The paper evaluates persistent objection as a doctrine in customary international law that enables states to withdraw from developing customary rules while their formation occurs, as long as their opposition persists throughout the rule's evolution and the rule does not qualify as jus cogens. The research investigates the legal foundation and staging requirements, and functional consequences of persistent objection as a doctrine compared to other international law provisions. This research breaks down its analysis into four main parts about doctrinal norms and evolution of persistent objection, scholarly backing and criticism and approval, the criteria that activate the use, and a review of relevant court decisions from the ICJ and ILC. Both jurisprudence and state practice establish the doctrine as an accepted exemption to the universal nature of customary law. The doctrine upholds national state law independence, which supports the continued effectiveness of customary law. The study insists that international bodies, especially the United Nations, should recognize the doctrine officially, and it demands deeper academic research to define its boundaries for upcoming international legal frameworks.