 Thank you very much and thank you from Skyward and thank you very much for the organizer, who invited me and have shown to now the very great efficiency. Thank you. Well, I may have some knowledge and experience in the field of international arbitration, but yet I'm a bit surprised that I was asked to talk about approaches to arbitration across the edges, because whatever be my experience and my age doesn't go across the edges. I'm going to say somewhere about arbitration in the Romance Society, the International Society. I'm not in the role so far in the past yet. As we all know arbitration as a memorable past, but today it's a bit unique. Today arbitration is a normal way of reserve economic dispute internationally, bizarre in the field of commercial contracts, bizarre in the field of investment protection, bizarre in the field of spot competition. So arbitration is everywhere. And this, I think, is the result of the combined actions of the private economic circles on the one hand and the states in general on the one hand. If you think of what happened during the last 50 years in order to promote international arbitration, it is really impressive. This starts by the ratification of the New York Convention of 1958 by about 150 states. That's one of the conventions which has been, which has the greatest success in the world, if we think of the number of ratifications. The adoption by the United Nations, UNCTRO, of their rules of arbitration and then of another law which has been the basis for the revamping of the international arbitration law throughout the world. Now today there are very, very frequent ways which have still another law on arbitration. During the same period there has been a lot, the creation of a lot of arbitration institutions for the world, sometimes very such as mushrooms, some being serious, some being less serious, but you see a huge interest for international arbitration. And in the field of investment protection, the conclusion and ratification of about 3,000 treaty, bilateral treaties, miracle treaties with all of the records to international arbitration in order to protect the industry. And arbitration has even expressed today with the global arbitration review which plays a role. So that's an impressive success. Yet this success should not hide that today arbitration is under assert criticism. In a recent interview in law, Gary Bowman has noted that international arbitration and here I quote, has been drawing the long golden summer when everything went right. But that and non-partisanal, so-called original, so-called winter is coming. And that's true, winter is coming. This critique, those critiques apply to arbitration in general, arbitration is said to be too long, too expensive, lack of independence of arbitrators. This is for the general critique and you have specific criticism for investment arbitration that some people consider as being unacceptable as such because a private person should not control the policy of the space and use the development in the discussion of the treaties between Canada and the EU and the United States and the EU. And also more specific criticism of investment arbitration, lack of transparency, lack of predictability, lack of records that look appeal and the problem of the global hats between council and arbitration. So we have very strong criticism. And such criticism, such criticism should not surprise. After years of adulation of arbitration, it's no longer there. And when you look through history, you see that there has been a lot of summer for arbitration and some winter, some winters. What I mean to do is to recall some of these summers, one particular winter, in order to draw from that some general conclusion and make some progress from the future as we are looking at some forecasts. There are some summers of arbitration because I cannot go everywhere to look at what happened to arbitration. And maybe if we are doing that, we should be prepared for what I am considering as being arbitration. And considering that we are talking about arbitration, when we are dealing with the third party, we are going to be finding a decision and the party is the point by the litigants, by the parties, or on their behalf, just to exclude the number of boards of courts, which sometimes being considered to be an inter arbitration, like let's say in England, the courts which were maintained by the guilds in the middle age or the court merchants in the fax. I don't think that these were arbitration, they were imposed to the party's events, even if they were applying a different type of group. So let's see some summers of arbitration. The first one, which is very important because it has still some effects today, is that what happened in Roe, in the ancient Roe, where arbitration was very, very developed in very specific circumstances. We should not forget that in the ancient Roe, there were no permanent courts of Roe for centuries. The system was organized for the pretor, who was not a judge, who was somebody administering justice and trust of the administration of justice. When he was confronted with the case, he was appointing a judge, or if asked to be so, an arbitrator. And at the beginning, the difference was not very, very clear between the eudex, the judge, and the arbitrator. The main difference was that the arbitrator was supposed to apply the Roe more nicely for the parties than the judge. But the idea was, in both cases, the parties were submitted a list of names by the pretor. They were on the list making a selection of the arbitration. So we are really in the case of arbitration. What is interesting is that it was a soft existing system and that the system was functioning. These arbitrators were not paid because during centuries in Roe, it was not conceivable that somebody having a quasi-judicial activity be paid, they were citizens, Roman citizens, who were obliged to provide assistance to the community. And you see texts of the time where the pretor looked for the arbitrator, who doesn't want to work for some reason, who you may imagine may be afraid of the party or may be lazy, and finding an obliging to make a decision. So this was, I think, one of the summers of arbitration. And