See below English version
La LMA se cocinó en la UNCITRAL y no hay otros auténticos trabajos preparatorios que no sean los de la UNCITRAL. Los trabajos preparatorios son fundamentales para el conocimiento e interpretación de cualquier ley. La jurisprudencia también ilustra; puede ser fruto de la aplicación de una disposición que se adoptó o que sirvió de antecedente a la ley; también la que surge de la aplicación de la ley una vez que entró en vigor.
Previamente hice referencia a las investigaciones, notas e informes, de la Secretaría que prepararon a la decisión de la UNCITRAL de elaborar la LMA; entre ellos un estudio sobre la aplicación e interpretación de la CNY (A/CN9/168) y una nota sobre futuros trabajos en arbitraje comercial internacional (A/CN.9/169). También conté que a partir de la decisión de la Comisión, el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Contratación Internacional, que así se llamaba entonces, tuvo cinco sesiones (tercera a octava). Al final, el proyecto del grupo de trabajo se examinó en una sesión de la Comisión; en 1985 en Viena. Entonces se aprobó la LMA.
La labor de la Secretaría en la preparación, conducción y reporte de todas estas sesiones quedó documentada y es esencial para entender la LMA. el mejor método de convertirse en una auténtica autoridad en arbitraje y conocer la LMA, es echarse una zambullida en este material; está en www.uncitral.org.
Para cada sesión la Secretaría prepara la agenda provisional; por ejemplo, en 2000, para el inicio de los trabajos de revisión de la LMA (ACN.9/WG.II/WP. 107) . La agenda suele contener los antecedentes del proyecto, la evolución de los trabajos y su propósito. Mucha de esa información se repite y crece conforme adelantan los trabajos. Entre otras cosas, la agenda expresa el propósito de la reunión e indica las fechas y horas de las reuniones diarias. También identifica los documentos importantes para el debate.
El grupo de trabajo siempre tiene sus debates con base en uno o varios documentos elaborados por la Secretaría. A veces, también, propuestas de gobiernos y de ONG.
Por ejemplo, para la primera reunión, la Secretaría suele proponer los temas que pudieran regularse; las propuestas van acompañadas de comentarios sobre los pros y contras, prácticas, jurisprudencia e información apropiada sobre cada una de las cuestiones. Así, para la primera sesión de la LMA, la secretaría propuso un documento que trata de algunas de las cuestiones fundamentales que debía escoger el grupo de trabajo (A/CN9/WG. II/WP 35). Ese documento sirvió de base para que el grupo de trabajo adoptara decisiones que son la base fundamental de la LMA.
El debate sobre las cuestiones que se pueden regular es el punto de partida para iniciar la redacción de los textos legales. A partir de entonces, la Secretaría propone textos y hace comentarios; y el grupo de trabajo los considera. De los debates surgen modificaciones y se elaboran nuevos textos. Por ejemplo, en la segunda y tercera sesión en que el grupo de trabajo consideró la LMA examinó un primer proyecto de artículos preparado por la Secretaría. Así comienza el trabajo de lo que en alguna ocasión Eric Bergsten me comentó era el consenso evolutivo típico de la UNCITRAL
Los debates suscitan la consideración de situaciones que ameritan investigar el estado de la cuestión en la práctica; cuando la Comisión o el grupo de trabajo lo piden, la Secretaría investiga, con frecuencia envía cuestionarios que distribuye por todo el mundo; gobiernos, ONG y expertos; los que procesa e informa al grupo de trabajo o a la Comisión. Por ejemplo para la 44 sesión del grupo de trabajo, que consideraba la forma escrita del acuerdo de arbitraje, la Secretaría preparó un formidable estudio, en donde informó sobre las variadas interpretaciones de las cortes estatales al artículo II(2) de la CNY (A./CN.9/WG.II/WP. 139).
Conforme avanzan los debates, la Secretaría toma nota de las decisiones y propone textos modificados; a menudo propone opciones. Pero también reporta investigaciones específicas sobre la situación de la cuestión de que se trate en el mundo, lo que han decidido los tribunales del mundo, las prácticas y opiniones de las instituciones arbitrales, de los expertos y muchas cuestiones más.
Los gobiernos también hacen propuestas. Por ejemplo, cuando el gobierno de México presentó una propuesta para prescindir de la forma escrita del acuerdo de arbitraje. (A/CN.9/WG.II/WP. 137 y A/CN.9/WP.137/Add. 1).
Al terminar cada sesión, la Secretaría produce un reporte que se examina y adopta el último día de labores. Los reportes del grupo que trabajó la LMA son tesoros que muestran paso a paso el debate de todas las disposciones. Es una lástima que, en años recientes, disposiciones burocráticas de racionalización de recursos de las Naciones Unidas, hayan limitado el número de páginas que pueden tener los reportes; hoy en día no tienen la riqueza que solían.
La Secretaría también prepara compilaciones analíticas de las observaciones de los gobiernos. Antes de someter a la Comisión un texto para su aprobación final, los gobiernos de todo el mundo son invitados a comentarlo. Con los comentarios que recibe, la Secretaría hace una recopilación analítica para que sean considerados en la sesión final.
