25 AEGEAN SEA (JUDGMENT) Permanent Court there observed that the question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question and depends upon "the development of international relations". It pointed out that a matter whch is not, in principle, regulated by international law and is thus a matter within the State's domestic jurisdiction, will cease to be such if the State has undertaken obligations towards other States with respect to that matter. Consequently, and in the light of historical circumstances now to be described, it is hardly conceivable that Greece intended to reduce the scope of its "territorial status" reservation by integrating it into its "domestic jurisdiction" reservation. 60. Greece's main preoccupation in the years following the First World War, so the Court was informed, was to guard against the revival of Bulgarian aspirations to recover direct access to the Aegean Sea which it had lost as a result of the territorial changes effected by the peace treaties. By the Treaty of Neuilly of 27 November 1919, Bulgaria had renounced al1 its rights and titles over areas of Thrace, but the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at the same time "undertook to ensure the economic outlets of Bulgaria to the Aegean Sea" (Art. 48). Article 4 of the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920 relating to Thrace, put into force by Protocol XVI of the Lausanne Conference,provided that Greece "in order to ensure to Bulgaria free access to the Aegean Sea" recognized her freedom of transit "over the tenitories and in the ports assigned to Greece under the present Treaty". The expectation that Bulgaria might seek to secure a revision of this territorial settlement was the source of Greece's preoccupation and, also, as will be shown shortly, its motive for inserting in its declaration under the optional clause a reservation of disputes relating to its territorial status. In the present connection, however, what needs to be emphasized is that the territorial settlement, against the revision of which Greece's "territorial status" reservation was designed to provide a safeguard, consisted essentially of a complex of rights and obligations established by treaties. Consequently, having regard to the implications of the Nationality Decrees Opinion, that territorial settlement was by its very nature one which could not legally be considered as capable of falling within the concept of questions of domesticjurisdiction. It follows that, by integrating its territorial status reservation into its reservation of questions of domesticjurisdiction, Greece would automatically have deprived itself of the protection which the former reservation would othenvise have given it against attempts to use the General Act as a means of effecting a revision of the territorial settlement established by the peace treaties. 61. This basic objection to the Greek Government's way of interpreting reservation (b) is not removed by another suggestion made in the public hearings. This was that the series of treaties connected with the territorial arrangements and the treatment of rninorities provided their own special procedures for the settlement of disputes, which had priority over those of