what is interesting also is that in the case of arbitration in Roe, there was no appeal, no recourse whatsoever. Then you have two other periods where arbitration had an interest more or less. In history. First you have France before the French Revolution. Here we see the development of arbitration for different reasons than in Roe. In Roe, it was a system, there were no permanent courts, so you have to find a way to solve this case. In the France before the Revolution, arbitration was used by the kings to limit the power of the court. There was a constant part between the kings, orderly, and the judiciary. And the way to limit the power of the judiciary was for the king's arbitration. You have an order of front-end rule in 1560, where the king decides that in case of arbitration there will be no appeal, unless you have complied with the arbitrary law. So if you are condemned to pay, you have to pay, and only then you make the appeal. That's very interesting, because we are already in France, some procedural rules which are exactly the same. For instance, you cannot in France make a recourse to our Supreme Court. Recourse to the Court of Gassetino. We know they've been complied first with the decision of the Court of 15. That's exactly the same system. Recourse to the arbitration in this time in France, because when, as it was open in the case, in the contract of the Court is providing arbitration, it was mentioned that the penalty would be paid if you don't comply with the decision of the arbitrage. In this order of front-end rule of 1560, it is said that first to appeal you have to have complied with the war. But top of that, you must have paid also the penalty. So it was very, very difficult to fight, not to respect the arbitration, the war. In the same order, it is decided that arbitration would be mandatory for members of the same family, between members of the same family, and also between merchants. And between merchants, no appeal whatsoever was permitted. So this was really a golden time of arbitration. And this approach was pursued until the revolution. There is the Royal Order of 1673, where it is said that arbitration is mandatory in partner sheet and in maritime insurance. So you see the will of succession of kings to appeal arbitration. The problem is that the judges were not always respecting this order. Because it was a very strange tradition in France, the judge was not obliged to respect the decision of the king, unless the king can personally impose the decision. But obviously the king could not travel everywhere. And in practice it was by order, by depending of whom were the judges. Then comes the French Revolution. And here again, that's a golden time for arbitration, for different reasons. The first one is that the people, the revolutionaries, they were very, very much influenced by the school of natural rule. And the school of natural rule was very much in favor of arbitration. In the text by Beffen North, for instance, you find that arbitration, I'm quoting, is a choice by reason. Arbitration provides decision according to humanity insurance. There was something like that. And Russia was saying arbitration is followed by those who like justice and peace. People, beyond the revolution, they had these ideas. And they wanted to impose arbitration. And at the same time, they had the same distrust as the king before for the judges. Because the judges were very different from the revolution. So they wanted to limit them. So they made arbitration mandatory, exactly as the king. There is a rule of 1790 between the further relation of people of the same family. And the rule, very interesting of 1793, for the repartition of the assets which has been taken from the nobility. The assets of the nobility were saved everywhere. And arbitration were oriented to make a repartition of the assets This was arbitration. So we see how arbitration may be used. Then there is another type of summer arbitration. It is the cold war, the opposition between the then communist country of Eastern Europe and the capitalist country. Because as you know, in the Marxist philosophy, the judiciary is considered as a superstructure which represents the will of the states. Then it was ultimately impossible for the state-owned companies in the communist country to accept the jurisdiction of courts from capitalist countries. They were, and then tendencies became more. So this has been at the origin of a great success of arbitration which was confirmed crystallized by the European Convention of 1961 where it was organized, the opposition would take place in the relations between these countries from Eastern Europe and the country of Western Europe. And this convention, which is still existing, has lost completely its interest or partially lost its interest, was used at the time and in particular it had a protocol attached to the convention which was organizing cooperation between the ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, seen as representing arbitration in the capitalist world and all the chamber of commerce of the European communist country where there was an arbitration court. In each country there was an arbitration court and I remember that this is apparent when I was a Secretary General of the ICC I was trying all the time to also Prague, Moscow, etc. to organize the work together to resolve the dispute between the French, German companies and companies of this country. And we may finish this description of the central arbitration by what I described at the beginning, what happened in the last part of the 20th century with globalization and as a result a considerable expansion of arbitration for two reasons in this field of commercial arbitration with globalization there was a need of neutral and efficient means to resolve international disputes and this has been the role of arbitration. Neutral because culturally at least the national courts were not considered as neutral I'm not talking about impartiality, I'm talking about neutrality intellectually and efficiency because with the success of the New York Convention it's easier to enforce the law than the decision of the state court I'm not that good, I can just say that very easily. And