International arbitration agreements usually identify the law that is to govern the parties’ relationship, but evidently not always. InCertain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20620 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2007), the parties had a dispute under a reinsurance treaty that was silent in this respect. The arbitration clause provided that each party had to designate its arbitrator within 30 days of a demand by the other (and the two would then select a third). Argonaut filed an arbitration demand, which included a demand that Lloyd's name its arbitrator. Lloyd's did so in a timely fashion, and made a demand that Argonaut nominate its arbitrator. The 30th day after Lloyd's demand was the Sunday before Labor Day in the U.S. Argonaut did nothing over the weekend or on the U.S. holiday, so Lloyd's exercised its contractual right to name Argonaut’s arbitrator on Labor Day (not a holiday in London). Lloyd's then filed suit for an order confirming the appointment of its two nominees. Argonaut argued that its time was tolled under California law because the 20th day fell on a national U.S. holiday but, to be safe, ‛withdrew“ its arbitration demand and claimed the litigation was moot. The Seventh Circuit held that:

1. Withdrawal of the Argonaut arbitration demand did not moot the proceeding because it was clear that the underlying dispute between the parties still existed and Argonaut admitted that it planned to file again.

2. Federal common law, not state law, governs construction of international arbitration agreements, unless the parties have provided otherwise, because of the ‛overarching federal concern with the uniformity of treatment of international arbitration agreements.“

3. Because of the need for uniformity transnationally, neither weekends nor national holidays were relevant in computing time periods (absent a contractual provision to the contrary). ‛Thirty days must mean thirty days.“