I invite you to take your Bibles and turn to the book of Revelation, the 14th chapter, and follow along as we read the first seven verses. Well, we're not going to read them. I'm going to read them. You follow along while I read them. I'm reading from the New King James Version of the Bible. When I looked and behold, a lamb standing on Mount Zion and with him 144,000 having his father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the voice of many waters and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. And no one could learn that song except the 144,000 who were redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from among men being first fruits to God and to the lamb, and in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God. Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel. Some translations say the eternal gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth to every nation, tribe, tongue and people, saying with a loud voice, fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment has come and worship him who made heaven and earth the sea and springs of water. Today, we begin a journey into heaven itself. I trust you saw in the passage we just read in those last few verses that worship is not only part of the gospel message, but it is one of three components of what scripture called the everlasting gospel. We wouldn't need to read far into Revelation to see that worship is the daily and ongoing exercise of the citizens of heaven. Now, since worship is the chief employment of those who inhabit heaven, we need to examine what it is that will consume our time for all of eternity. And I also hope to show you that if you don't like worship, you're absolutely going to hate heaven because that's all you're going to be doing there. I've had people say to me, I can't wait to get to heaven so I can see grandma again. I understand the sentiment. But let me assure you that if you get to heaven and find grandma, she's not going to be interested in chatting. Hi, grandson. Listen, we're going to be here for millions of years. I'll get to you later. I'm looking at Jesus now. I'm going to make this bold statement, and I hope to prove my point over the six sessions today, and it is this. The worship of God is the most noble act of which man is capable. Nothing that you and I will ever do will begin to approach the dignity and nobility of worshiping the God of heaven and earth. To begin with, let me give you what I have found to be helpful information. Did you know that the first thing God did after creation was to set aside a day for his worship? And the last command given before the end of the Bible is to worship God. That's Revelation 22, verse 9. Now if the first thing God did after creating the world was to establish a day for his worship, and if the last thing God commands before he closes the canon of scripture is to command worship, what do you think that tells you about everything in between? The Bible, therefore, is our instruction book on how to worship God. It contains everything we need to know about worship. It would be interesting to find out how many churches bother to consult the word of God as they set up their worship service. Also did you know that according to John 4, verse 23, God is not seeking converts. He's seeking worshipers. In John 4, it's interesting that Jesus tells the woman there, you worship that which you do not know. I firmly believe that's the state of most people who go to church on Sundays. They're worshiping somebody they don't even know. I think the greatest evangelistic field is the church. And then Christ goes on to speak with that woman about what he calls true worship, which conspicuously tells us that there's such a thing as false worship, right? True worship, he says, is done in spirit and truth. And he says that God is seeking such worship, which should also tell us that he's not interested in anything else. Now there were two modes of worship going on at the time when Jesus said these words. There was the worship of Mount Gerizim, which was all bubble and froth, waving hands in emotionalism, but there was no doctrine. On the other hand, what had happened in Jerusalem was that it was truth, but it had become a dead orthodoxy. There was no life, no vibrancy, no involvement of the heart in responding to the truth that was stuck in the mind. You see this in American religion today. There are some who know nothing but celebration. And there are others with right doctrine whose lives are generally unaffected by it. And I contend you don't have right doctrine if your life is unaffected by it. So this woman asked Jesus, well, which of those two are right? And Jesus said to her, they're both wrong. True worship has to be in spirit and in truth. My friends, no one who ever knows God or right should ever be outdone in their worship by a charismatic. And we should be ashamed that such might ever be the case. How could those with bad doctrine outdo those with right doctrine in their celebration of God? Next, did you know that the Holy Spirit devotes 33 verses to the creation of the world? Now that was no small event, right? William Geering was a Puritan who wrote a book on heaven. And I hope he's right on this. He says, one of the great things about being in