In ICC N. 8324 (magnesium case), in ICC N. 10377 (textile machinery case) of 2002 and in ICC N. 6653 (Steel case), it is noted that the choice of law of a contracting state implies the applicability of the CISG, since this choice is an implicit choice of the CISG. These distinctions underline that the autonomy of the parties is a binding factor in international arbitration and that it fulfils the conditions of applicability of the CISG under Article 1, paragraph 1, paragraph b), the CISG , namely that the applicable rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a contracting state. The relationship between arbitration and the UN Convention on International Goods Contracts («CISG» or «Convention») is unclear and the question of when an arbitrator is required to apply the ICSG is not clearly resolved by either scientists or practitioners. At a recent conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ICSG, Marco Torsello argued that arbitrators should apply the CISG on the basis of Article 1(1) (b) CISG when conflict rules lead to the application of the law of a contracting state. Contrary to this view, I believe that the arbitrator`s obligation to apply the CISG stems rather from the autonomy of the party. I will briefly address the context in the context, have different opinions in practice and then present my analysis of the subject. First, an arbitration procedure can promote and promote uniform legal interpretation and application of the GSIS.  It is clear that the GSSA requires uniform legal interpretation and application.  Article 7, paragraph 1 of the ICSG states that «the interpretation of this convention must take into account its international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application.» According to Professor Lookofsky, this provision requires scholars and courts to take into account the «international vision» in the application and interpretation of the ICSG.
 The obligation to take into account foreign sources or precedents is also universally accepted.  However, despite numerous proposals, there is currently no judicial institution guaranteeing uniform interpretation and application of the GSSI.  In particular, [page 221], there is no «CISG Supreme Court» comparable, for example, to the European Court of Justice. Moreover, while regrettable, state courts often rely on national prejudices for the application of the ICSG. It is positive to note that recent decisions have shown that some national courts have made considerable efforts to ensure that their decisions are consistent with the decisions of the courts of other jurisdictions.  In my view, the courts – which in international proceedings are generally arbitrators of different jurisdictions – are particularly capable of obtaining uniform interpretation and application of the ICSG.