Both neo-positivist sources are situated within the same conceptual grouping analyzing social norms as the primary factor in intervention, though both acknowledge that norms interact with interests/strategic concerns. Even in considering this however, these sources do not apply cognitive/decision-making lenses on intervention, but rather concentrate mostly on social norms. Both sources also look at the Right to Protect in similar and complimentary ways. Bellamy observes through small-n cases the salience and appropriations of R2P as a norm and observes the role/status of norm-carriers like the US and UK. Bellamy interestingly notes the states’ need to invoke established normative framings of human rights to justify even legal wars. The most important contribution from this source extends beyond its observation of the diminishing status norm-carriers and highlights the subjectivity of the threshold for transfer of the R2P from the host state to the international community as well as the observation of the contradictory invocations of R2P to argue in support and against intervention. Negrón-Gonzales and Contarino’s article expands on this by acknowledging the diversity of ways states engage with the norm through different types of “feedback”. The sources’ methodology “summaries governmental positions on R2P, as expressed at 2012 UN Interactive Dialogue on R2P and in a few other UN discussions as well as the voting of Security Council members during the Libyan and Syrian crises” which is then used to articulate states’ postures vis-à-vis the R2P norm into either “rejection”, “hard feedback”, “soft feedback”, and “endorsement”. The point of the source is to understand the relationship between state’s interests and international norms by looking at how those most affected by the norm (high-salience states) respond versus those that are low-salience.
I use the readings for key theories/definitions within the same school of thought of social norms and for insights into the logic of case selection/size for my research. Though both case-sizes mostly retain the same ontological assumptions, they produce different data types whereby large-n illustrates generalized patterns of probabilistic/causal inference and small-n allows for greater scrutiny of the necessary and sufficient conditions of variables and their elaboration/explanations. These sources prompt the study of feedback to norms, but topically consider cognitive/decision-making lenses – a possible site for exploration in my research. This literatures also informs my understanding of the conversation and provokes further questions concerning how states seek to mobilize/diffuse norms of intervention besides investigating norms as one of other explanatory variables behind intervention decisions.
 Bellamy, Alex J. “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq.” Ethics & International Affairs19, no. 2 (2005): 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00499.x.
 Negrón-Gonzales, Melinda, and Michael Contarino. “Local Norms Matter: Understanding National Responses to the Responsibility to Protect.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations20, no. 2 (2014): 255–76. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02002006.
 Negrón-Gonzales, Melinda, and Michael Contarino. “Local Norms Matter: Understanding National Responses to the Responsibility to Protect.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations20, no. 2 (2014): 261. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02002006.