This chapter conceptualises norm withdrawal as a type of norm contestation. Norm withdrawal refers to practices that seek to establish a legitimate exception for an actor vis-à-vis a norm by referencing other norms with competing prescriptions. This approach understands norms in a relational manner, presupposing the existence of a complex and often incongruous normative configuration that conditions actors to create normative hierarchies explicitly or implicitly. In contrast to reactive and validity contestation, which reject the validity of a norm, or applicatory contestation, which seeks to redefine its scope, norm withdrawal only aspires to create an exception for a particular actor regarding the behavioural expectations of a norm. Yet, its impact on norm robustness and legitimacy can be significant. While other actors’ acceptance of norm withdrawal can foster norm robustness, rejection by the international community can undermine it. In turn, as is the case with other forms of contestation, access to norm withdrawal may increase the legitimacy of a norm. After defining and situating the concept, the chapter develops a typology of state norm withdrawal and illustrates it with examples involving the anti-impunity norm, the gender equality norm, and the use of force norm.