Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I was saying earlier to one of my colleagues that it was great to get the opportunity to argue again before you all of the points which I argued and lost during the Working Party sessions.

Of course, one of the greatest changes since the 1975 Rules, an earthshaking change, has been the introduction of the UNCITRAL model law and the model rules. Canada has since 1975 adopted UNCITRAL in virtually every jurisdiction, and for that reason I took it upon myself really to examine how the ICC Rules could be made to reflect, or at least be consistent with, the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Rules.

One of the areas where there was a very great lacunae was the area of interpretation of awards. Interpretation is not generally a concept which before UNCITRAL was well-known in common law jurisdictions, and I think it is a great improvement for the Rules now to deal with the question of interpretation.

Everyone else has been speaking about the question of the Terms of Reference and the issues to be determined. I myself think it is unfortunate that the current language as it has been adopted could not have been made more neutral, because I think it will be a little difficult for arbitrators to make a positive determination that it would be inappropriate to include the issues to be determined.

Another point which I think is quite interesting is the question of the language to be determined in Article 16 of the Rules. The previous wording in relation to the language or languages to be determined was that due regard should be paid to all the relevant circumstances, and (I emphasize here), in particular the language of the contract.

I think that certainty in determining the language or languages of the arbitration is very important, and I personally am not very much in favour of the change that is coming in, which is that due regard will now be paid to all the relevant circumstances, including the language of the contract. I think the language of the contract with this wording has been somewhat demoted, although I can see that it will provide more flexibility.

I would like to point out as well how much better the new interim and conservatory measures provisions are, with the specific provision affirming that the Arbitral Tribunal will be in a position to make awards of that nature.

I would like to wrap up by saying that the notion of respecting the will of the parties is a timeless concept which is used over and over again in meetings such as this one; I think it has been very well reinforced by the various provisions that have been adopted. There were a lot of specific suggestions for specific procedural rules, but by and large many of them were not adopted, and thus there is still a great deal of flexibility for the Arbitral Tribunal.

The new Rules are really enabling and empowering, and I think Yves Derains is very much to be congratulated for his excellent achievement in this respect. Thank you.