This chapter uses bounded case studies to examine how conflict drivers of identity and narrative, weak governance, power dynamics and resource deprivation contributed to conflict in different settings of Northern Ireland, South Sudan and Ethiopia where all factors played out contributing to a very volatile and dangerous situation. As stated in Chapter 3 , these are rudimentary and necessarily limited case studies but are chosen because each permits insights into the evolution of separate EU interventions and examines the possibility of different ontological framing and political approaches in each circumstance. This inductive study describes therefore the main aspects of the EU intervention, using a normative framework of intervention, as described by (Farrell, The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005), to open up and understand the phenomena (Bassey, 1999) of EU intervention strategy. Using (Farrell, The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005) categorisations, each case study establishes and presents the EUs ontological framing in each different scenario, which determined perhaps the EU intervention approach. (Farrell, The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005) categorised interventions as ‘consequentialist’ when deployed for instrumental reasons or beneficial purpose while adapting a rationalist utility approach, or ‘appropriate’ when host actors were socialised into accepting certain normative values, routines and roles that are internalised, and taken for granted and acted out. The case studies observed that while the ontological approach to interventions differed greatly, the application of consequentialism and appropriate norms were not mutually exclusive, and any intervention may involve elements of both, reflecting an element of real world pragmatism, when appropriate, and where there are utility benefits from doing so.