Ladies and Gentlemen,

Why is this celebration taking place in Geneva? According to our Rules, the Secretariat of the Court has its seat at the headquarters of the ICC in Paris. The Court, on the other hand, according to its statutes, is a body independent from the ICC and, by its very calling, just like ICC arbitration, is global and universal. It is therefore quite natural to take advantage of the infrastructure created by the ICC and the Swiss national committee for the Geneva Business Dialogue in celebrating our anniversary in Geneva, thus showing that ICC arbitration does not have its home in any one country. In addition, what also no doubt had a part to play, amongst other factors, in this decision, is that many arbitration practitioners present here today celebrated the Court's sixtieth anniversary with splendour and much panache in Paris fifteen years ago, when Mr Michel Gaudet was Chairman. I take this opportunity to give a special greeting to our Honorary Chairman, Mr Gaudet, who is here with us today, and at the same time convey the apologies of my predecessor and Honorary Chairman, Mr Alain Plantey, who, due to health reasons, at the last minute was prevented from attending.

Now, before addressing the subject which is mine regarding the future of arbitration, I should like to say a few words of a, perhaps, more personal nature regarding the life of the Court and the Secretariat. And I think this is a proper moment in view of the fact that ICC arbitration is today celebrating its 75th Anniversary. We are fortunate enough to be able to do this in the presence of so many friends of ICC arbitration, all of you, whom I would like to call the "ICC Arbitration family." It is therefore appropriate that we also talk of some family matters. You all know that, this summer, Christopher Koch and Joachim Kuckenburg, after some six years of excellent service, have left us to take up new challenges in private practice. On your behalf I should like to thank both of them most sincerely for all they have done for ICC arbitration and wish them much success and satisfaction in their new activities. I welcome here particularly their successors, Mr Detlev Kühner and Mr Andrea Rusca, who have already well integrated themselves in the Secretariat. Mr Dominique Hascher, for many years Deputy Secretary General and General Counsel, has had the great honour to be called to become a member of the Paris Court of Appeal; that is why he is not here with us today, as he is already sitting in the Palais de Justice. Our very best wishes accompany him for the continuation of his very prestigious career. You will all have undoubtedly heard that Fernando Mantilla Serrano will be leaving us soon and will return to private practice. What, however, I did not know until a very few days ago, is that he is not leaving alone, but he and Anne Cambournac are going to get married tomorrow, which is a good reason for them not to be here today! I am sure that I can speak for all of you when I wish both of them much happiness together and success in their new environment. The most urgent issue within the Secretariat is therefore the succession to Mr Hascher. It has been decided these very last days that Anne Marie Whitesell will become Deputy Secretary General with direct responsibility for the administration by the six teams of the 900 pending and all new cases. Fabien Gélinas will become General Counsel with direct responsibility for legal advice to the teams and the Court and for all matters not directly related to the management of the cases. It goes without saying that both report to and are directly subordinated to the Secretary General, Horacio Grigera Naón. I should like to congratulate Mrs Whitesell and Mr Gélinas for these new responsibilities and wish them much success and much satisfaction in their new challenges.

After World War One, when the ICC was established, it was realized that one of the first services to the international business community consisted in making available a dispute resolution system. In 1923, the first rules of procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the ICC dealing with conciliation, non-binding arbitration and binding arbitration were adopted by the Council and ratified in 1923 at the Rome Congress of the ICC. From the very beginning the Court was multinational in its composition, as was always the case with its users. By 1929 some 300 cases had been submitted, and at that time 50 were pending, involving parties from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and Yugoslavia. Therefore, already at that time ICC arbitration was truly international, with no specific home base. These characteristics of a truly international arbitration system administered by an international Court and assisted by a multinational, multilingual Secretariat have remained the specific characteristics of ICC arbitration. Major cornerstones of 1923 are still present in the 1998 Rules, like the establishment of Terms of Reference.

During this time the international legal framework has greatly changed. Here in Geneva, one can make reference to the Geneva Protocol of 1923 and the Geneva Convention on the execution of foreign arbitral awards of 1927. The ICC worked closely with the competent international bodies in drafting these instruments. After World War II, in 1953, the ICC took the initiative for a new instrument and submitted to the United Nations the draft of a convention on the enforcement of international arbitral awards which was to become the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. This Convention has been ratified by some 120 countries, including most major trading nations. Since then, the UNCITRAL Rules of 1976, as well as the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985, have also had a decisive influence on the modernization and harmonization of arbitration laws and arbitration practice throughout the world. Influenced by the success of arbitration as the only realistic method for resolving international commercial disputes, a great number of local and regional arbitration centres have sprung up throughout the world. Some might present certain advantages, especially by raising the acceptability of arbitration in certain parts of the world and offering solutions in a local environment close to the domestic business community. In many cases, however, the great expectations of the founders of such centres have not been fulfilled and many arbitration centres would already have been closed if not for local sponsorship, especially when governments assume the running costs of such operations.

