The Court also issued "advisory opinions", which arose from Article 14 of the Covenant creating the Court, which provided, "The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute referred to it by the Council or Assembly". Goodrich interprets that as indicating that the drafters intended a purely advisory capacity for the Court, not a binding one. Manley Ottmer Hudson (who sat as a judge) said that an advisory opinion "was what it purported to be. It is advisory. It is not in any sense a judgement... hence it is not in any way binding on any state", but Charles De Visscher argued that in certain situations, an advisory opinion could be binding on the League of Nations Council and, under certain circumstances, some states; M. Politis agreed, saying that the Court's advisory opinions were equivalent to a binding judgment. In 1927, the Court appointed a committee to look at this issue, and it reported that "where there are in fact contending parties, the difference between contentious cases and advisory cases is only nominal... so the view that advisory opinions are not binding is more theoretical than real". In practice, advisory opinions were usually followed, mostly due to the fear that if this "revolutionary" international court's decisions were not followed, it would undermine its authority. The court retained the discretion to avoid giving an advisory opinion, which it used on occasion.