heaven, God is going to show us all the things we never got to see. Wouldn't creation be something? Or how about the resurrection? Or all the great miracles? He's going, okay, you weren't there for this. Let me show you. Yeah. Okay, God, you show off all you want. The end of the world gets 33 verses, the beginning of the Bible. But the Holy Spirit devotes 13 chapters and 385 verses in the book of Exodus and Leviticus alone to the subject of worship. That's 12 times as many verses and just two books. Now that should at least pique our interest and attention in the subject of worship, what a priority it is to God and what a priority it should be for us. So let's begin to see some things. I contend, first of all, that the worship of God is the ultimate priority. First it was the primary concern of God. In Exodus chapter 20, the first commandment given to Moses on Mount Sinai was this, you shall have no other gods besides me. And he says before me, he doesn't mean me and then them besides me. You shall not worship them or serve them. So the first commandment is about worship. The second commandment is about worship. There are to be no false idols. The third command is about worship. You shall not bow down to anyone or anything else. Now when God decided in his own mind that there were 10 basic laws by which he would govern his creation, 10 commandments for mankind to observe, he also decided to prioritize them. Not only are the words of Scripture divinely inspired, but the order of those words is divinely inspired. And he didn't begin with the one on adultery. And he didn't begin with the one on coveting. And he didn't begin with the one on lying. The very first command given by God related to worship. And that he and he alone was to be the object of our worship. And as I alluded just a few moments ago, the top priority for God is not getting people saved. The top priority for God is that the saved people worship him. He deserves to be worshiped. Now how this would change the focus of our evangelism from us to him? How this would change our theology of worship? The hymns would be chosen because of their orthodoxy and how they help us to worship. We don't honor God when we sing things about him that aren't true or that aren't biblical.  But churches insist on singing this hymn. Amazing love, how can it be that thou my God should die for me? Wait a minute, did I just say that God died?  Well, don't you believe Christ is God? Yes, but Christ died in his humanity, not in his deity. If God died, who raised him from the dead? Most of the heresies throughout church history have been when people tried to combine the human nature and the divine nature of Christ. The Bible says God never sleeps. The Bible says Jesus slept. The Bible says God is never sad. The Bible says Jesus wept. So you have Christ doing things in the Bible that God never could or would do. But people sing that song. Why? Because for most people churches like American Bandstand and only about four people here are old enough to remember that. Every year when it was in Philadelphia and Dick Clark was the emcee, they would bring out a new, remember a 45, bring out a new 45 and they'd have a group of teenagers over here as judges and they'd play it and they'd say, okay, teens, what do you think? Well, I gave it a nine. It's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to. Well, I gave it a 10. I couldn't hold still. That's almost the way people choose the hymns in church. Well, we like it. Is it true? Who cares about that? You don't sing error to God and consider that he should be at all impressed. It would change everything about our churches if we had as our focus. Is this worthy of God? What a different perspective that is. Second, worship was the primary concern of Christ. In Matthew 6, when the disciples came to Jesus for instruction and prayer, and I find it very interesting, I'm not sure what I make of it yet, but they didn't say, teach us how to pray. They said, teach us to pray. I have talked with many renowned Christian figures in our day and asked them, what's the weakest part of your Christian life and to a man, they've all said, my prayer life. That's kind of staggering, isn't it? But he taught them to begin their prayer in this way. Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Be thy name. Our prayers are normally and conspicuously lopsided with petitions. Petitions about job changes, marital problems, diseases, or any of a number of other concerns. A legitimate concern, no question. But when Jesus petitioned his Father, the very first petition, the primary concern of his heart was that the name of God be treated as holy. There was a book written a few years ago called Praying Like Jesus. Friends, if you want to pray like Jesus, you'll need to have his priorities. And the very first priority, his very first petition, was that the name of God would be exalted, hallowed, and worshiped as it ought to be. When I first got out of college, I was a high school teacher and coach, and I used to volunteer my summers for the fellowship of Christian athletes. And because I could play the guitar, they would ask me, come be the song leader. Sure. And so I remember going to a camp in Minnesota. I think we met at St. Olaf's College, and I can't remember the name of the tent. Doesn't matter for the story. It could be Buzzard's Breath Oklahoma, but it happened at an FCA camp. And one of the pro football players who was there, well, he was a retired pro, was a man named Bill Kreischer.  