Association Of Southeast Asian Nations Way Research Articles

Asian regionalism and the shaping of state-owned enterprises rules in trade agreements

ABSTRACT This article explores Asian regionalism in the context of rule-making for cross-border regulation of State-owned enterprises (SOEs). Asian regionalism is defined by the normative integration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which features a ‘hard-law obligations with structured flexibility’ paradigm in handling systematic conflicts. On the intra-regional level, the ASEAN aims to create a level-playing field through soft harmonization of competition law and policy. On the multilateral level, several ASEAN countries joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which contains a set of rules dedicated to SOEs. These rules are paradigmatic of the emerging trend in cross-border SOE regulation. This article investigates whether and how the ASEAN way of structured flexibility is manifest in the emerging international rules on SOEs and its implications for cross-border SOE regulation.

The Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way as the Foundations of a New Regionalism

Narratives are essential for organizations and states to provide a framework for their decision-making processes and organizational structure and bolster their legitimacy by appealing to shared values and worldviews. These narratives will play a greater role in a multipolar world characterized by a diversity of worldviews and values that shape the internal and external perceptions of international actors. The authors compare the critical narratives forwarded by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), namely the Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way. Drawing on scientific works dedicated to explicating the worldview, values, and norms espoused by the Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way, the authors use syncretic approaches to show how these concepts are applied in these narratives. The Shanghai Spirit is based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, quality, respect for the diversity of civilizations, and the pursuit of common development. Similarly, the ASEAN Way is based on non-interference, non-confrontation, non-use of force, and consensus-based decision-making. The Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way have notable similarities, such as an emphasis on preserving sovereignty, a pragmatic approach to regionalism, and a flexible, non-binding application. Although they also have significant differences, such as the rationale behind them, different preferred means of cooperation, and an emphasis on state security versus human security. The article argues that the unique features of the Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way, which promote loose regionalism, combined with the state-centric Westphalian features of the contemporary international system, result in a new form of regionalism that is open yet preserves and reinforces the individual sovereignty of states. In this sense, the Shanghai Spirit and the ASEAN Way may provide the intellectual basis for a new form of regionalism and international relations that can better respond to the emerging challenges of a multipolar world.

Rethinking Asia-Pacific regionalism and new economic agreements

ABSTRACT The neoliberal international order is facing a variety of pressing obstacles. One of the most contentious issues is the emergence of new Asian regionalism, which has been driven by the rising economic power of the region and integration based on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Plus Six framework. The legalization of the ASEAN way has propelled the New Regional Economic Order (NREO), which reinforces a trade-development nexus alternative to the Washington Consensus and will have far-reaching normative, economic, and geopolitical effects on the world. Given the proliferation of trade and investment initiatives including the ASEAN Economic Community and mega-regional trade agreements, this article investigates the influence of the Third Regionalism on Asian integration and beyond. Additionally, this article envisions the future of new Asian regionalism by uncovering the global and systemic implications of ASEAN and NREO developments.

ASEAN and The Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Global Challenges and Regional Options

As a 10-country bloc, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is poised to ascend to the fourth largest economy in the world by 2030.2 The ASEAN-centered framework premised on the ASEAN Economic Community and ‘ASEAN Plus Six’ free trade agreements (FTAs) has led to new Asian regionalism, which has galvanized paradigm shifts in the international order.3 This framework also culminated in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest trade pact by economic scale. Given ASEAN’s pivotal role in regional trade and security, recent Indo-Pacific strategies of major powers reinforce the importance of ASEAN centrality and ASEAN-led mechanisms.4 The legalization of ASEAN’s internal and external trade and investment pacts has transformed the ASEAN way, which conventionally denotes the code of conduct and the decision-making process based on consultations and consensus. Distinct from the European Union (EU), ASEAN has developed the approach of pragmatic incrementalism to enable structural flexibilities for binding rules, thus balancing soft and hard law obligations. Along with trade law, investment law forms an integral part of ASEAN’s legal architecture and is paramount to the sustainable growth of ASEAN developing countries. One of the most challenging issues in investment law is investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), which has encountered massive backlash.5 At the multilateral stage, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) entrusted Working Group III to discuss procedural reforms for ISDS under investment agreements.6 Asian States have yet to form a unified stance on reform proposals. However, in light of ongoing ISDS debates, ASEAN’s experience will provide valuable lessons for the Global South and enrich discussions about reforming investment legislation and treaties.

A ‘Uniform’ for All States?

A ‘Uniform’ for All States?

