the 'Goldman formula'.

8
See text accompanying note 3 supra.

9
See recently G. Kaufmann Kohler, 'Qui controle l'arbitrage? Autonomie des parties, pouvoirs des arbitres et principe d'efficacité' in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond: Autour de l'Arbitrage (Litec, 2004) 153, with many references.

10
In Part I of my book The Work of UNCITRAL on Arbitration and Conciliation, 2d ed. (Kluwer Law International, 2004), there is a survey of the use of preparatory meetings in arbitral proceedings in connection with Article 15 (General Provisions) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

11
In Part 1 of my book supra note 10, I discuss Article 25 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in further detail with reference to Articles 4 and 8 of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration.

12
See Part I of my book supra note 10 for a commentary on Article 27 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules with reference to Articles 5 and 6 of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration.

13
See Y. Derains & E. Schwartz, supra note 1 at 250. See also especially A. Reiner, 'Terms of Reference: the function of the International Court of Arbitration and application of Article 16 by the arbitrators' (1996) 7:2 ICC ICArb. Bull. 59 at 65-71, where the various issues related to the introduction of new claims are discussed together with references to many ICC awards.

14
In Article 38(b) reference is made to the principle that the parties should be treated equally and in Article 38(c) that the arbitral tribunal shall ensure that the arbitral proceedings take place with due expedition.