And we nicknamed him Thunder Thighs. His thighs were so big, they rubbed together and made noise.  Bill was big, he was 6'2", about 260. He was solid as can be. Well, after the camp is over, we go back to the Minneapolis Airport. And Bill and I walk into one of those stores where you get magazines, candy bars, trinkets, things like that. And we picked out something, and we went to the counter. And there was a businessman in a suit there. And he wanted to buy a Snickers bar. And so, evidently, he didn't travel much because this was a shock to him. He said to the girl, how much is the Snickers bar? She said $3.50. And he stepped back and he said, Jesus Christ, lady! Bill sprang into action. Grabbed the guy by the shoulders, spun him around, lifted him off the ground like this. Jesus Christ, do you know him too? He's my savior. I don't imagine you were saying anything disrespectful, were you? This poor guy dropped everything. His coins, his candy bar, Bill put him down. He ran out the door. I said, well, that was extreme, really. If somebody badmouthed your wife, would you let him get away with it? MacArthur had a great saying.  Thomas Watson, a great Puritan, says, to hallow something is to set it apart from its common use to some sacred end. To hallow God's name is to set it apart from all its abuses and to use it in a holy and reverent manner. In particular, hallowing God's name is to give him high honor and veneration and render his name sacred. Just think about the ways we abuse God's name. You don't have to use the word damn after God's name to use it in vain. Kids will say, oh my God, or they'll text OMG. We see a terrible accident and they explain, oh God, did you see that? But whenever we use the name of God in a common way, rather than a majestic and reverential way, we use the name of the Lord in a vain way. The essence of our relationship to God is expressed in worship and adoring prayer. Where's the adoring prayer? If your prayers are more characterized by petition than praise, you not only don't understand the nature of prayer, you don't understand the nature of worship. Third, worship is the eternal employment of the inhabitants of heaven. In Revelation 4, it says, speaking of the 24 elders, day and night they do not cease to say, excuse me, holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.  I'd have to go back and look at the Greek construction to see if it meant God lives forever and ever, or they worship him forever and ever. Probably both are true. So here in Revelation and in Isaiah 6, when the prophet has a vision of heaven, he tells us that the cherubim worship God not by picking hymns or choruses that they like, but by declaring to God the infinite perfections of his nature. My friends, that's the essence of true worship. These angels, these cherubim, that word literally means angels of fire, can think of nothing else to say in the presence of God but to declare his holiness. Why would it be any different for us when we come into his presence? Why do we come into the worship of God and then focus primarily on ourselves? The holy angels in God's presence cover their faces while we remain so unashamedly arrogant. My interest in this topic was Pete. Many years ago when I began editing the Puritans, and the first book I did was by a man named Jeremiah Burroughs, and it was called Gospel Worship. And the essence of the book was this, worship is for God, not for you. One of the dearest men I've ever met was a Scottish preacher named Eric Alexander. You can find a few of his sermons on YouTube. There was a black rapper named Eric Alexander. That's not him. And I was privileged to preach twice at his church in Glosgow, Scotland. Here it's Glasgow. Over there it's Glosgow. St. George's Tron Paris Church.  And he says a young man came up to him and said, Reverend Alexander, thank you for that sermon, but I'm afraid I didn't get anything out of it. Now I'm going to do my best imitation of a Scottish Brogue, which is a very poor imitation. And the way Eric tells the story, it goes like this, after I composed of myself. I said to the young man, young man, whatever med you think that sermon was for you, might it not be enough that God got something out of it?  The word of God has preached faithfully and you didn't get anything out of it. That's a statement about you, not the sermon. Again, if you don't enjoy worship, you're going to hate heaven. That's all you're going to do there. And all the worship in heaven is corporate worship. Nobody's going to get a copy of our daily bread and go sit under a tree. Nobody's going, I find it so interesting that sermon, a song was popular, a country song, many years back. I think it was the Doobie Brothers who sang it. That alone should tell you something about its theological orthodoxy. Me and Jesus got a good thing going. We don't need anybody to tell us what it's all about. That's the individuality of Western culture. David Clarkson was John Owen's assistant pastor. He said that since all worship in heaven is in the assembly of the saints, public worship here is the closest thing to heaven. We're ever going to know. So public worship is much to be preferred over private worship, and in heaven it will continue for all of eternity. Number four point, worship is the primary focus of the gospel message. As we read in Revelation 14, 6 and 7, fear God, give him glory and worship him, and there it's called the eternal gospel for all time and for all people. This is the everlasting gospel. So here's a little theological quiz. We'll see how well taught these people are, Pastor Mark. Something that is everlasting lasts how long?  