The social theoretic turn inaugurated under the rise of constructivism in International Relations has, among other themes, created a much-enlarged space for treating norms as efficacious explanatory variables in analyses of world politics. In this article, I reconstruct mainstream constructivists’ inclinations toward what I argue are sociological accounts of norms, in which the question of the latter’s justification is comprehensively sidelined. I initially show how constructivists’ strategy of delineating their approaches from Critical Theory and post-structural analyses sustains social theoretic commitments, which compound this problem. In the second part of the article, I focus on Richard Price’s programmatic attempt to reconcile the constructivist achievements in empirical research on the efficacy of norms with normative theorizing. The idea of building a bridge from ‘isses’ to ‘oughts’ labors, as I demonstrate, from the outset under construction problems, which cannot be resolved on the premises from which Price seeks to operate. Concluding this part, I consider the possibility of supplementing Price’s account with consequentialist normative theory, and demonstrate that this would incur further problems for a normative theoretic framework for the study of world politics. In the final part, I outline key themes of Critical Theory with the aim of addressing some persistent misunderstandings about its scope, social theoretic outlook, and normative commitments. Linking back to the critical appraisal of mainstream constructivism’s norm-sociological commitments, I suggest that despite some important limitations of its own, Critical Theory is in a better position to address ‘isses’ and ‘oughts’ than constructivists’ readings of it would suggest.