Whether this view of mine be correct or not, certainly the countries of the world are not going to accept any provision by which they will be obligated in advance to join in measures to enforce the result of an arbitration or of a litigation before the Permanent Court. Whether they will agree to a provision permitting the successful party, so to speak, to execute the decision or award on its own account is perhaps doubtful; but certainly they will go no farther, if as far; and this is one of the provisions {53} of the Protocol which will have to be changed before the document becomes a reality. Subject to the foregoing exceptions, the general covenant under Article 2 of the Protocol not to go to war is, in my opinion all inclusive. It obviously includes all cases where there is a dispute of international cognizance, for in such cases all parties agree upon a final and binding method of decision and agree to carry out the decision. It also includes, as pointed out previously,[4] all cases in which one State would seek to change by force the _status quo_, or to prevent by force a lawful change in the _status quo_.[5] Neither the lawful maintenance of the _status quo_ nor its lawful change would come within the general exceptions of Article 2. Furthermore, the covenant against war in Article 2 would also exclude the going to war about domestic questions. All that any Signatory agrees to do regarding such a question, if, when raised internationally, it is not settled by negotiation, is to discuss it before the Council or the Assembly.[6] A State which did that would have fulfilled all its obligations regardless of any action or inaction as to the domestic question itself; and an attack made on it by any other State would then be aggression under the terms of the Protocol. There is no exception. As the Report to the Fifth Assembly says,[7] "Our purpose was to make war impossible, to kill it, to annihilate it." This, if lived up to by the Parties, the paper does, as among them. The detailed provisions of Articles 7 to 10 inclusive of the Protocol confirm the views above expressed. The provisions of these Articles will be more specially considered in connection with the question of Aggression.[8] [1] See the discussion on this point, _infra_, p. 72, _et seq._ [2] Annex C, p. 180; see also pp. 168, 169. [3] The word in the French text of the Report is "déclencher." [4] p. 45. [5] An instance of this would be if States A and B agreed on a cession of territory from one to the other, to which State C objected. [6] Under Article 11 of the Covenant. [7] p. 208, _infra._ [8] p. 54, _et seq._ {54} CHAPTER X. AGGRESSION.