2 Bronstein (1999), concerning Peru. This important case-law of protection of the InterAmerican Court has, thus, discarded an analogy with the permissive practice of the States under the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Article 36(2) of the Statute of this latter). May I pass on to the examination of this specific point in historical perspective, so as to disclose the meaning and extent of what has been decided by the Inter-American Court. II. The Optional Clause of Compulsory Jurisdiction: From the Professed Ideal to a Distorted Practice. 4. The optional clauses of recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the European Court (prior to Protocol n. 11) 3 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found inspiration in the model of the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, - a formula originally conceived more than 80 years ago. Despite the common origin, in search of the realization of the ideal of international justice, the rationale of the application of the optional clause has been interpreted in a fundamentally distinct way, on the one hand in inter-State litigation, and on the other hand in that of human rights. In the former, considerations of contractual equilibrium between the Parties, of reciprocity, in the light of the juridical equality of the sovereign States have prevailed to date; in the latter, there has been a primacy of considerations of ordre public, of the collective guarantee exercised by all the States Parties, of the accomplishment of a common goal, superior to the individual interests of each Contracting Party (cf. infra). 5. One may initially recall the legislative history of the provision of Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is essentially the same as the corresponding provision of the Statute of its predecessor, the old Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). The aforementioned Article 36(2) establishes that "The States Parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: a) the interpretation of a treaty; b) any question of international law; c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation". Article 36(3) adds that "the declaration referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain States, or for a certain time" 4. 6. The origin of the provision quoted above is found in the travaux préparatoires of the original Statute of the PCIJ. This latter was drafted in 1920 by an Advisory Committee of Jurists (of 10 members) 5, appointed by the Council of the League of 3 . Protocol n. 11 to the European Convention of Human Rights entered into force on 01.11.1998. On the original optional clause (Article 46) of the European Convention, cf. Council of Europe/Conseil de l'Europe, Collected Edition of the `Travaux Préparatoires' of the European Convention on Human Rights/Recueil des Travaux Préparatoires de la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme, vol. IV, The Hague, Nijhoff, 1977, pp. 200-201 and 266-267; and vol. V, The Hague, Nijhoff, 1979, pp. 58-59. 4 . And Article 36(6) determines that "in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court". 5 . Namely: Mr. Adatci (Japan), Altamira (Spain), Fernandes (Brazil), Baron Descamps (Belgium),