Let me put this concretely: let me suppose that two Members of the League have agreed to the optional clause and that a dispute arises between them. One party to the dispute says that the question involved concerns the interpretation of a treaty and accordingly submits the question to the Permanent Court of International Justice in accordance with the procedure under the Statute of that Court. The other party to the dispute says that the dispute does not in any way concern the interpretation of the treaty and submits the matter to the Council of the League under Article 15 of the Covenant. Clearly there would be here for decision a preliminary point of jurisdiction and, in so far as the optional clause is concerned, the matter is covered by the Statute of the Court in the final paragraph of Article 36, reading as follows: "In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court." In other words, by the Court Statute, it is for the Court to say whether or not it has jurisdiction in any such case; so that in the particular case above supposed, where one party was seeking to go to the Court and the other party was seeking to go to the Council, it would be for the Court in the first instance to decide as to the jurisdiction. If the Court decided that it had jurisdiction, the dispute would come on for decision by the {23} Court; if the Court decided that it had not jurisdiction, consideration of the dispute would come on before the Council. The provision in the last paragraph of Article 36 of the Court Statute is a wise and necessary one. It avoids conflicts of jurisdiction and it permits a preliminary and easily realizable method of determining the question of jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to consider in further detail the described classes of legal disputes mentioned in Article 36 of the Court Statute. Any party to the Protocol may make reservations in acceding to this optional clause and, as the Report of the First and Third Committees to the Assembly points out,[4] these reservations may be of a very extensive character; but the fact that the Signatories to the Protocol agree to accede, even to some extent, to this so-called compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court is of great importance. However, the most important change which the Protocol makes in regard to the settlement of international disputes concerns the functions of the Council in the case of a dispute submitted to it. The only respect in which the functions of the Council in such a case under the Protocol are _precisely_ the same as the functions of the Council under the Covenant is that the Council must begin along the lines of mediation and conciliation.[5]