Take the next required fact, that a State has refused to submit a dispute to the procedure for pacific settlement. It is very easy to suppose cases where there would be a difference of view as to this. A State might claim, for example, that the matter was a domestic question which it did not have to submit to the procedure for pacific settlement. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the matter had been actually decided by the tribunal. It is not at all uncommon in municipal law for parties to disagree as to whether a particular question is or is not _res judicata_; there have been many litigations over this very point; and there have been international arbitrations in which it was raised.[9] Similarly, difference of opinion might exist as to whether or not a State had disregarded a determination that the matter in dispute was domestic or as to whether or not a State had {59} submitted a question for discussion under Article 11 of the Covenant. Such differences of opinion could easily arise because of the non-formulation in precise terms of just what the dispute was. Parties do not always agree as to what it is they are differing about and they may in fact be at the same time differing as to more than one question. As to whether or not a State had violated the provisional measures against mobilization contemplated by Article 7 of the Protocol, that document itself recognizes that such a question would require investigation, and in such case and in such case only the Protocol gives the Council the power to determine the question of fact, acting by a two-thirds majority. So we come back to the situation that a presumption as to the aggressor can exist only if certain facts exist; and that the existence of one or more of these facts may very likely be in doubt or dispute and that, with one exception, there is no procedure for determining such questions of fact so as to be able to say with certainty that the presumption _does_ exist. What is the answer to this difficulty? If we look at the matter technically, we must conclude that none of the presumptions created by Article 10 of the Protocol can ever arise unless the facts[10] were admitted by the two[11] disputants. Such an admission would mean, in other words, that one of the parties openly admitted that it was an aggressor. If the facts were in dispute or, in other words, if the existence of the presumption was in dispute, the Council could not determine the aggressor on the basis of a presumption requiring the unanimous vote of the Council to upset it; but would be required to determine the aggressor under the general provision which was first mentioned, under which no presumption exists and when the Council is required by affirmative unanimous vote to determine the aggressor.