In any condition of international affairs which it is possible to visualize under the present State system, this must continue to be so. The State system presupposes necessarily the existence of States. One of the inherent conditions of the existence of a State is its right to the possession of its own undisputed territory as against any other State,[6] which does not mean, I mention in passing, as against a revolutionary movement _within_ the State; that is another story. The putting in question of this undisputed {17} right of one State to hold its own territory as against another State would mean the putting in question of the existing State order as a whole. Further, while I have included domestic questions as a separate class of questions in the above list, I think that logically many of them fall within the thought of questions which concern the _status quo_. I do not dispute that these domestic questions may at times have an international aspect; but they are questions which each State has an absolute right under law to regulate according to its own pleasure, and it is for this reason that they fall within the class of cases which are, in theory, not to be questioned internationally. Of course a State may, if it chooses, negotiate regarding them, just as it may, if it chooses, negotiate about the cession of part of its territory. But it may also, if it chooses, so to speak end the negotiations by refusing to commence them at all. However, it is proper, none the less, to consider these domestic questions as a separate group, for the reason that there is a possibility of development toward their international consideration within the present State system. I shall pursue that thought further a little later. [1] Those who framed the Protocol have a different opinion. See the discussion, _supra_, p. 10, _et seq._ [2] _cf._ the expression in Article 34 of the Court Statute "States or Members of the League of Nations." [3] The exact position of the British Dominions within the League is not yet wholly settled. See the recent British and Irish notes regarding the Irish Treaty, London Times, December 16 and 24, 1924. [4] See Treaty of Versailles, Article 87, third paragraph. [5] Such as, perhaps, the idea of self determination, the economic situation of the inhabitants, etc. [6] See the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations adopted by the American Institute of International Law, specially Paragraph IV, A. J. I. L., Vol. X, pp. 212, 213. {18} CHAPTER VI. INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. So far as concerns disputes of an international nature, the Protocol, taken in connection with the Covenant, provides for a final and binding settlement of such disputes between Signatories to the Protocol in every case whatsoever. In order to determine the precise effect of the Protocol in this regard, it is necessary first to examine the provisions of the Covenant.