before Greece's accession to the General Act, was stated to be subject to two reservations: "(a) disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece, including disputes relating to its rights of sovereignty over its ports and lines of communication; (b) disputes relating directly or indirectly to the application of treaties or conventions accepted by Greece and providing for another procedure". It can hardly be supposed that Greece should at the same time have intended to give a scope to its reservation of "disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece" which differed fundamentally from that given to it both in the General Act and in its declaration under the optional clause. That Greece should have had such an intention seems al1 the more improbable in that in 1934 and again in 1939 it renewed its declaration under the optional clause without modifying in any way the form of its reservation of "disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece". 58. The Greek Government has suggested that an improvement in the political climate of the time enabled Greece to dispense with an autonomous reservation of disputes relating to its territorial status, and to content itself with the integration of those disputes into its domesticjurisdiction reservation. But this would not explain why Greece should then have maintained an autonomous reservation of disputes relating to territorial status in its acceptance of the optional clause. Another difficulty is that accession to the General Act involved an even wider risk of claims than acceptance of the optional clause; for the pacific settlement procedures of the General Act are not limited to the judicial settlement of legal disputes. They also provide for conciliation with respect to disputes "of every kind", and even for the possibility, under certain conditions, of arbitration of political disputes on the basis that the arbitrators may decide ex aequo et bono. It hardly seems likely, therefore, that Greece should have intended to have curtailed the protection given by its reservation of disputes relating to territorial status, when subjecting itself to the wider range of procedures contained in the Act. 59. Equally unconvincing is a suggestion that, although the scope of the "territorial status" reservation was reduced by its incorporation in the reservation of questions of domesticjurisdiction, Greece thereby obtained a "reinforced barrage", a "qualitatively enhanced protection" and a "doubly-bolted" door against the claims which it was particularly concerned to guard against. This suggestion takes no account of the legal implications of incorporating "disputes relating to territorial status" into a reservation of questions of "domestic jurisdiction", as these had been explained by the Permanent Court in 1923 in its .Advisory Opinion on the Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 4). The