Constructivist scholarship within International Relations (IR) has yielded important insights into the role of identity and norms in shaping state behavior. Yet, nearly all states have multiple identities and various – sometimes conflicting – normative commitments. This thesis is concerned with ‘norm conflict’: those situations in which the prescriptions associated with two norms clash, making it seemingly impossible for a state to conform to both norms at the same time. Despite the fact that situations of norm conflict present significant decision-making problems for states, the discipline of IR has thus far given them scant attention. This thesis analyses how Southeast Asia’s more democratically advanced states have responded to situations of norm conflict between the norms of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and extraterritorial human rights protection and promotion. These two norms stipulate conflicting obligations in situations of gross human rights violations in foreign jurisdictions. I develop a consequentialist, but socially embedded, theoretical approach to norm following, which argues that by making credible commitments to norms, governments create domestic, international and – in some cases – regional expectations concerning norm compliance. The challenge for states is twofold: to manage such expectations, and to minimize the social costs of non-compliance with one of the two norms – which include potential damage to domestic legitimacy and international reputation. I suggest that states can pursue different strategies in response to norm conflict, which I conceptualize as consistent norm prioritization, general and context-specific norm replacement, norm reconciliation, conflict denial and a mixed response strategy. I argue that one important factor in determining which strategy is adopted represents whether the expectations articulated by a government’s relevant audiences converge, conflict or change over time. The thesis empirically explores these different strategies by studying Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia’s responses to gross cases of human rights violations in Myanmar.