There is a broad zone within which the activities of the individual State, even in respect to certain matters affecting the interests of others, have in practice been left so completely to the local control as to inspire the statement that they are not, in principle, regulated by international law. There is suggested a distinction between matters which by virtue of the law of nations a State enjoys a broad right to control, and those respecting which it enjoys unmolested freedom because they fall within a domain where international law is not deemed to be applicable. Such a distinction may be useful in portraying or identifying special activities or situations wherein a State has long been permitted to be the sole judge of the propriety of its conduct, and where the absence of outside interference has revealed the remoteness of any general international interest. It fails, however, to offer a satisfactory explanation of the latitude accorded or enjoyed. If a State is unhampered in its activities that affect the interests of any other, it is due to the circumstance that the practice of nations has not established that the welfare of the international society is adversely affected thereby. Hence that society has not been incited or aroused to endeavor to impose restraints; and by its law none are imposed. The Covenant of the League of Nations takes exact cognizance of the situation in its reference to disputes “which arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction” of a party thereto. It is that law which as a product of the acquiescence of States permite the particular activity of the individual State to be deemed a domestic one. (International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, 1945 (2 ed.), Vol. I, p. 7.)