Ladies and Gentlemen,

May I firstly make one or two reflections of a general nature on the philosophy underlying the revision of the Rules of the Court, a philosophy which, to my mind, was applied selectively and effectively in the articles presented by the previous contributors.

This revision was advisable-more than this, it was necessary-on account of the profound consequences, or, I might say, the impact that the globalization of the world economy has already had and, above all, will continue to have on international arbitration and, thus, on ICC arbitration.

Indeed, international arbitration-and ICC arbitration in particular-has been and will increasingly continue to be confronted with:

• new countries,

• new players (one needs only to think of the increasing role played by small and medium-sized businesses in international trade),

• the effects of the process of industrial relocation now taking place on a worldwide scale.

In the wake of this complex phenomenology, a warning was given of the need to make arbitration more flexible, quicker, better attuned to the needs of the parties and, above all, better equipped to protect proceedings against the unfortunately growing use of delaying tactics.

As has been reiterated either by Mr Yves Derains, Chairman of the Working Party (of which I had the honour of being part) or by the previous contributors, the new Rules were clearly inspired by a philosophy of compromise, which sought not only to safeguard the essential features of ICC arbitration that explain the favour it has found over the last 75 years, but also to give a concrete response to the needs outlined above.

Of the Articles of the new Rules considered by the previous contributors, those that seem to me most capable of giving concrete expression to the philosophy of the reformers are Articles 20 (Establishing the Facts of the Case), 21 (Hearings) and 22 (Closing of the Proceedings).

Article 20 introduces a mechanism which is much more detailed and precise than that which was in force in the past, and which is much better able to protect proceedings against any delaying tactics.

The same can be said of Article 21 and especially Article 22. The new rule introduced in Article 22, to the effect that '[w]hen it is satisfied that the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to present their cases, the Arbitral Tribunal shall declare the proceedings closed' is a key element which deserves to be highlighted for the strength of protection it intrinsically gives to the parties' interests and to proceedings.