La Secretaría prepara comentarios analíticos. Por ejemplo, para la sesión de la Comisión que analizó y adoptó la LMA, la Secretaría preparó un Comentario analítico del proyecto. Aunque el comentario se hizo sobre el proyecto que examinaría la Comisión, los cambios no fueron sustanciales y continúa siendo el mejor documento para entender la historia y formación de la LMA (A/CN.9/264, marzo de 1985).
También se hace un reporte de la sesión de la Comisión, de relevancia en la parte que se ocupa del debate. Cuando se estudia un documento sustantivo en la Comisión, expertos taquígrafos parlamentarios hacen resúmenes que reportan cada una de las intervenciones. Antes de su publicación, los resúmenes se dan a revisión a los participantes para que los revisen y, en su caso, corrijan.
En conclusión, para tener opiniones fundadas, nada como sumergirse en este mar de información.
----------
The UMLA was cooked up in the UNCITRAL and there are no other travaux preparatoires other than those of the UNCITRAL. The travaux preparatoires are essential for the understanding and interpretation of any law. The jurisprudence is also an interpretation tool; it can be the result of the application of a provision already in force or one that served as background to the law; also that that arises from the application of the law once it came into effect.
Earlier I referred to the research, notes and reports, of the Secretariat who prepared the UNCITRAL's decision to make the UMLA, including a study on the application and interpretation of the NYC (A/CN9/168) and a note on future work in international commercial arbitration (A/CN.9/169). Also I stated that after the decision of the Commission, the Working Group on International Contract Practices, as it was called then, had five sessions (third through eighth). At the end, the working group's project was discussed at a meeting of the Commission in 1985, in Vienna. Then it was addopted the UMLA.
The work of the Secretariat in the preparation, conduct and reporting of these sessions was documented and it is essential to understand the UMLA. The best way to become a real authority on arbitration and become familiar with the UMLA is to dive into this material; it is located at www.uncitral.org.
For each session, the Secretariat prepares the draft agenda; for example, in 2000, in order to start the task of revision of the UMLA (ACN.9/WG.II/WP. 107). The agenda usually contains the background of the project, the progress of the work and its purpose. Much of this information is repeated and grows as the work progresses. Among other things, the agenda states the purpose of the meeting and indicates the dates and times of the daily meetings. It also identifies important documents for discussion.
The working groups always holds their discussions based on one or more documents prepared by the Secretariat; sometimes governmental proposals and NGOs, as well.
For example, for the first meeting, the Secretariat usually propose items that could be regulated; the proposals are accompanied by comments on the pros and cons, practices, jurisprudence and appropriate information on each of the issues. Thus, for the first session of the UMLA, the secretariat proposed a document dealing with some of the key issues the working group should choose from (A/CN9/WG. II/WP 35). That document became the basis for the working group to adopt decisions that are the foundation of the UMLA.
The debate on the issues that can be adjusted is the starting point to start drafting legal texts. Thereafter, the Secretariat proposes texts and comments, which the working group considers. From the substance of those debates, modifications are agreed and the Secretariat drafts new texts. For example, in the second and third UMLA’s sessions, the working group considered the first draft articles prepared by the Secretariat. Thus begins the work, than on occasion Eric Bergsten commented to me is the typical evolutionary consensus in UNCITRAL
In ocassions, the consideration of situations that arise from discussions create the need to investigate the state of the practice in question. When the Commission or the working group requests them, the Secretariat investigates, often by sending questionnaires which are distributed throughout the world to governments, NGOs and experts; the Secretariat gathers the answers, process the information and informs the working group or the Commission, as the case may be. For example for the 44th session of the working group, which considered the written form of the arbitration agreement, the Secretariat prepared a formidable study that reported on the various interpretations of the state courts to Article II (2) of the NYC (A ./CN.9/WG.II/WP. 139).
As discussions progress, the Secretariat notes the decisions and proposes modified texts, often proposing options. But it also reports specific research on the status of the issue in question worldwide, what the courts around the world have decided, the practices and opinions of arbitral institutions, experts and many other related issues.
Governments also make proposals; for example, when the Mexican government introduced a proposal to eliminate the requisite of the written form for the arbitration agreement (A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.137 and A/CN.9/WP.137/Add. 1).
After finishing each session, the Secretariat produces a report that the working group revise and adopt the last working day. The reports from the group that worked in the UMLA are treasures which show step by step the discussion of all provisions. It is unfortunate that, in recent years, labor-saving bureaucratic provisions from United Nations resources, have limited the number of pages the reports can have; today they do not have the wealth they used to.
The Secretariat also prepares analytical compilations of comments by governments. Before submitting to the Commission a text for final approval, governments around the world are invited to comment. With the comments received, the Secretariat makes an analytical compilation to be considered in the final session.
The Secretariat also prepares analytical comments. For example, for the session of the Commission that considered and adopted the UMLA, the Secretariat prepared an analytical commentary of the draft model law. Although the commentary was made on the draft to be considered by the Commission, the changes were not substantial and continue to be the best document to understand the history and formation of the UMLA (A/CN.9/264, March 1985).
