Approaches variously described as critical, reflexive, postpositivist, and agonistic constructivism reject the idea that the meaning of a norm can be fixed. These approaches look instead to the role that discursive practice plays in repeatedly constructing meaning. While the focus on how discourse shapes the meaning of a norm can tell us something about the ongoing social significance of that norm, it does not answer the question of whether that norm is normatively appropriate. Taking its cue from pragmatic ethics, this paper addresses the above limitation in the existing scholarship. It does so by not only tracing norms’ meanings in use, but also crucially evaluating the extent to which they are useful in alleviating the social problems they were designed to address. The theoretical argument is illustrated by examining the meanings in use of the rebuilding norm in the aftermath of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya; how was the norm understood and practiced? What were the consequences of such meanings in use? I argue that this type of analysis can significantly improve our understanding of normative outcomes of norm contestation processes by bringing to the fore the practical consequences of norms, their various meanings, and the political environment within which they are enacted.