'The right and the smart thing to do?' The Clinton administration and the social construction of emergency in the Kosovo crisis

The lack of an international authority capable of interpreting and enforcing international norms in a centralised way often leaves states, especially the most powerful, free to decide whether to recognise or reject the legitimacy of such norms. Therefore, in a decentralised system, the legitimacy and viability of norms crucially depend on whether states perceive them as consistent with their values and interests. Variations in state responses to international norms are often the results of debates that take place at the domestic level. By relying on a 'unit-level' constructivist approach, this article offers a qualitative analysis that traces back the genesis of a normative interpretation devised by the Clinton administration, which led the United States to invoke the legitimacy of the controversial and emergent norm of humanitarian intervention and to conduct an air strike campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This interpretation concerned the viability and legitimacy of the norm and found its origin in an exceptionalist view of the role of the United States in the post-Cold War international system.