Rwanda reconsidered: A study of norm violation

The norm prescribing humanitarian intervention remains weak and violation can be made socially acceptable. Cases where humanitarian intervention fails to occur can expose the nuanced relationship between humanitarian norms and the material and strategic self-interests of states. The United States and the international community as a whole have chosen not to respond to the Rwandan genocide. Violation of a norm may be motivated by self-interest but it is made possible by the nature and strength of the norm and the circumstances. The reluctance of the US is in response to a review of the administration's policy regarding peacekeeping. The likelihood that states will comply with a norm is influenced by the clarity of the situation and the potential for decision-makers to portray the situation in a way that does not necessitate action. The US and other great powers with their own intelligence networks in Rwanda have been able to manipulate the international community's understanding of the violence. The violence has been made to believe as the product of a civil war about which the world could do very little. The US has chosen not to respond to grave violations of human rights because it found no material or strategic interest in doing so.