1. I concur with the Order of the Tribunal. The reasons set out in it in support of the urgency of the measures prescribed require, however, a few developments and clarifications.
2. The requirement of urgency is part of the very nature of provisional measures, as these measures are meant to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final decision (article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention).
3. In paragraph 5 of article 290 the requirement of urgency is set out explicitly. It would seem that there would have been no necessity to do so had this “urgency” been the same as that which is inherent in the very nature of provisional measures (which applies also, in any case, to requests under article 290, paragraph 5, as the measures so requested may be prescribed in accordance with the article as a whole). It is an urgency that has to be commensurate to the fact that the Tribunal has been requested to grant provisional measures “pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute has been submitted”, and which, once constituted, will be entitled to modify, revoke or affirm the measures granted under paragraph 5, and also to prescribe measures of its own.