This is the general definition of principle. It relates back in its meaning to Article 2 of the Protocol, the general engagement not to resort to war. Beyond that, it makes the violation of the rules for an agreed demilitarized zone the equivalent of a resort to war, the two are assimilated. The first question that arises regarding this general definition is whether the words "resort to war" mean necessarily an actual and technical state of war only, or whether they include all acts of violence and force, even if such acts did not in a particular case result in an actual state of war, because, for example, not resisted. The view of the Report to the Assembly[5] in this matter is that such acts of violence are included in the expression. I am {56} inclined to agree with this view, though as a mere matter of language an argument to the contrary is possible. Suppose, however, that there is an actual state of war; how is it to be determined which one of the two[6] belligerents is the aggressor? The Protocol attempts to meet this difficulty by laying down two different methods of determining the aggressor. One is by creating certain presumptions, which I shall discuss later; the other is for the case in which none of the presumptions is applicable. In this case, that is to say, in the absence of the presumptions, it is for the Council to determine the aggressor and, in order to come to such a determination, the Council must act unanimously under the general rule of Article 5 of the Covenant. I have no doubt of this conclusion, which is the conclusion of the Report to the Assembly. It is true that the language of Article 10 of the Protocol is not as clear as it might be, since the duty and power of the Council to determine the aggressor are not directly stated, but rather to be inferred from the language. What Article 10 of the Protocol says as to this in its last paragraph but two[7] is that, apart from the cases when there is a presumption, "if the Council does not at once succeed in determining the aggressor, it shall be bound to enjoin upon the belligerents an armistice, and shall fix the terms, acting, if need be, by a two-thirds majority and shall supervise its execution." {57} So that in those cases where the presumptions hereafter considered do not arise, it is the duty of the Council to determine the aggressor; it must act unanimously in coming to such a determination; as the Report to the Assembly says, "Where there is no presumption, the Council has to declare the fact of aggression; a decision is necessary and must be taken unanimously"; and, if the Council is not unanimous, it _must_ enjoin an armistice upon the belligerents.