- 32 view, Ukraine  by insisting on some core principles that would govern the arbitration and by not submitting any concrete suggestions for the text of an arbitration agreement while refusing the Russian Federation’s proposals  did not genuinely attempt to organize the arbitration pursuant to Article 24 of the ICSFT. 73. The Russian Federation maintains that Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT requires the Parties to negotiate with a view to “agree on the organization of the arbitration” and that accordingly they must decide on the composition of the tribunal, the law applicable, as well as on administrative matters. The Respondent argues that the Parties were in agreement with regard to most issues concerning the organization of the arbitration. It asserts that negotiations with regard to the arbitration had not reached a deadlock. In the Russian Federation’s view, the procedural precondition to submit the Parties’ dispute to arbitration set forth in Article 24 of the ICSFT has not been fulfilled. * 74. Ukraine points out that it submitted to the Russian Federation a Note Verbale dated 19 April 2016 which contained a direct request to have recourse to arbitration with a view to settling their dispute. Contrary to the Russian Federation’s argument, Ukraine maintains that its later suggestion to constitute an ad hoc chamber of the Court was only an alternative option on which it did not insist. 75. Ukraine argues that the Parties were unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration within the six-month period referred to in Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT. It notes that the Russian Federation responded to its request for arbitration more than two months after receiving it and only offered to meet to discuss the organization of the arbitration a further month later. Ukraine maintains moreover that at the first meeting the Russian Federation did not address Ukraine’s views on the organization of the arbitration. The Applicant asserts that, when negotiations with respect to the organization of the arbitration were discontinued, the Parties had only agreed to discuss the details of the arbitration further and to consider each other’s positions, and had not reached any agreement on the actual organization of the arbitration. Ukraine submits that it genuinely attempted to reach an agreement on the organization of the arbitration within the requisite period. * * 76. The Court recalls that, nearly two years after the start of negotiations between the Parties over the dispute, Ukraine sent on 19 April 2016 a Note Verbale in which it stated that those negotiations had “failed” and that, “pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Financing Terrorism Convention, [it] request[ed] the Russian Federation to submit the dispute to arbitration under terms