[9] _e. g._, the Pious Fund case reported in the Hague Arbitration Cases, p. 1, and the Interest Case between Russia and Turkey, _op. cit._, p. 260. These two cases are also in Stowell and Munro's International Cases, Vol. I, p. 58, _et seq._ [10] I mean the facts from which the presumption as to the aggressor would arise. [11] I assume only two, for convenience. [12] In the Dogger Bank case, the Commission of Inquiry sat for more than two months. Hague Court Reports, Scott, p. 403. {64} CHAPTER XI. THE JAPANESE AMENDMENT. During the framing of the Protocol of Geneva by the Committees of the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, the language of the document was changed by what has been called the Japanese Amendment; and while the provisions which constitute that amendment as part of the Protocol have been generally considered in the previous discussion in connection with the application of various Articles, still that amendment attained such prominence in the discussions in the Fifth Assembly and since, that it may well be separately reviewed. The Japanese Amendment related to domestic questions, questions within the domestic jurisdiction of a State; and before coming to its terms, it will be well to see what the situation as to these domestic questions is under the Covenant, taken by itself. The Covenant, as we have seen,[1] provided for the submission to the Council of all disputes between Members of the League which were not otherwise adjusted by some kind of agreement or by some kind of Tribunal. In regard to those disputes submitted to the Council, the eighth paragraph of Article 15 of the Covenant said that if one of the parties claimed, and if the Council found, that the dispute related to a question which by international law was entirely within the jurisdiction of a State, the Council should so report and make not even a recommendation regarding a settlement. In other words, if the dispute related to a domestic question and one of the parties to the dispute raised the point, the Council could not proceed at all to make any recommendation which would bind the parties to the dispute or either of them to anything whatever. At the same time, under the Covenant, by Article 11, either the Council or the Assembly might consider _any_ circumstance tending to threaten or disturb international peace. The language in this regard is general. It means no more than discussion and {65} suggestion, except perhaps publicity; but under this language of Article 11, the parties were left with their liberty of action in the matter; and indeed, under the Covenant, the Members of the League entered into no commitment against going to war in the case of a dispute about a domestic question.