For some years it has been the fashion of certain coöperative groups and their organs, here and abroad, to dub as “ isolationists” all persons in theUnited States who were unable impulsively to accept certain plans and modesof action, by no means so untried as their proponents assumed them to be, as the instrumentalities of a new and peaceful world order. But, as Grotius sagely observes, it is easy to push things too far, and, by losing sight of what is fundamental, to go to extremes and assume untenable positions. In this way those who would, in the speed of their desire, leave others behind, may perchance find themselves in a state of isolation, with injury to the cause which all may wish to serve. In the present instance, the cause I particularly have in mind is that of international law.

The antithesis between a static and a dynamic law of nations, as used in this article, means the distinction between a law of nations primarily occupied with the static purpose of preserving the status quo, containing no rules for its own modification by a peaceful and orderly process, and a law of nations providing rules for its own change. Of course, even a static law will never be able to stop the historical development in a world governed by the supreme rule of change, but this dynamic development will be brought about in many instances by the violation of the static law, by violent methods—revolution in internal, war in international law. On the other hand, no juridical order can be exclusively dynamic, for the maintenance of the law in force is a necessary condition for juridical security. The dynamic law will repose on a balance between static rules making for security, and dynamic rules providing for the necessary change by peaceful methods in conformity with the law which is to be changed. The change here will not be the outcome of a revolution, but of an evolution, brought about in virtue of the juridical order itself.

The Universal Postal Union is one of the oldest of the existing interstate organizations. It has a continuous record of useful service to the international community, extending over a period of almost sixty years. It was first established as the Union Générale des Postes in 1874, and it has borne it present name since 1878. A study of its structure has raised many interesting points with reference to its membership, and has revealed innovations of which little account has been taken by writers on international law, but which may have significance for the theory and the practical development of international personality. On the other hand, certain ambiguities of the texts of the Postal Conventions may be pointed out, which might be conveniently avoided in future enactments.

Even before most of the world was embroiled, the war of 1914 was a world war. Those countries which attempted at the outset to remain aloof from the conflict soon found that, while they might avoid military hostilities, they became parties, whether willing or not, to an economic war, a struggle scarcely less destructive than that which raged on the battlefield. National leaders might will the division of Europe into separate political or military units, but to break the economic ties which linked the warring countries to each other was an infinitely harder task. The truism that the world is economically interdependent, so blandly reiterated today, became grimly apparent in 1914. The demands of war could not be met without the continued exchange of commodities; no country was capable, by itself, of feeding and clothing its population and of supplying its fighting forces with arms and munitions. With the markets of Europe barricaded by belligerent lines, thus cutting off from both sides normal sources of large supplies, the neutral states became factors of immense importance. The war could not go on without the neutral merchant; each belligerent needed him, and a major objective of offense was to prevent the enemy from satisfying that need.

At Bayonne, on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle, in the year 1295, John, lieutenant in Gascony of the King of England, signed a letter addressed to all the officers of the King. At Canterbury, on October 3 of the same year, John's uncle, Edward I, King of England and Duke of Acquitaine, put his seal on a document addressed to his officers, in which he included John's letter in full and ratified its provisions subject to two briefly-stated conditions.