So when will this not be the gospel? Never. So when someone said, did you give him the gospel? Well, yeah, I told him that Jesus died for him. Well, that's not the whole thing. And notice the order of the elements of worship there. Fear God. The Greek word there means reverence. Show God reverence. The next word, give him glory. The Greek word is dope. We talk about that in romantic relationships. He doted over her like she'd never known before. The word literally means adoration, do a superior. Ask yourself this about your own worship. Do I treat God like he's just one of the boys? Or do I treat him like he's the Lord God omnipotent who reigneth forever and ever? And the third word is worship. The word literally means to fall on your knees in his presence and kiss the hand. And did you notice that not one of these is a suggestion? They're all in the command form. The gospel is made up of commands. So the gospel then is not just to be believed, it is something to be obeyed. That's what the scripture says, what will become of those who do not obey the gospel. Obviously, he's saying if you don't obey it, you don't believe it. A quick word study of worship in the Bible. One Greek word means to do reverence, to bow the knee and prostrate yourself. I like movies. A movie I really liked was the most recent remake of Tarzan. And he and his colleague were about to get the stuffing beat out of them by a big ape. And Tarzan said to his friend, get down on your knees and bow.  It's about true in the Christian life too. The next word means to revere or to be in awe or to adore. Reverence means to turn on yourself. To put yourself to shame in the presence of someone greater than yourself. William Perkins is generally regarded as the father of English Puritanism. He said, fear is a great part of the worship of God in Isaiah 29 and Matthew 15, where fear and worship are taken for the same thing. What Isaiah calls reverence, Matthew calls worship. So worship is the ultimate priority for God. So worship is the ultimate priority for God. It was the top priority for Christ. It is part of the gospel message. And now worship is the first response of the regenerate heart. Turn with me to the Gospel of John in the ninth chapter. This is a familiar story to you, I'm sure. And we're not going to read the entire story, but we are going to skim it. The story of the blind man beginning in verse one and just keep up because I'm going to skip. As Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind?  There's two things that for the disciples were a possibility. He sinned before he was born, and therefore he was born blind as punishment. The second one was, which was common theology in that day, his parents sinned by fornicating before they were married and God punished the kid. Both of those are really bad theology. Not that he would punish them for their sin, but that he'd take it out on the kid. Jesus answered, neither this man nor his parents sinned. Now, he didn't mean that they weren't sinners. That's not why this happened, he said, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of him who sent me while it's day, the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I'm in the world, I'm the light of the world. When he said these things, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva. He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And he said to him, go wash in the pool of Siloam, so he went and washed and came back seeing. Don't you love how Jesus does miracles in a normal way? He spits, and he puts the spit on the guy's eyes. He says, all right, you can see now. Therefore, verse 8, the neighbors and those who had previously seen that he was blind said, is not this he who sat and begged? Some said, this is he. Others said, he's like him. And then he said, I'm he. They're talking all around him. Nobody's talking to him. He said, yeah, folks, it's me. Therefore, they said to him, how were your eyes opened? He answered and said, a man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, go to the pool and wash. So I went and washed and I received sight. They said him, where is he? I don't know. So they brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now we got a problem. Jesus did this on the Sabbath. Uh-oh, you don't do good things for people on the Sabbath. Then the Pharisees asked him again how he received his sight. He said, he put clay on my eyes and I washed and I see. So some of the Pharisees said, this man isn't from God because he doesn't keep the Sabbath. Others said, how can a man who's a sinner do such signs? There was a division among them. They said to the blind man again, what do you say about him because you opened your