[[16]] See Hall, International Law (Seventh Edition), Chapter VIII, for an illuminating discussion.
[[17]] Such as the right of State A to cede territory to State B, notwithstanding the objection of State C to such a cession.
[[18]] See Moore's Digest, Vol. VI, pp. 2-367.
[[19]] Such as the intervention in Greece in 1827 by Great Britain, France and Russia. See Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. I, p. 769.
[[20]] See the Message of President McKinley, April 11, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 750 at p. 757.
[[21]] The Ethics of the Panama Question, Sen. Doc. 471, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 39.
[[22]] There is a reference to the status quo in the General Report (Annex C, p. 181), which uses this language:
"There is a third class of disputes to which the new system of pacific settlement can also not be applied. These are disputes which aim at revising treaties and international acts in force, or which seek to jeopardise the existing territorial integrity of signatory States. The proposal was made to include these exceptions in the Protocol, but the two Committees were unanimous in considering that, both from the legal and from the political point of view, the impossibility of applying compulsory arbitration to such cases was so obvious that it was quite superfluous to make them the subject of a special provision. It was thought sufficient to mention them in this report."
[[23]] For the view that this includes acts of force, even in the absence of a state of war, see infra, p. 55.
[[24]] The other exception "when acting in agreement with the Council," etc., is not here material. It is discussed infra, p. 50.