This article is a part of a series essays on the concept of ‘nation’ as a field of political struggles over the qualification of the nation. This article, relying on the postcolonial reinterpretation of the ‘sovereignty’, examined the intimate relations between the international law and law-founding violence of the Western imperialism. European international law first excluded others from the law by breaking itself from universalism of the natural law and then captured them outside the law by declaring that the European law itself is ‘universal’. Henry Wheaton’s and J.C.Bluntschli’s works on the international law, which were translated in East Asia by A. P. Martin and exerted great influence on the region, apparently show how the ‘universalization’ of the European international law changed the concept of nation. Wheaton used ‘nation’ as a synonym of ‘people’ which refers to any cultural society of the world, defining the international law as the positive rules confined to the nations of the civilized Europe. On the other hand, Bluntschli insisted the jurisdiction of the international law reach all the world but restricted the definition of nation to the equal legal subjects qualified with presumably universal, European civilization. However, in A. P. Martin’s translations of their works, 萬國公法 and 公法會通, nation was not grasped and translated as a concept, which resulted in concealing law-founding violence of the European international law.