34. The Respondent State contends that, in the instant case, the Applicant State has not proved that, prior to the filing its Application, there was a dispute between the Parties in relation to the legal instruments invoked, neither does it mention any dispute in its main Application or in its request for expedited proceedings. 35. Referring to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, the Respondent State argues that a “dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests” between the parties, as indicated by the PCIJ in its judgment on preliminary objections In the Matter of the Mavrommatis Concessions in Palestine (Greece v Great Britain). According to the Respondent State, it must be established, as the ICJ did in the judgment on preliminary objections in South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), that “the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other on the question submitted to the Court…” or that the demands of one is manifestly opposed by the other. 36. The Respondent State contends that, as a rule, the existence of a dispute is demonstrated through elements such as statements or documents exchanged between the parties, as held by the ICJ in its judgment on Obligations Relating to Negotiations Concerning Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom). According to the Respondent State, the Applicant State has not proved such elements. 37. In conclusion, the Respondent State submits that, prior to the Applicant State filing its Application before this Court, there was no dispute between the Parties within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, and accordingly negates the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the present case. * 10