This essay will examine state consent under international law. Furthermore, it would also examine how international law relies on the effective consent of the State in defining obligations, addressing fundamental issues of consent under international law. Finally, the essay also examines some aspects that could erase the assertion that without consensus international law cannot bind a state. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Consent in its normal definition can be defined as when one party accepts a certain situation and supports it. Consent, however, does not appear to be a new concept in international law and it appears that the principle has developed over the years within international law. This brings us to the concept of state consent. Consensus of States is said to be the foundation on which international law is built[1], according to (Lister, 2011) “one of the main characteristics of international law, to the extent that it has been traditionally recognised, is its consensual nature . On a large scale, international law, unlike domestic law, requires the consent of the states it governs”[2]. State consensus is defined or viewed as the method by which states identify and accept rules that they believe are binding on themselves and other states[3]. Although the consensus process has its flaws in international law, it is absolutely necessary as it plays an important role in international law. The consensus process was established under the doctrine of state sovereignty. This was clearly examined in the SS Lotus case (France v. Turkey), where it was held that the rules binding a State arise from its free will expressed in conventions, it was further held that the restriction of the independence of a State does not can be assumed[4]. In other words, a state has the right to accept or reject the rules that would govern their mutual relations since any rule enacted without the state's consent constitutes a violation of state sovereignty. Under international law, treaties are considered its primary source, as demonstrated by Article 38(1)(a) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which provides that courts, in accordance with international law, apply international conventions, whether they are of a general nature. or particular institutive rules expressly recognized by the States[5]. In other words, treaties create a binding obligation on states, however, the state must still give its consent to be bound by the treaty. The term treaty is examined under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which in Article 2(2) defines a treaty as an international agreement or acceptance concluded between States in written form and governed by international law [6]. Furthermore, the words “agreement or acceptance” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in its definition of a treaty show that a treaty can only function fully if the State has consented to it. According to (Shearer, 1995) new treaties of international law create binding obligations for state parties [7] , however, only states that have consented to such a treaty can be bound by the rules stipulated under that treaty [8] . It can be said that in the absence of consensus a State cannot be bound by a treaty, as seen under Article 47 of the Vienna Convention on [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]