 The balancing act between cosmopolitan international law (i.e., law that binds all states) and domestic sovereignty is famously explored in John Rawls’ Law of Peoples (Rawls 1999; see also Wenar 2008 [2021]). Rawls himself does not use the concept “sovereignty”, or “state”, in relation to the societies that are members of his “Society of Peoples”, but that is because he associates “sovereignty” with an absolutist conception, and regards “states” as claiming such sovereignty. In contrast, his theory upholds a more restricted notion of sovereignty for “well-ordered peoples”. Such peoples enjoy both legitimacy with respect to their own citizens and full international standing in the Society of Peoples, which includes immunity from intervention.