JUDGMENT NO. 12.-UPPER SILESIA (MINORITY SCHOOLS) 24 Court's opinion, would not otherwise have come within its jurisdiction. a n d there seems to be no doubt that the consent of a State to the submission of a dispute to the Court may not only result from an express declaration, but may also be inferred from acts conclusively establishing it. I t seems hard to deny that the submission of arguments on the merits, svithout making reservations in regard to the question of jurisdiction, must be regarded as an unequivocal indication of the desire of a State to obtain a decision on the merits of the suit1 And, as the Court has already observed, the submissions of the Counter-Case aim at a decision on the iilerits. The Court is fully aware that the German Government submitted the Application instituting proceedings under Article 7 2 , paragraph 3, of the Geneva Convention and, therefore, in its capacity as Member of the Council of the League of Nations, whereas, in regard to the questions submitted to the Court exclusively in virtue of the consent of the Parties, the German Government can only appear as a contracting Party to the Geneva Convention. The Court, however, holds that there is nothing in this Convention or in the principles governing the Court's jurisdiction to prevent questions not falling within the category of those in respect of which compulsory jurisdiction is established, from being submitted to the Court by agreement between the Parties, notwithstanding the fact that the suit has been brought on the basis of the clause conferring compulsory jurisdiction. The Court, in this connection, refers to what it observed in Judgment No. 5, already referred to, namely, that a dispute relating to Protocol XII of Lau-qanne, in regard to which no provision was made for its jurisdiction, had been validly submitted to it by virtue of the consent of the Respondent, and this was in a suit brought by the Greek Government under Article 2 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and in its capacity as a Member of the League of Nations. I t is true that in this case the consent of the Respondent ltook the form of an express declaration, whereas in the prelsent case, it only follows from the fact of having asked for ,a decision on the merits, without rnaking reservations as to \the question of jurisdiction. This circumstance, however, i