Under those circumstances, in the original text, the State resorting to war would be _presumed_ an aggressor, a presumption to be upset only by the unanimous vote of the Council against it. Under the amended text, the complaining State would be an aggressor, but there would be no presumption; and the determination that it was an aggressor would come on to be made by the Council, which would either have to vote unanimously that the complaining State was an aggressor, or else proclaim an armistice. I confess that it is difficult to see why such a refined and subtle and technical distinction about the presumption of aggression should be made. If there is a binding decision by a tribunal that a dispute arises out of a domestic question, surely a complaining State, under the principles of the Protocol, is bound not to go to war, because it is legally wrong in its claim and has been so adjudged. Just why a State going to war under such circumstances should be _presumed_ to be and be an aggressor if it goes to war _before_ a discussion of the matter subsequent to the decision and not be _presumed_ to be an aggressor but merely be an aggressor, if it goes to war _after_ such discussion, is not logically to be explained. However, the foregoing discussion resulting in such an {70} obscure and technical distinction is, as I intimated, based solely on the language of the Article and on the legalistic theory of its framers as to its meaning and result. Earlier in my discussion,[9] I pointed out that I do not agree with the conclusions of MM. Benes and Politis, for I do not think that the presumptions laid down in Article 10 of the Protocol would ever have any material bearing on the decision reached by the Council. In other words, repeating in substance what I said before, I believe that the power to declare an armistice is the only power under Article 10 of the Protocol which the Council would ever exercise, except in a case where a State itself denounced itself as an aggressor. Furthermore, it seems to me that the very intricacies of the language of Article 10 of the Protocol are themselves a very real indication that my conclusion is correct. As a matter of reality, I cannot see that the Japanese amendment in any conceivable case would cause any difference in what would happen. We must suppose that war has commenced, for unless there is a resort to war, Article 10 of the Protocol is out of the picture entirely. Assuming then a resort to war, there are, under Article 10, with all its provisions and exceptions and presumptions, only two real possibilities: a. There is an open and admitted and defiant aggression. b. There is a difference as to the facts and it follows that it is not possible for the Council _at once_ to reach a unanimous conclusion in the case; accordingly the Council declares an armistice which each belligerent must accept or become an aggressor.