There are at present armed forces of the United States in England, Northern Ireland, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, China, India, Iceland, in British possessions in the Western Hemisphere from Newfoundland to British Guiana, and in other friendly countries. There are troops of Great Britain or her dominions in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and a few of them in the United States. English forces were a few months ago in Greece, and ours in the Dutch East Indies and Burma. There are troops of various exiled governments in England. The armed forces of Germany are in Italy, Libya, Hungary, and Rumania; and those of Japan in French Indo-China and Thailand. In every case mentioned, the visiting forces are in the foreign country by invitation, or at least with the consent, of its sovereign or government.

The governments-in-exile present new problems created by the special circumstances of this war. During World War I, belligerent occupation played an important rôle. Disregarding smaller incidents, the following occupations may be mentioned: that of Belgium and parts of France by German troops; parts of White Russia by Austro-Hungarian troops; of Serbia and Macedonia by German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops; of Rumania by German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops; of parts of Italy by Austro-Hungarian and German troops; of parts of Austria by Russian troops; of parts of Alsace-Lorraine by French troops; and of Palestine by British troops. As a result of the invasion of its territories the Belgian Government exercised its functions in Sainte-Adresse, France, and the Serbian Government in Corfu, Greece, but it is not known that the activity of these sovereignties-in-exile has raised any significant legal problems. Since 1940 an increasing number of governments have been forced to flee their homelands in the face of hostile armed forces and have been invited by the British Government to establish themselves in the United Kingdom. We have now a “Miniature Europe” in London. There are at present eight foreign governments in England: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia.

The way the peace negotiators shape the new order in the air may well have a decisive influence on the fate of mankind for generations to come. When the peace negotiators come to consider the status of the airspace and the problems of air communications, there will be not only specific questions of commercial interest and the potential military value of these communications requiring their attention, but they will have to realize that, as the energies of more and more men seek scope in the air, resulting in a general outward impulse of the nations, issues of vital moment affecting the welfare of mankind are at stake. It is clear that the solution of this problem will be determined, to a great extent, by the solution of the problem as to the form or constitution of the new international political order, which is closely bound up with the future of the group-unit of power.

In explaining the nature of international law, each of the two major schools of thought draws upon legal philosophy and practice for evidence in support of its interpretation. It is not the purpose of this note to offer any conclusions or proofs as to the validity of the reasoning of one or the other of the two schools. It would require more than the subject-matter here considered to prove the “Monist” position, or to detract from that of the “Dualist.” However, inasmuch as state practice is one of the guides to the resolution of the debate on the nature of international law, it is hoped that an explanation of the attitude of the Colombian Supreme Court concerning the relationship of pacta to the national constitution and legislation of that state may merit mention.