 One line of response begins by arguing that democracy is not the ultimate touchstone of legitimacy, whether of international or domestic law, and that, for example, consent theory, the service conception of legitimate authority, or the principle of salience can justify the international legal order’s legitimacy even in relation to democratic states. This line of thought leaves unaddressed specific worries regarding how intrusive international law can be with respect to the decision-making of democratic states without compromising or forfeiting its claim to legitimacy or causing undue damage to domestic democratic governance. For a sophisticated attempt to articulate ways of arriving at an acceptable balance between the goods of international law and constitutional democracy, see Buchanan and Powell 2008. A notable element of their account is the defence of “principle M”, i.e.,