Legal positivists dominate discussions concerning legitimacy in military operations. From their perspective, the only valid form of legitimacy is an expression of will from sovereign rulers through international organizations. Thus, resolutions from the UN and regional organizations are important prerequisites for military operations. Unfortunately, such a strict focus on procedural expressions of sovereign will leads to irreconcilable paradoxes such as the procedural norms of sovereignty and protection of basic human rights. If states possess a sovereign right of non-interference from external intervention, how then does the international community intervene to protect populations from mass atrocities? Many times the contradiction is not adequately addressed and peacekeepers are deployed to figure it out as they conduct operations. The result is confused operational approaches that lead to decreased efficacy in responsibility to protect operations.