There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others  Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” [1] With Iraq it was once again a norm against WMD with Tony Blair arguing “UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.” [2] This means that the nation that is going to engage in offensive action is attempting to prevent the breach of one international norm against certain weapons by breaching a norm against unauthorised military action.  In Kosovo it was even more hypocritical; NATO acted to make sure Milsovic “honor his own commitments and stop his repression” with the intent that “if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.” [3] So we will protect the norm against conflict by initiating a conflict of our own. Defending one international norm by breaching another is both pointless, because it undermines all norms, and hypocritical because it says those norms apply only to someone else.  [1] President Obama, ‘TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Aug. 31 statement on Syria’, The Washington Post, 31 August 2013,   [2] ‘Full transcript of Blair's speech’, BBC News, 20 March 2003,   [3] Clinton, Bill, ‘Statement on Kososvo’, Miller Center University of Virginia, 24 March 1999,