Drawing on a post-modern/post-structuralist approach on International Relations, this dissertation presents a critical analysis of some of the narratives about the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Our objective is to reveal the truth assumptions implicit in these discourses; to show how these assumptions contradict and challenge the political/historical character declared in these narratives; and to discuss the implication of these assumptions for practice, in what regards politics of pacification and conflict resolution. Although the narratives under analysis consider the genocide as a political event and affirm the changing character of the terms Tutsi and Hutu in history, they are depoliticizing, essentialist, and ahistorical. This is due to their modern conception of history, to the modern metaphysic of subjectivity that underlies them, and to their notion of politics in terms of power and state. This is reflected in practice through the a-ethical, apolitical and irresponsible treatment towards alterity. Besides, the humanitarian intervention based on the principle of sovereignterritorial- state has its range of political options restricted by the discursive/territorial compartmentalization expressed in the dichotomies sovereignty/intervention, civil war/genocide, domestic/external. Our conclusion is that these consequences must be resisted in terms of, on the one hand, the radical rearticulation of subjectivity, responsibility and ethics proposed by Emmanuel Levinas and, on the other hand, a rearticulation of the concepts of boundary, responsibility and humanitarian intervention, as sketched by Michel Foucault.