understand how norms work, we need to understand the complexity, contradictions, and
indeterminacy of the larger normative system in which political action takes place. Any policy
decision of consequence is taken within a dense web of normative claims that often conflict with
one another and create serious ethical dilemmas for decision makers. After all, if the
prescriptions of norms and values were always clear or if they never conflicted with one another,
we would not have to make any decisions; we would just follow the prescriptions. In this sense,
normative conflict is what creates decisions since, absent conflicting normative claims, there
would be nothing to decide.
Humanitarian intervention always occurs within an intricate structure of conflicting
norms and values that determine whether and how it happens. Humanitarian intervention may
supported by powerful transnational human rights norms that have unprecedented power in
contemporary politics. It may be undercut by geostrategic considerations rooted in the moral
duties of politicians to protect their own state and citizens in uniform. It is often in tension with
other values we hold dear, such as self-determination, and when coupled with military force,
these tensions are greatly exacerbated. Waging war always involves widespread human rights
violations, raising questions about whether humanitarian ends justify the suffering caused by
military means. Humanitarianism, by itself, never provides a satisfactory explanation of an
intervention, either analytically or morally. Only by examining the broader normative landscape
in which it rests can we begin to understand the practice and ethics of humanitarian intervention.
In what follows I examine the normative structure in which contemporary humanitarian
2
Of course, one need not use constructivist analytics to find dilemmas in humanitarian
intervention. See, for example, J.L. Holsgrefe and Robert O. Keohane, eds. Humanitarian
Intervention: ethical, legal, and political dilemmas (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003). Comparing those essays with this one illustrates the different things one “sees” about
humanitarian intervention with different theoretical glasses. For another collection, including
some essays from a constructivist perspective, see Anthony F. Lang, Jr., ed., Just Intervention
(Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003).
Revised June 2006
3
Convention