How do international organisations (IOs) balance norms that have conflicting prescriptions? In this article, we build on the literature on norm contestation and norm conflict to identify four ways in which IOs might respond to norm conflicts: (1) consistent norm prioritisation; (2) ad hoc norm prioritisation; (3) balanced norm reconciliation and (4) imbalanced norm reconciliation. How IOs are more likely to respond, we argue, depends on the salience of the norm conflict and the relative strength of the conflicting norms. We illustrate our argument by investigating the norm conflicts that the United Nations (UN) encountered between traditional UN peacekeeping norms and the norm of international criminal accountability in the context of assistance by UN peace operations to the International Criminal Court. Distinguishing between behaviour and discourse as well as headquarters and field levels, we argue that the UN’s response strategies have been largely successful at reducing the tensions generated by the norm conflicts, but that in the longer term they run the risk of both undermining the international criminal accountability norm and damaging the acceptance and credibility of UN peace operations.

国际组织（IO）如何平衡处方不一致的规范？在本文中，我们基于有关规范竞争和规范冲突的文献来确定IO应对规范冲突的四种方式：（1）一致的规范优先次序；（2）临时规范优先次序；（3）规范和解的平衡和（4）规范和解的不平衡。我们认为，IO们如何做出回应取决于规范冲突的突出程度和冲突规范的相对强度。我们通过调查联合国（UN）在联合国和平行动向国际刑事法院提供援助的背景下，联合国传统维和准则与国际刑事责任规范之间发生的规范冲突来说明我们的观点。