Here again, however, there would unquestionably be disputed facts; that is to say, unless one of the parties said that it was the aggressor, it would require an elaborate investigation to {60} determine under the language of Article 10 of the Protocol whether a State _had_ resorted to war in violation of its undertaking, or _had_ violated the rules laid down for a demilitarized zone. It is utterly impossible to suppose that the Council could ever immediately determine the aggressor under such circumstances by unanimous vote; and such determination _must_ be immediate. The language of the text is: "at once"; and in the French: "dans le plus bref délai." Let us look at the matter concretely and take up the question of procedure, supposing an actual case before the Council. There is a crisis; hostilities have or are supposed to have broken out; there are two States which either are or are thought to be at war; the Council meets. Not only under the realities of the situation, but under the express language of the Protocol, the Council must act instantly; the peace of the world is at stake. Now, under those circumstances, there could be only two situations. One would be when some Great Power, either by open and announced defiance or by its refusal even to meet with the Council, proclaimed itself an aggressor. In that case of course neither the language of Article 10 nor any other language would make any difference. The other situation would be that the two States were there before the Council, each claiming that the other was in the wrong, each disputing the allegations of fact made by the other's representative. In such case clearly no presumption could arise and in such case the Council could not ever immediately determine the aggressor by unanimous vote. The mere fact that it would require time to examine into the truth of the respective allegations would prevent this. So the Council, by the compelling facts of the situation and indeed in accordance with the strictest construction of the Protocol, would be constrained to declare and would declare an armistice. Any dispute as to what State was guilty of aggression prior to that time would be put over for subsequent adjustment; the armistice would be laid down and would be obeyed. Of course, in theory, it could be violated and the violator of the armistice {61} would become the aggressor; but a State that was going to refuse or violate the armistice, knowing the procedure, would doubtless not go to the Council at all. So, to my mind, the vital part of the procedure laid down by Article 10 for determining an aggressor is found in the provision giving the Council the power immediately to declare an armistice; and, under the procedure, this, in my judgment, is the only power that the Council would ever exercise, except in the case suggested, in which a State itself denounced itself as an aggressor.