The ASEAN Way to Asia-Pacific Security Community (original) (raw)
Related papers
Prospects and Limits of ASEAN as a Security Community: Looking the Way Forward
Spark, 2020
The effectiveness of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 1 as a regional security institution in addressing security issues has been subject to continuing debate among policy makers, academics and practitioners. The contestation on its significance has been heightened in the face of the emerging regional rivalry between the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) and the United States (US) over the South China Sea (SCS) on the one hand, and sovereign and maritime rights dispute between the PRC and four (4) other ASEAN Member States (AMS) 2 in the SCS on the other hand. Taiwan has territorial claims too in SCS that runs in conflict with PRC and the four other AMS. This is aside from disputes over maritime boundaries and islands between and among AMS. Mistrust and suspicion among regional and extraregional states have thus fuelled territorial disputes. While some argue that ASEAN and its regional institutions are simply "talk shops" hence structurally ineffective in resolving interstate conflict (Jones and Smith 2007, Bisley and Cook 2014, Nishihara 2016), others view ASEAN's founding norm and value of non-interference into the affairs of another country in the region, known as the ASEAN Way, 3 as the key salutary factor that contributes to the amiable relation between and among states in Southeast Asia (SEA) (Severino 2005). They further argue that the ASEAN Way standardizes behaviour of states through the doctrine of non-use of force or threat of force in dealing with disputes, and respects sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations (Acharya 2004, Katsumata 2011). The ASEAN Way is claimed to have been responsible for thwarting interstate armed conflict for nearly half-a-century.
2020
ASEAN, despite its significant achievements and status as the most important international organization in the Southeast Asian region has constantly been met with criticisms, particularly in the role it played towards maintaining security in the region. This article seeks to examine the relationship between ASEAN (as an international organization) and member states; in terms of how they utilize the organization for collective security. It looks first at the evolving concept of security followed by an examination of the theoretical security framework in the context of “states” versus “institution”. The article then looks at the ASEAN Way as a method utilized by its member states in managing their affairs as well as the relationship between ASEAN as an organization and its individual member states in the context of security community building. The article finds that despite its limitation as a regional organization, ASEAN and its member states exists under the condition of mutual inte...
Journal of International Studies, 2019
The paper determines the essence and the functionality of the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) by looking at a wide range of regional studies, evaluating theoretical approaches in international relations, and examining case studies related on regional security in the Southeast Asia, since the establishment of the APSC in 2015. Essential complex challenges faced include the rise of China, unresolved territorial conflicts and maritime disputes, rigid application of non-interference principles in the internal affairs of the local states, and the failure of ASEAN in protecting human rights regionwide. Based on the study cases that were analysed in this paper, the paper concludes that: (1) the essence of multilateralism is challenged by the complicated nature of interstate relationships and interactions of individual ASEAN member states; (2) development of security cooperation cannot be measured due to complexity of geopolitical and geoeconomic interests; and (3) boundaries in the ASEAN framework have very weak foundations. The developments taking place in the region have hampered ASEAN's ability to optimally perform its core purpose of establishing a stable political environment in the region.
Asian Studies Review Managing Security: Reimagining ASEAN's Regional Role
Asian Studies review, 2020
This article examines the prospects for a reimagining of the regional role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in a period of hegemonic adjustment in Asia. It evaluates the options for ASEAN in a regional space that is being overshadowed by great power influence and rivalry. It considers the prospects for ASEAN to play an effective role, in view of the influence of great powers. The article examines the key drivers, limitations and obstacles to ASEAN's regionalism. The article offers some comparative considerations with the European Union. A reimagining of regionalism to manage the challenges in the region is required, with a focus on non-traditional security (NTS). Specific challenges that ASEAN might be particularly well positioned to tackle are maritime security, preventive diplomacy and mediation, irregular migration, trafficking in persons, cyber security, counterterrorism, counter violent extremism and transnational crime.
Introduction: ASEAN’s Strategic Utility Redefined
Global political transitions, 2022
Does ASEAN play a role in managing security issues in Southeast Asia and beyond? ASEAN is considered one of the most successful regional security institutions (RSIs), particularly after the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War created a power vacuum in East Asia, and there was political momentum in the region to establish multilateral economic and security organizations to fill that vacuum. Indeed, non-ASEAN member states, such as Australia and Japan, have successfully created a multilateral economic institution, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. However, it was ultimately ASEAN that shaped the regional multilateral architecture in the post-Cold War Asia-Pacific. Building on ASEAN's Post Ministerial Conferences (PMCs) to interact with external actors, it started to establish a number of affiliated institutions, including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994, ASEAN Plus Three (APT) in 1997, East Asia Summit (EAS) in 2005, and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) in 2010. This was possible because the 1992 ASEAN Summit decided to expand its institutional agenda by including political and security issues in ASEAN forums (ASEAN Secretariat, 1992). In short, ASEAN, as the core of regional multilateralism, encompassing small, medium, and great powers in the region, became the RSI in East Asia. Nevertheless, the strategic environment created by ASEAN through the construction of regional multilateral architecture in East Asia has been gradually changing because of the emerging strategic competition
ASEAN in the Changing Asia Pacific Security Order
This paper hopes to finds out ASEAN's coping ways with several great powers in the changing Asia Pacific security order through reviewing its evolution, analyzing its strength and weakness and the interactions between five great powers namely America, China, Japan, India and Australia. It finds that smaller power has its own advantages. As a whole, ASEAN should enhance its internal cohesion and target one country on one issue. Also, for ASEAN, the way to see its institutional design and arrangement decides its version. If the long-standing constraints cannot be fixed, the disputes within ASEAN and crisis beyond ASEAN may break up the organization.
2014
In 2003, ASEAN issued the Bali Concord II. In this declaration, ASEAN set the goal of creating the people-oriented ASEAN Community (AC) by 2015. The ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) is a pillar of the AC. The APSC's blueprint addressed several security issues that are central to ASEAN's own objectives, which are prominent in the ASEAN Charter and which play no less an important role in the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). However, although ASEAN has pledged to address these security issues, many Southeast Asians continue to suffer from significant security threats. This study will explore why ASEAN has not brought adequate security to the region's peoples despite ASEAN's decision to create the people-oriented APSC. The research question guiding this study is simple, but no comprehensive answer is readily forthcoming because so diverse a population of actors and security issues has been involved in the creation of the APSC. Hence, rather than adopt a traditional state-centric approach, this study starts from the human-security concept to explore the creation of the APSC. I argue that traditional state-centric approaches have failed to rigorously explore security issues in Southeast Asia, owing to discrepancies between the state-centric approaches and Southeast Asian security culture. The human-security concept discursively embraces both the diversity of threats in the world and the wisdom of having diverse actors address these diverse threats. Because the human-security concept is not a theoretical approach, I endeavour in this study to transform the concept into a theory before embarking on an exploration of the ongoing effort to create the APSC.