1. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, “Law, Politics and International Disputes,” Intern. Concil., No. 516 (1958), p. 261.
2. As quoted in H. Lauterpacht, “The Doctrine of Non-Justiciable Disputes in International Law,” 8 Economica (1928), p. 281.
3. Manley O. Hudson, International Tribunals, Past and Future. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, p. 7.
4. This article was a further amplification of Article 16 and Article 38 of the Hague Convention on Pacific Settlement of 1899 and 1907 respectively, which had recognized that “in questions of legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions,” arbitration was the most effective and equitable method of settlement. Manley O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942: A Treatise. New York: Macmillan, 1943, p. 454.
5. Of the twenty-seven advisory opinions given by the Permanent Court of International Justice at the request of the League Council, twenty-one opinions were on questions relating to existing disputes between States, that is, involving questions relating to substantive rights and duties of parties, and as such they could have been also settled through contentious proceedings except the Eastern Carelia case. See Leland M. Goodrich, “The Nature of Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” 32 A.J.I.L. (1938), pp. 744–746.