Treaty terms subject to a change in meaning through time pose a problem for international adjudicators called upon to interpret them. The doctrines associated with this problem of “intertemporal linguistics” have created confusion and distracted attention from the core “Static-Dynamic Question” that this analytic study therefore defines neutrally as “original or modern-day meaning?”. After evaluating the decisions addressing this question across the range of international courts and tribunals through their history, the thesis offers new insights regarding the degree of uniformity and divergence between different sub-fields of contemporary international law on this precise cross-cutting question, along with new perspectives on the increasingly important role of the international adjudicator. It concludes by offering a potential solution to the problem based on a “temporal sense-intention” that can be inferred from objective features of the treaty through a range of presumptions and indicia revealed by the relevant international case law and legal scholarship.