Art. 31 is substantively identical to Art. 40, its counterpart in the Chapter on Arbitration. The only difference is the substitution of “Conciliators” for “Arbitrators” and the reference to Art. 30 rather than to Art. 38.

The drafting of what became Art. 31 was closely parallel to the drafting of Art. 40 (History, Vol. I, pp. 150, 152, 154, 184, 186). In the case of conciliation, the sentiment in favour of maximum flexibility was even stronger including the possibility for the parties to select conciliators from outside the Panel of Conciliators (History, Vol. II, pp. 262, 327, 412/3, 486/7, 510, 569, 783, 791, 938, 955, 960/1, 1038). The requirement that conciliators appointed from outside the 3 Panel possess the same qualities evoked little discussion (at pp. 946, 982/3).

In view of the near identity of Arts. 31 and 40, the provisions of Art. 31 should be read in the light of this Commentary on Art. 40. Most of the observations made on Art. 40 apply mutatis mutandis to the appointment and qualities of conciliators as regulated by Art. 31 (but see Art. 29, para. 4; Art. 40, paras. 18, 25, 28).