also in the field of investment arbitration I should say in the field of arbitration protection investment protection arbitration was seen starting with the Washington Convention as a way to protect the investment. This was really the solution and we are still more or less in spirit. Now I shall not make a wrong description of the winter but I shall give you one very, very wrong winter which started with the Napoleonic Code when Napoleon took power in France he destroyed arbitration, he destroyed arbitration because contrary to the kings and contrary to the people of the revolution he established a group of judges that he was able to control so he was not fighting against the judge he wanted the judge to do what he wanted, entity. So arbitration was completely useless, it was just a contrary arbitration could have been a way to escape the power of the emperor but only if you look at the Code of Civil Procedure of 1806 arbitration, the arbitration clause is not involved and arbitration can exist just on the basis of an agreement after the occurrence of the dispute which means continually the rule of arbitration there are appeals against the decisions and the matters which can be arbitrated are considerably reduced and this has been a very long winter and a very wide winter because this was not just in France this Code was, these Codes were introduced in a very broad part of the world in fact in all the European countries and you have still but not now after the model law which was introduced in many countries in many countries, Latin America for instance you had exactly the same, very few differences the same spirit against arbitration the same was in Italy, the same was in Amis and during almost 200 years arbitration in civil countries has been considerably limited as a result of the political decision of one person that's very interesting because when I was hearing these words about Brexit you can see what political approach can have on arbitration in Arabic and I don't know whether the populist system which we see going everywhere will not have some effect on arbitration I hope not but you never so now some conclusion and some forecast the first conclusion is that it's not the first conclusion, it's a pre-conclusion the main reason, for me the main reason is this the conclusion, sorry for making it up for the success of arbitration are and not over the same time while the absence of court or a faxable court to decide what was it in Rome it was from a different perspective what happened during the Cold War and I think that it is what happened with international arbitration, commercial arbitration today it is because there is an everywhere for instance an international commercial court probably arbitration that never had the success that it had in the second part of the 20th century that's one reason the second reason is the search for a different type of it was in Rome also the case because people could choose between the judge and the arbitrator and they were expecting a different approach to the rule by the arbitrator it was also the same thing in the French Revolution on the one hand during the French Revolution they were obviously the propositions with the judge of the favorite revolutionary period but they were also on the basis of the school of natural law which for a different type of law more human, more equitable and you have as we see during the monarchy in France and with Napoleon the political agenda using arbitration or fighting arbitration for many political reasons the French king had nothing to do with the duties of arbitration their problem was to avoid that the judge could intervene in important issues and they could not and Napoleon had nothing to do with arbitration he wanted his own judge to be able to intervene so these are the three reasons which may have an impact on arbitration so what will be the future of that and you are going to discuss that during the whole may I may suggest I think in the case of international commercial arbitration there will be still the lack of categorical so we are not very afraid of the future of international commercial arbitration probably it has to be improved it has to be improved by introducing more professional analysis of the arbitration in order to be able to fight efficiently against the costs and the duration of arbitration but to do that you must achieve an arbitration which is terror made for the case and not what we have to do where we have the sort of the same practice the same procedure as to any arbitration with the results that it may cost but I am not very concerned about the future for investment arbitration the situation is probably different certainly many of the criticism which are made against investment arbitration can be and it is possible to introduce so because it is possible to improve the transparency which has been recently improved very much it is possible to probably cancel to be arbitrators and vice versa there are assumptions but you cannot really fight again the political view which is more and more developed that it is intolerable that private people could control the activities of the state this is really a political agenda and to find this political agenda you need a different political agenda and I am not sure that we will have two more obviously it is very difficult to know even where we are today I was talking about Rome that we can think about Greece Heraclitus was saying nothing is permanent except the change and this is true and that is why it was explaining that you never swim twice in the water but although I don't know exactly where we are probably there is to be done I think of what was said by one of the hero of the book by the Prince of Lampedusa the repert he says because the revolution is coming in Sicily and the young man wants to keep the power but he understands that there is to be done to be put in power and he says to his own girl C'è oviamo che tutto vi mangia con me bisogna che tutto commi if we want that everything remains as it is we must change everything this may be not necessary for international commercial arbitration for investment arbitration I am not sure that it will change it will be made and I conclude on this sound not