2
In an article on “The Primary Sources of International Obligations” printed in the Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, held at Washington, D. C, April 27-29,1911, pp. 280-289, Professor William L. Hull suggested a distinction between “the law of nations, or extranational law; the law between nations, or international law; and the law over nations, or supranational law.” Extranational law he defined as “a composite photograph [or] an amalgamation of national interpretations of international law”; international law as “a collection of the rules in force between pairs or groups of nations;” and supranational law as “a body of law so universal in scope, so expressive of the genius of the family of nations as a whole, that it may serve as a basis for a genuine international court of justice.” The terms “extranational law” and “international law,” as defined by Professor Hull, seem to the author to be incorrect, since “law,” in the sense in which that word is used in the science of jurisprudence, always comes from “above” persons or nations — not merely from “outside” of them, and not at all from “between” them. “Supranational law,” as thus defined by him, seems to the author to be indefinite. “Supranational law,” (or “supernational law,”) in the sense in which that expression is used by the author, is “the federal law of the society of nations; “regarding which, see an article by the author, in the same volume with that of Professor Hull, pp. 320-337, entitled “The Proposed Codification of International Law and the Relation of Codification to the Proposed Establishment of a Supreme International Court of Arbitral Justice.” Professor Hull interprets his definition of “supranational law” in this sense. He regards supranational law as the law of “the Family of Nations,” and draws an analogy between this law and “the law which was brought into existence (in 1789] for that new entity termed ‘The United States of America.’” See his article, p. 281.
