| This paper examines the failure of the United States to meaningfully respond to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Specifically it asserts that the U.S. response is markedly incongruent with the expected outcome of its rhetorical commitment to humanitarian intervention. Drawing on constructivist arguments, this paper suggests that this commitment is reflective of an emergent norm of humanitarian intervention. Given constructivism's limitations, however, the presence of this norm alone cannot predict its impact on policy formation. Therefore, this thesis considers the causal mechanisms posited by realism and liberalism. Through the realist lens this analysis suggests that U.S. policy makers perceive increased involvement in Darfur as compromising the American national interest. Alternatively, the liberal perspective emphasizes a lack of domestic preferences supporting intervention. Combining these realist and liberal findings with the constructivist potential for change ultimately suggests a route toward a more effective response to humanitarian crises. |
