First of all, I would like to thank the organizer of this conference, Mr Ben Davis, for all the work he has done. Under great pressure, he has put together an excellent programme and motivated the speakers and panellists, whom I should also like to thank at this point for everything they have done. I should like, once more, to thank Mr Davis for all he has done in preparing this programme and organizing it so well.

I doubt if there is really any need for conclusions because I have the feeling that practically all has now been said and the few points of clarification which I originally wanted to make at this time have in the meantime been taken care of. I would therefore like to put the whole revision of our Rules into a certain perspective.

First of all, I think there has been no revision of arbitration rules anywhere in the world which has benefited from such a widespread consultation. Three if not four rounds of consultation with all the ICC National Committees throughout the world took place. The National Committees in turn called on the practitioners of arbitration in their respective countries, and what we now have before us is the result of a consultation process which I think is unique.

I believe this was necessary because ICC arbitration is truly international. We do not want to be restricted by or inspired primarily by a local, national, legal or cultural environment. We try to reach out to all possible users of arbitration throughout the world. In this connection it is interesting to note that last year less than 50% of the parties to all arbitration cases filed with the ICC came from Western Europe; 8% came from Eastern Europe, 14% from North America, 11% from Latin America and 11% from Asia, which shows the widespread acceptance of ICC arbitration.

As was repeatedly mentioned, the new Rules do not constitute a revolution. The drafters had to try, in the spirit of the previous Rules, to bring them up to date, ensuring that they can be applied throughout the world, within the various legal families, and, hopefully, serve the parties well in all parts of the world. Looking at the statistics, I note that less than 30% of ICC arbitrations actually take place in Paris, although 80% are still held in Europe. This large percentage is easily explained by the fact that many arbitrations involving non-European parties, often both as claimant and as respondent, are held in a European city by agreement of the parties. Approximately 11% of our cases have their place of arbitration in North America and about 6% in Asia.

In view of the importance of Western Europe, especially France and Switzerland, as a place of arbitration, the drafters obviously wanted to try to avoid the main pitfalls which might be faced by parties to arbitration proceedings in these countries. Therefore, it was felt necessary to give a solution to the Dutco situation. But I fully agree with the comment of Professor Knoepfler, and it is surely not the intent of the Court to apply the Dutco solution in situations where it would not be appropriate

In this context I should like to express how much the Court appreciates the very pro-arbitration position of the French judiciary. We have today the pleasure of having Mrs Rozes, a former Premier Président de la Cour de Cassation of France with us, and the older participants will remember the interest which Mr Bellet, also a former Premier Président, showed for arbitration. It is only natural that the Secretariat and the Court should pay special attention to Court decisions in France and in Switzerland in view of the great importance which these two countries enjoy as places of arbitration.

Now, what is the result, the outcome, of these new Rules? As always, like every human endeavour, it constitutes a compromise which will not satisfy everybody and which will leave certain questions unanswered. However, we feel that we are probably in a better position to handle such a compromise and, in certain cases, deliberately leave open certain questions, as Mr de Boisséson rightly pointed out. The new Rules are not intended as a comprehensive instruction manual on how to conduct ICC arbitrations.

This brings us to the other aspect, besides the international approach which I mentioned, namely, the existence of our Secretariat. We have a devoted group of highly qualified individuals under the Secretary General, Mr Grigera Naón, and his deputy, Mr Hascher, with six counsellors and their teams. The unique feature of ICC arbitration is, of course, the Court. The Court meets in Plenary Session once a month and its input allows us to keep abreast of what is going on in the world of arbitration and, hopefully, to find adequate solutions to the problems at hand. It might not always be the right solution as viewed from a specific viewpoint as there often is no universally right solution, but I trust that the Court will at least be able to find the appropriate solution to the problems which occur and are presented to the Court. This constant contact with the practical world will, hopefully, allow us to interpret the Rules in a practical, user-friendly fashion, and will enable us to develop guidelines for those questions which have remained unresolved in the Rules. Such guidelines will then be published as Notes or in the Bulletin of the Court.

As you will have seen, much of what is now in the Rules constitutes a codification of the Court's current practice. Take the question of interpretation of awards. We are from time to time confronted with such a request. We are also confronted with the fact that an arbitral tribunal in the case of a request for interpretation asks for an advance on costs, as it might have to meet again, and one arbitrator lives at a different place from the other members of the tribunal. These and other matters constitute daily problems with which the Court is confronted and it was therefore felt that now, after twenty years, one needed to have a new look at our Rules and try to incorporate the developments which have taken place since the last revision.

We have now reached a new stage, but this by no means constitutes the end. The administration of arbitration constitutes an evolutionary process which will be driven by the input of the Secretariat, the input of the Court and, primarily, by the input of all of you. We are determined to pursue this dialogue, and I very much hope that you will bring to our attention the problems you are confronted with, the questions you have, even if they do not pertain directly to a specific ICC arbitration. In the context of a specific ICC arbitration you may, as you know, contact the counsellor in charge of the file and have a dialogue with her or him. This possibility of a dialogue is, in our opinion, something which other arbitration institutions do not offer in this form and intensity, which, in turn, brings us back to Mr Bond's previous remark about costs. If one wants a quality service one has to pay for it.

That being said, I would very much like to appeal to you all, call upon you to continue this dialogue, and whenever there is a particular question you would like to raise, the Secretariat and I are always open to proposals and suggestions.

Before closing, I feel it is appropriate to mention especially Paul Gélinas and Yves Derains. I really think that without their guidance, their perseverance, their tremendous input in time, energy and effort, we would not have been able to have this meeting here today, because we would not have the new Rules to discuss. This is to my best knowledge the first such public gathering on the new Rules, but we are already planning to have one the day after tomorrow in Asia where our Asian Director, Louise Barrington, will be conducting a seminar in Seoul on the new Rules. But I would especially like, once more, to thank Yves Derains and Paul Gélinas for all they have done.

I would also like to thank the interpreters and the person making the record of today's meeting, which we hope to be able to publish in due course as a first guideline with regard to certain questions which have been raised and which have appeared in the course of the drafting of the Rules. Now it is up to the Secretariat and to the Court to try to make the best of them and to provide reasonable answers to the questions which have been raised and which will continue to be raised.

I wish you a good journey home and thank you for your attendance today.