the Air Navigation Convention, the Treaty of St. Germain and all mandates signed by the League of Nations. It was also foreseen that there would be clauses inserted in bipartite international treaties, which would allow the referral of disputes to the Court; that occurred, with such provisions found in treaties between Czechoslovakia and Austria, and between Czechoslovakia and Poland. Throughout its existence, the Court widened its jurisdiction as much as possible. Strictly speaking, the Court's jurisdiction was only for disputes between states, but it regularly accepted disputes that were between a state and an individual if a second state brought the individual's case to the Court. It argued that the second state assertsled its rights, and the cases therefore became one between two states. The proviso that the Court was for disputes that could not "be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy" never made it require evidence that diplomatic discussions had been attempted before bringing the case. In the Loan Cases, it asserted jurisdiction despite the fact that there was no alleged breach of international law, and it could not be shown that there was any international element to the claim. The Court justified itself by saying that the Covenant of the League of Nations allowed it to have jurisdiction in cases over "the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of international obligations" and argued that since the fact "may be of any kind", it had jurisdiction if the dispute is one of municipal law. It had been long established that municipal law may be considered as a side point to a dispute over international law, but the Loan Cases discussed municipal law without the application of any international points. See also Commissions of the Danube River League of Nations archives Permanent Court of International Justice cases Total Digital Access to the League of Nations Archives Project (LONTAD) References Bibliography Accinelli, Robert D. "The Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat, 1935." Historian 40.3 (1978): 463–478. Dunne, Michael. "Isolationism of a Kind: Two Generations of World Court Historiography in the United States." Journal of American Studies 21#3 (1987): 327–351. Dunne, Michael. The United States and the World Court, 1920–1935 (1988). Kahn, Gilbert N. "Presidential Passivity on a Nonsalient Issue: President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1935 World Court Fight." Diplomatic History 4.2 (1980): 137–160. External links Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) 1922–1946 Judgments, Advisory Opinions and