Thank you, Mr Chairman.

It is not my wish to fill the four minutes which you have accorded me with administrative matters. By way of introduction, I would like to point out, as other speakers have already done, that in undertaking to revise the Rules it was only right that the characteristic features of ICC arbitration as they have existed for 75 years should be maintained, that is to say, the international dimension of this system of arbitration and the guarantees offered by the institution, namely the Court. May I draw your attention to a text which has not been discussed but which has been distributed to you-Appendix I to the Rules of Arbitration-which comprises the Statutes of the Court and in which it is now said that the Court is an autonomous body which carries out its functions in complete independence from the ICC and its organs. This is a welcome addition.

With regard to guarantees and transparency, I will limit my brief remarks to the problems of forming the Arbitral Tribunal. It was pointed out earlier that in order to speed up the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and thus arbitral proceedings, a certain number of prerogatives had been given to the General Secretariat of the Court. These prerogatives are set out in particular in the second paragraph of Article 9. I would simply point out that the Secretary General and, in the latter's absence, the Deputy Secretary General, may confirm the arbitrators, whatever their position within the Arbitral Tribunal, once they have filed either a statement of independence without qualification, in which case there is no problem, or a qualified statement of independence that has not given rise to any objections. You will see that embedded in this article is the principle whereby, once a decision causes harm to the parties or gives them grounds for complaint, that is to say, once there is genuine questioning and discussion and it is no longer a question of merely rubber-stamping decisions, it is for the Court to decide on the confirmation of the arbitrator. There can be no doubt that it was wise to proceed in this way, giving the parties all the guarantees offered by the Court.

Lastly, it needs to be pointed out that the new Rules improve transparency, which is a good thing. I would cite as evidence what is said in Article 11 on the challenge of arbitrators and in Article 12 on the replacement of arbitrators. Let me recall a few simple ideas. A challenge or replacement procedure does not call into question a civil right relating to property but is more akin to a disciplinary procedure. As a result, it is acceptable for such procedures to contain several exceptions to rules regarding publication, orality and appearance in person at a hearing. This being said, it could be considered that, by adhering to the ICC Rules, the parties have in a way relinquished such guarantees. I would point out that under the current Rules of Arbitration, it is already the case that the decisions made by the Court after agreeing to act upon a challenge or a replacement are not to be arbitrary. This is repeated in the new Rules, paragraph 4 of Article 7 stating that the Court's decisions in these matters shall be final and that the reasons for such decisions shall not be communicated. This does not mean, however, that there are no reasons. Besides, a state court could, in the context of an action brought before it, ask for the file relating to the challenge or replacement to be made available to it. Now, in addition to the existing practice whereby the comments of the arbitrator called into question and the other parties are simply communicated to the Court, it will be possible, as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 1l, for the written submissions produced by the challenging party and the comments of the arbitrator under challenge, the other arbitrators and the other parties to be communicated between such persons through the Secretariat and no longer merely on the initiative of those concerned. This is a highly important addition, even if an improvement in the transparency of the procedure between the person challenged and the challenging party would have sufficed. There was a wish to do more than this. Not wanting to overrun my four minutes, I would conclude by simply saying that the changes I have mentioned and the new practices which need to be developed to accompany them must be contemplated with confidence, in keeping with our approach over the last 75 years, that is to say that the pragmatism of the advocates of the new Rules must be reconciled with legal requirements and the expectations of the parties.