Also a report of the meeting of the Commission is made, based on the relevant debate. When considering a substantive document in the Commission, expert parliamentary stenographers produce summary records that report each of the interventions. Before publication, the summary records are given to the participants for their review and, if necessary, corrected.
In conclusion, to have well informed opinions on the UMLA, there is nothing like diving into this sea of information.
----------
How a model law is cooked. The preliminary work. Work of the Secretariat
Earlier I referred to the research, notes and reports, of the Secretariat who prepared the UNCITRAL's decision to make the UMLA, including a study on the application and interpretation of the NYC (A/CN9/168) and a note on future work in international commercial arbitration (A/CN.9/169). Also I stated that after the decision of the Commission, the Working Group on International Contract Practices, as it was called then, had five sessions (third through eighth). At the end, the working group's project was discussed at a meeting of the Commission in 1985, in Vienna. Then it was addopted the UMLA.
The work of the Secretariat in the preparation, conduct and reporting of these sessions was documented and it is essential to understand the UMLA. The best way to become a real authority on arbitration and become familiar with the UMLA is to dive into this material; it is located at www.uncitral.org.
For each session, the Secretariat prepares the draft agenda; for example, in 2000, in order to start the task of revision of the UMLA (ACN.9/WG.II/WP. 107). The agenda usually contains the background of the project, the progress of the work and its purpose. Much of this information is repeated and grows as the work progresses. Among other things, the agenda states the purpose of the meeting and indicates the dates and times of the daily meetings. It also identifies important documents for discussion.
The working groups always holds their discussions based on one or more documents prepared by the Secretariat; sometimes governmental proposals and NGOs, as well.
For example, for the first meeting, the Secretariat usually propose items that could be regulated; the proposals are accompanied by comments on the pros and cons, practices, jurisprudence and appropriate information on each of the issues. Thus, for the first session of the UMLA, the secretariat proposed a document dealing with some of the key issues the working group should choose from (A/CN9/WG. II/WP 35). That document became the basis for the working group to adopt decisions that are the foundation of the UMLA.
The debate on the issues that can be adjusted is the starting point to start drafting legal texts. Thereafter, the Secretariat proposes texts and comments, which the working group considers. From the substance of those debates, modifications are agreed and the Secretariat drafts new texts. For example, in the second and third UMLA’s sessions, the working group considered the first draft articles prepared by the Secretariat. Thus begins the work, than on occasion Eric Bergsten commented to me is the typical evolutionary consensus in UNCITRAL
In ocassions, the consideration of situations that arise from discussions create the need to investigate the state of the practice in question. When the Commission or the working group requests them, the Secretariat investigates, often by sending questionnaires which are distributed throughout the world to governments, NGOs and experts; the Secretariat gathers the answers, process the information and informs the working group or the Commission, as the case may be. For example for the 44th session of the working group, which considered the written form of the arbitration agreement, the Secretariat prepared a formidable study that reported on the various interpretations of the state courts to Article II (2) of the NYC (A ./CN.9/WG.II/WP. 139).
As discussions progress, the Secretariat notes the decisions and proposes modified texts, often proposing options. But it also reports specific research on the status of the issue in question worldwide, what the courts around the world have decided, the practices and opinions of arbitral institutions, experts and many other related issues.
Governments also make proposals; for example, when the Mexican government introduced a proposal to eliminate the requisite of the written form for the arbitration agreement (A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.137 and A/CN.9/WP.137/Add. 1).
After finishing each session, the Secretariat produces a report that the working group revise and adopt the last working day. The reports from the group that worked in the UMLA are treasures which show step by step the discussion of all provisions. It is unfortunate that, in recent years, labor-saving bureaucratic provisions from United Nations resources, have limited the number of pages the reports can have; today they do not have the wealth they used to.
The Secretariat also prepares analytical compilations of comments by governments. Before submitting to the Commission a text for final approval, governments around the world are invited to comment. With the comments received, the Secretariat makes an analytical compilation to be considered in the final session.
The Secretariat also prepares analytical comments. For example, for the session of the Commission that considered and adopted the UMLA, the Secretariat prepared an analytical commentary of the draft model law. Although the commentary was made on the draft to be considered by the Commission, the changes were not substantial and continue to be the best document to understand the history and formation of the UMLA (A/CN.9/264, March 1985).
Also a report of the meeting of the Commission is made, based on the relevant debate. When considering a substantive document in the Commission, expert parliamentary stenographers produce summary records that report each of the interventions. Before publication, the summary records are given to the participants for their review and, if necessary, corrected.
In conclusion, to have well informed opinions on the UMLA, there is nothing like diving into this sea of information.
ResponderEliminarAl revisar esta entrada me percaté de una omisión imperdonable al no mencionar la obra de Howard Holztmann y Jospeh Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration. Es una edición muy bien hecha de los trabajos preparatorios, con un comentario de los autores. En la preparación de las entradas del blog, me ha sido de gran utilidad.
Revising this post I realised that I made un unforgivable mistake, because I did not quote the work of Howard Holztmann y Jospeh Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration. Is a remarkable edition of the travaux preparatoires with a commentary by the authors. In preparing the posts to this blog it has been a useful tool for me.