Today, therefore, the realistic choice is between, on the one hand, institutional arbitration as offered by a handful of international players, although most of them, with the notable exception of the ICC, do in fact depend on a strong domestic base and, on the other hand, ad hoc arbitration. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that these systems will also in the future dominate the international arbitration field. There is also no doubt that, notwithstanding the current economic difficulties, the world economy as a whole will continue to grow. Part of this growth will depend on legal security and legal stability. As arbitration is an integral part of world business, all measures aimed at facilitating arbitration will be directly beneficial to the growth of international business. The main attention has to be given to the proper implementation by the various states of the 1958 New York Convention and the general enactment of modern arbitration laws with a standard at least equal to that of the UNCITRAL Model Law. These questions, which necessitate a close interaction between arbitrators and judges, will be discussed in the first panel this morning and in the last panel this afternoon.

Parallel to the growth of international commercial arbitration, much attention has been given to conciliation and mediation of international commercial disputes. It should be remembered that the ICC, since the commencement of the activities of its Court, has always been involved in conciliation proceedings and the current Rules of Conciliation of 1988 in essence go back to the very first rules of 1923 when an important percentage of the cases submitted to the Court involved conciliation. The number of cases now submitted to the Rules of Conciliation of the ICC is somewhat misleading. Many cases submitted to arbitration are in fact settled with the help of the arbitral tribunal, which, although not formally acting as conciliator or mediator, will often try to explore with the parties the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement. All these matters will be discussed in the second panel this morning.

After the lunch break a further panel will discuss the vast subject of arbitrators and arbitral procedures. Time will not suffice to address all issues which arise in this context. I would just like briefly to touch upon two matters which will greatly influence the future of arbitration. On the one hand, a tendency often perceived as constituting a transplantation of ordinary court proceedings into the field of arbitration. It has been stressed, however, that this is not the fault of the institutions, especially not of an institution like the ICC, whose rules contain a bare minimum of procedural measures, but constitutes a travesty caused by the parties themselves and their advisers. In this connection, one cannot help asking the question: what will happen to conciliation and mediation once the same actors who have sometimes in certain places succeeded in transforming the arbitration hearing into state court proceedings have put their grips on the mediation process?

The second issue concerns small claims disputes. This raises a further great procedural challenge. It obviously constitutes an abuse to provide for ICC arbitration in mail-order purchase contracts and I therefore fullheartedly welcome the recent decision of a New York Court according to which an ICC arbitration clause in a consumer contract sent by a company to its clients regarding purchases normally below US$ 4 000 is unconscionable. However, also in the international context, one has to take note of the growing transnational use of mail-order contracts and of transactions concluded over the Internet. The question therefore needs to be studied urgently how one can offer the business community some cheap but nevertheless satisfactory dispute resolution systems.

These are but a few thoughts at the occasion of today's 75th Anniversary meeting and I am sure that at the end of the day, and after the dinner at the Geneva Opera, to which you are all invited, we shall be able to leave this city enriched by many thoughts and suggestions which will help identify problem areas, and thereby make arbitration even more efficient as the preferred method to resolve international business disputes, reinforcing the essential legal basis which constitutes one of the most important elements in the development of world business and economy.

When, over a year ago, the decision was taken to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the Court at the occasion of the ICC Business Dialogue, it had been envisaged to hold the meeting of the Executive Board and of the Council of the ICC on Tuesday, 22 September. Unfortunately for various reasons, the original schedule could not be kept so that these meetings now overlap with the birthday of the Court. President Maucher just this moment has to open the meeting of the Executive Board and to his great regret he is therefore unable to address us personally. We are however very honoured and pleased that notwithstanding the meeting of the Executive Board a member of the Presidency of the ICC can be with us today at the commencement of our programme. It is therefore with great pleasure that we welcome today Mr Rahmi Koç, immediate Past President of the ICC. Mr Koç, obviously, is a person who is both familiar with the activities of the Court as he has been involved for almost six years with the direction of the ICC, first as Vice-President, then, from 1994 to 1996, as President, and, since then, as immediate Past President. I should therefore like to invite President Koç to address a few words to us.