[3] For a collection of such agreements, see Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series D, No. 4. [4] see the discussion as to this in that Report, _infra_, p. 171. [5] Doubtless the word "conciliation" is not a term of art in this regard. But it seems to me that the functions of the Council under Article 15 of the Covenant go somewhat beyond "mediation" in the strict sense of the writers. See Nys, Droit International, Vol. II, p. 543; also Vattel (1853 edition), p. 276. The Protocol (Article 6) calls a result from these efforts "an amicable settlement." The French speaks of such efforts as "l'essai de conciliation." [6] The period of "six months" is mentioned in Article 12 of the Covenant. [7] Article 15, Paragraph 4, _et seq._ [8] Protocol, Article 4 (2) c. [9] by a Committee of Arbitrators. [10] By a Committee of Arbitrators. [11] The powers and duties of the Assembly in such case are stated in the last two paragraphs of Article IS of the Covenant. They are continued, to the extent stated, by Article 6 of the Protocol. [12] The question as to what may happen under the Protocol if such a decision or award is _not_ carried out is discussed _infra_, p. 50, _et seq._ {28} CHAPTER VII. THE STATUS QUO. In many recent discussions of international affairs these two originally innocent Latin words "_status quo_" have attained a really malevolent significance. They seem to be regarded as meaning the same thing as the motto "Whatever is, is wrong," and some who talk about the _status quo_ appear to be in the same mind as Omar when he longed "To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire ............................. --and then Re-mould it nearer to the heart's desire." It may be well to give some critical examination to this question of the _status quo_ and to see what, if anything, is meant by the ideas which lie back of these criticisms. In the first place, the thought of the critics usually relates to existing international frontiers and, in some instances, to existing international conditions. Now as to frontiers, if we look at the _status quo_ historically, we find that it is practically universally the result of changes in a previous _status quo_. The cause of these changes may have been war, may possibly have been agreements and may have been something other than either of these.[1] I shall refer to them later. But here it should be observed that there is hardly any region of the globe where the _status quo_ does not result from some one or more of these changes within times comparatively recent. Of course there are some exceptions to this observation, the Arctic and Antarctic, for example; but in the populated regions of the globe, the _status quo_, so far as frontiers are concerned, is a thing comparatively new.