# Why international norms bind states: consent, sovereignty, and legitimacy

**Artwork**:   
**Artist**: Arnaud Quercy  
**Asset**: IDS-RNI0215  
**Serial**: NAN-RDG000168

This is a Stanford Encyclopedia entry on the philosophy of international law — enforcement, consent, sovereignty, legitimacy, custom, rule of law — a jurisprudential debate about whether and how international norms bind states, with no emitter/receiver, wave, codex, or diffraction structure for the ideamorphism framework to grip; any mapping (e.g., 'invariant' onto legal norms, 'ethical center' onto state responsibility) would be manufactured wordplay rather than a real test of the propositions.

## Context

### Declined — `no-purchase` [@source]

### Propositional grid [@p31]

> **Read this grid.** “Not evaluated” does **not** mean the source has nothing to say about that proposition. It means **the reading did not instruct it**. That is not a result, and it counts in no denominator. A silence, by contrast, is a finding: the reading touched the proposition without concluding, or noted its absence itself.

**Not evaluated (37)** — P1, P2, P3, P3a, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P14a, P14b, P15, P16, P16a, P17, P18, P18a, P19, P19a, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P29, P30, P31

---

*Overall verdict: **DECLINED:no-purchase** — taxonomy of the August 2026 pass, predating the move to relational verdicts. Kept as metadata: the gap between the two forms is data, not residue. This reading’s judgement is in the grid above.*

Reading of 2026-08-19 · model `claude-sonnet-5` · source 111,419 chars · 1 attempt(s)