Climbing Uluru is an on-the-spot decision, one you can easily make after you've arrived. But other perplexing travel choices don't allow such latitude. In August, for instance, the popular Indian Ocean idyll of the Maldives declared a state of emergency after citizens held mass protests to demand democracy and the release of political prisoners in the one-party state (see Know Before You Go). Responding to the crackdown, activists called for a tourist boycott to further their cause and press the government for promised reforms. Many would argue that a few canceled vacations would do little to help the islanders, but it was a global travel and business boycott of South Africa in the 1980s that forced an end to apartheid. Still think your vacation decisions don't matter?

Search hard enough and you'll probably find something that you're morally or philosophically opposed to—from environmental degradation to low wages and inadequate health care—at any popular destination. But many countries that are considered serious offenders—those being boycotted for human rights abuses or which have established ties to terror—are also among the most exotic destinations today, posing difficult questions for travelers with a conscience. Here's a look at a few of the most prominent examples, and the challenges facing those trying to decide whether to go, or to go elsewhere.

Libya
In September, the U.S. Government lifted its 18-year trade embargo against Libya, allowing, among other things, direct flights between the United States and the North African country. This followed the repeal of a travel ban to Libya in February, which permitted Americans, for the first time in a generation, to visit the ancient sites of Leptis Magna and the city of Sabratha. The sanctions had been imposed to punish Libya for its part in the 1985 bombings at the Rome and Vienna airports, and they were removed to reward the country for halting the production of weapons of mass destruction.

But Libya—along with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria—remains on the U.S. government's list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to the U.S. State Department's Web site, "Although Libya appears to have curtailed its support for international terrorism, it may maintain residual contacts with some of its former terrorist clients."

Some travelers, eager to see a land that was until recently off-limits yet wary that their tourist dollars might fall into the wrong hands, are proceeding into this ethical minefield with caution. Michelle Errecart, a cytotechnologist from Seattle, took the U.S. government's new position as tacit approval to go ahead and explore. "The United States is doing business with Libya now, so it must think they're okay," Errecart says. "I would not go where I thought my presence would cause harm to someone, and I would truly regret my tourist dollars' sponsoring any reprehensible government activities." After researching information on Libya provided by both the United States and the United Kingdom, Errecart decided to visit this fall. "I don't feel that going to Libya is a political act," she says. "I hope it isn't."