It is quite difficult, within the brief four-minute time frame which has been allotted by the President to the commentators, to make much more than some brief observations expressing the feelings of those who have participated during the past months in the Commission on the new 1998 Rules of Arbitration. Many have been the points submitted to discussion. To some, little has been changed; to others, to those who even doubt if the International Chamber of Commerce's true arbitration spirit has been maintained, we have gone too far.

On very few occasions can it be stated that a set of rules such as these is the product of a strong consensus. As members of the Commission, we have received hundreds of extensive faxes expressing the opinion of all those who, in one way or another, had an interest in ICC arbitration. Under the strong, yet diplomatic command of Yves Derains, a consensus on the Rules has been achieved. As such, they leave us satisfied with the result yet, at the same time, concerned as to their future application. Without going any further, Michael Schneider made us see, analysing Article 18 regarding the 'Terms of Reference', that the primary point under discussion has been laid down in sub-paragraph (1) d) in the following terms: 'This document shall include . . . unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate, a list of issues to be determined'. This tells us that the inclusion of a 'list of issues' is now, as it were, 'imperative' unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate. When shall it be understood to be inappropriate? Can we continue to speak in those circumstances of an 'imperative' provision?

At the origin of the reform lies the wish to adapt the old Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce to the present needs of arbitration. Some provisions made it impossible for the

Court to adapt to the new realities of arbitration. The growing use of arbitration and the participation of different cultures in the same have perhaps made arbitration a victim of its own success. At the time we initiated the first discussions within the Commission, there was no lack of those who wanted to question even what had traditionally been considered basic to the supervised arbitration system of the ICC. Later, we were surprised to receive numerous comments requesting that we maintain the essential features of ICC arbitration, such as the administration by the Court and the Secretariat, the Terms of Reference and the Court's scrutiny of arbitral decisions. Thus, while maintaining the essential elements of ICC arbitration, we intended to give it greater flexibility, reduce as much as possible unnecessary delays, increase transparency and efficiency in the work of the Court and strengthen the arbitrator's role in the daily conduct of arbitral proceedings.

The Rules have been definitively approved, with their respective annexes. And now, more than thinking about the alternative solutions which may have been applied in the laborious drafting of the different articles, it is appropriate to look at the future. In several cases, the text of the new provisions allows different solutions fit for each specific situation, depending on the necessary discretion granted to the Court, the Secretariat and the arbitrators in their respective fields of competence.

I would like, therefore, to make my last comments from the point of view of a lawyer who, above all, wishes to prevent unexpected surprises in arbitration. These Rules strengthen the role of the Secretary General and increase his decision-making powers. However, the parties wish to prevent surprises when, in the application of Article 6, paragraph 2, they are prevented from initiating arbitration in whole or in part against a defendant in accordance with the prima facie decision of the Court. The power given to the Secretary General in Article 30, paragraph 4, of suspending or considering as withdrawn a demand for arbitration may receive different interpretations according to each case. These and many other elements throughout the new Rules provide a discretion, and the practising lawyer, who sustains the need for such discretion, expects a uniform application which prevents unforeseen results. A great man, Salvador de Madariaga, analysed the various consequences which the application of the same legal text may have as approved by the Spanish Republic or later by the dictatorship. He stated that, in a 'music performance', the score is very important but the tempo with which it is played is important as well. Today, the new Arbitration Rules constitute an up-to-date score which is in tune with the current needs of arbitration and is the result of a wide consensus. From now on, we must look to the future and ensure that the ICC International Court of Arbitration and its Secretariat, the arbitrators and the parties synchronize their arbitral participation in accordance with the new tempo which the economy of the years 2000 will demand in international commercial arbitration.