Japan's attempt to include the Province of Jehol within the boundaries of so-called Manchukuo, if successful, is likely to be followed by serious consequences to China and to other nations as well. The southern boundary of Jehol coincides very nearly with the line of the Great Wall. Japan's action at Shanhaikuan and subsequent to the seizure of that place would seem to indicate her desire to make the Great Wall the boundary between Manchukuo and China. Even if Japan should evacuate Shanhaikuan, she will undoubtedly attempt to hold the passes between there and Kupeikou, which is at the southwestern comer of Jehol Province.

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.

Chief Justice Hughes and his associates, Dr. Bello-Codesido, of Chile, and Dr. Castro Urena, of Costa Rica, by a unanimous award rendered in Washington January 23,1933, have brought to an end a boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras which for nearlya hundred years has embittered the relations of these countries and at times has brought them to the verge of war. The territory which was affected by the dispute runs in a northeasterly direction from thevicinity of Cerro Brujo, a mountain on the frontierof El Salvador, to the Gulf of Honduras. Its length, from Cerro Brujo to the sea, is about 125 miles. Its width along the coast, from British Honduras to the Ulua River, is about 100 miles.

Japan has refused to submit to the decision of the League of Nations which condemns the invasion of Manchuria in September, 1931, and the setting up there of a so-called“independent state of Manchukuo,” and has announced her withdrawal from the League. Should Japan's connection with the League be actually severed at the end of the period of two years' notice required by the Covenant, the continuance of her mandate over certain islands in the Pacific is sure to be called in question. The matter is one that is already disturbing several governments. Japanese statesmen insist that their mandate will not be affected by Japanese withdrawal from the League. Certain German statesmen think that the islands ought to be returned to them.

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.

As in the days of Rome and the barbarians, the activities of foreigners are still hampered in many ways. The purpose of this article is to examine certain phases of the modern practice in the law of the alien, and to discover, if possible, the present trend, especially in the light of the abortive Paris Conference of 1929 on the Treatment of Foreigners. 2

When Viola so informed the Clown in Twelfth Night, was she prophetic of our nice dallying today with the word boycott? Have we made it wanton in applying it to foreign affairs? Let us see.

Arbitration in the Nineteenth Century. While arbitration was employed for the settlement of international disputes throughout the nineteenth century, it was employed more frequently in the later than in the earlier part of the century. In most cases, resort to arbitration depended upon an ad hoc agreement between the states concerned; the tribunal to which a dispute was referred was created ad hoc, and it ceased to function when the particular dispute was disposed of. It was hardly before the middle of the century that states began to agree in advance to have resort to arbitration, and these agreements were usually very restricted. General bipartite arbitration treaties were all but unknown prior to 1850; and even when they became more numerous their provisions were seldom all-embracing. Increasingly, however, states began to agree in advance to arbitrate special questions. In a few cases, provisions for the arbitration of certain disputes were included in multipartite instruments: the Universal Postal Convention of October 9, 1874 (Article 16), the General Act of Brussels of July 2, 1890 (Article 55), and the Convention on Railway Freight Transportation of October 14, 1890 (Article 57), are outstanding examples.