eyes? He said, he's a prophet. The Jews didn't believe it that he'd been blind and received his sight. Until they called the parents of him who received his sight and they asked him, saying, is this your son who was born blind? How does he see now? The parents answered them and said, we know this is our son and he was born blind. But by what means he now see, we don't know. Or who opened his eyes? We don't know. He's old enough. Ask him. And his parents said these things because the Jews confessed, if anybody said Christ, that he was a Christ, he'd be put out of the synagogue. So his parents said, he's old enough. Go ask him. So they again called the man who was born blind and said to him, give God the glory. We know this man is a sinner. He answered and said, whether he's a sinner or not, I don't know. Now, I've heard sermons where people have this guy being a Christian now because of what he just said. He opened my eye. I was blind and now I see. We even have a hymn that says that. If it's in the hymn book, it's got to be true. Just like if it's in red letters in the Bible, it has to be true. You have to believe the red ones, not the black ones. Tongue totally in cheek for all of you who are ready to walk out. I don't even know if he's a sinner. You can't be a Christian and not have any more theology than that. One thing I know, I was blind, now I see. They said, what did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?  Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples? People get on me for being sarcastic. I'm not anywhere near as sarcastic as people in the Bible are.  Here he says, why? You guys want to be his disciples? They reviled him and said, you are his disciple. We are Moses' disciples. We don't even know where this man's from. And the formerly blind man said to them, well, this is a marvelous thing. You don't know where he's from. And yet he opened my eyes. We know that God doesn't hear sinners. But if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, he hears him. Verse 33, if this man weren't from God, he could do nothing. They answered and said to him, you were completely born in sins. And are you teaching us? And they cast him out. Jesus heard they'd cast him out. And when he'd found him, he said to him, do you believe in the Son of God? He answered and said, who is he? He can't be a Christian yet. Who is he? And Jesus said to him, you've seen him. And it's he who's talking with you. And he said, Lord, I believe in what? He worshipped. That's the first thing that happens. Stephen Charnock said worship is an act of the understanding, applying itself to the knowledge of the excellence of God and actual thoughts of his magistrate. Next point is the absence of proper worship is the reason for God's anger in Romans 1. They did not honor God as God. They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator. What was the problem? They wouldn't honor God as God. What did they do instead? They worshiped the creature. In other words, they worshiped themselves. There are really only two options when it comes to worship.  When your focus is more on what you want out of worship than what God wants from you in worship, you're worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. When after the worship service, your thoughts are more about whether you were pleased with the service than whether God was pleased with your worship were worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. I remember as a pastor the first few weeks, I was looking at the people while I was preaching and I realized for most of them, I was auditioning. Like they were going to hold up a piece of paper at the end like they do at the Olympics with a number on it. And I got a little weary of that fast and I said, I just want you to know God is also evaluating your worship. And if he were to hold up a piece of paper with a number on it after this is over, what would that number be? Next point, worship is the essence of man's relationship to God. Deuteronomy 10, 12, and now, oh Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? But to reverence the Lord your God, that's the Hebrew word for worship. To walk in all his ways and love him and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and to keep the Lord's commandments. It is required of us that we reverence the Lord and worship him. William Beverage was an Anglican theologian. He said, this is that which makes heaven itself to be so pleasant a place to those who dwell there because they're always praising God.  There the glorious company of the apostles praise him. There the goodly fellowship of the prophets praise him. There the noble army of martyrs praise him. There all the spirits of just men made perfect praise him continually. This will be our work and it will be our pleasure forevermore. And if ever we desire to do it there, we must delight in doing it here first. Otherwise our hearts will not be made right for it. What should be our response to all of this? I mean that's a lot I just threw at you. There really is only one response. Oh come, let us adore him. May worship become the same priority for you and me that it has always been for God, for Christ and for all the inhabitants of heaven. Amen.


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