This paper addresses the nature, role and instrumentality of violence and nonviolence within the new ethical terrain of International Relations. By examining the response of the international community to the crisis in Syria the paper explores the extent to which particular understandings of violence and nonviolence affect our perceived moral and ethical limitations. The paper argues that regardless of the many failings of humanitarian interventions since the end of the cold war the moral imperative still lies with the use of violence. The paper explores why this is the case and argues that if a violent response is eschewed, the ethical tool-box of the international community looks decidedly empty.
