GIVEN the great attention that has been focused over the last few years on the conditions under which arbitral awards may migrate for the purposes of execution, one may reasonably assume perhaps with some regret for the lost bliss of ignorance that if international awards continue to float, their wings will henceforth hardly be those of silence. Whether parties may detach arbitral proceedings from the law of the situs is doubtless immaterial in the vast majority of cases. The principle, however, remains important, because it relates to the issue whether the freedom to choose a binding and predictable method for resolving international business disputes may be effectively exercised. In a modest series of recent articles,' I endeavoured to come to terms with the phenomenon of delocalised arbitration. I expected to have said my last word on the subject in a piece entitled Arbitration Unbound which appeared in this Quarterly in early 1981.2 My essential conclusion was that the obligatory force of an arbitral award need not necessarily be derived from the law of the place where the award happened to be rendered. Rather to my surprise, well-qualified commentators reacted in diametrically opposed ways, ranging from acceptance by such as Professor Bernini that the conclusion was fully supported,3 to Professor Park's inveighing against my heresy.4 To be called a heretic is agreeable enough; we all like to think we say interesting things. But to be called a dangerous heretic is one of the nicest things that can happen to a writer, because it suggests that one's views are perceived as having some force.