Expert insights into the impact of aeropolitics on regional air market integration in ASEAN

By 2015 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) planned to achieve regional air transport liberalisation through the ASEAN Single Aviation Market (ASAM) to enhance connectivity, economic development and regional integration. However, progress on ASAM has not met initial expectations. To explore the factors influencing air market integration in ASEAN this paper focuses on the concept of aeropolitics, as the literature suggests it plays a significant role in shaping regional integration. A survey (n=50), supported by semi-structured in-depth interviews (n=15), were conducted amongst experts in Southeast Asia to examine the impact of key aeropolitical factors on regional air market integration in ASEAN. Respondents agreed on the importance of factors such as national interest, the influence of political elites with vested interests, regional identity and the involvement of superpowers. By examining experts' perceptions, this paper uncovers complexities and challenges related to the aeropolitical dynamics in ASEAN. Results unearthed a range of key insights and provide the basis for further research and policy development. Centrally, ASEAN is not following the European model with its supranational top-down approach, but rather is incrementally standardising and harmonising air transport across the region based on consensus and mutual interest under the umbrella of the ‘ASEAN way’. Progress for ASAM to date has been more than critics admit, yet less than supporters would like. Within these mixed results lies a story of regional integration that may hold important insights for other regions of the world.

The contested meaning-making of diplomatic norms: competence in practice in Southeast Asian multilateralism

The supposedly fixed set of norms within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), commonly referred to as the “ASEAN way,” is both celebrated and maligned as a key element of Southeast Asian diplomacy. In this article, we contest this orthodoxy through a practitioner-near account of ASEAN diplomatic norms in practice. We find that the “ASEAN way” is best understood as a rhetorical commonplace, a well-established topological resource that social agents use to advance and contest claims of competent diplomatic practice in the ASEAN community of practice. We build on and bridge insights from norm contestation, practice theory, and discourse literatures to develop an original framework for the study of contestation in communities of practice. Drawing from documentary evidence and 61 interviews with practitioners of ASEAN diplomacy, we illustrate our argument by examining contestation in practice in the context of the organization’s response to the Rohingya crisis and the South China Sea disputes.

Framework and content of energy transition in Southeast Asia with ASEAN and the EU

Abstract According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, energy transition and globally collaborative solutions play a crucial role in mitigating or preferably preventing human-induced global warming. Factual, legal, security policy and economic determinants shape the field of energy use, energy transition as well as tied climate change policy. Both Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the EU, aware of this fact, are coordinating their endeavours to achieve a climate neutral future. This article discusses the energy transition in the ASEAN in the context of climate change considerations, the effects of this transition on people, and if and how the unique ASEAN way, law and economic governance in ASEAN are conducive to it. Here, the 45-year strategic partnership between ASEAN and the European Union (EU) provides opportunities to shape a socially just energy transition. The article shows which actors are affected by this transition, and which challenges and practical opportunities energy governance and the EU–ASEAN partnership offers. The article concludes that a long-termism approach is crucial in this regard to keep costs to a minimum by spurring concerted cooperation efforts to align and harmonize climate change goals, and ensuring a secure, sustainable energy supply. In particular, it is the absence of judicial control mechanisms for (private) actors, groups and individuals affected by the energy transition that precludes accountability and contradicts a path for extending and strengthening the fundamental concept of trust in informal governance structures in ASEAN. At the same time, it is argued that this also prevents an effective and efficient expansion of joint EU–ASEAN efforts, which for the time being, it seems, will remain political in nature with no assertive effect.

A Conceptual Analysis on ‘ASEAN Way’ as a Normative Approach for Conducting Regional Affairs

The role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has become more important in conducting regional affairs with its distinctive approach to interstate relations and regional cooperation. This distinctive practice is called as ‘ASEAN Way’ and the scholars assert that it is a pragmatic and informal approach to conduct intraregional affairs. As viewed by the scholars, what sets the ASEAN apart from many other regional institutions is its own process of decision-making, typically referred to as the “ASEAN Way’ (Weber, 2019). The ASEAN Way consists of a code of conduct for inter-state behavior as well as decision- making process based on consultations and consensus among its member states (Acharya, 1997). This ASEAN model or ‘ASEAN Way’ provides example of how a region can manage its problem and develop a positive identity in International Relations. Therefore, both in terms of intraregional and extra regional perceptions, Southeast Asia has become a symbol of a dynamic and largely peaceful region (Acharya, 2012). The central objective of this paper is to conceptualize the significance of ‘ASEAN Way’ as a distinctive approach to conduct regional affairs and highlight its implications for sustaining regional cooperation. The idea of ‘ASEAN Way’ is examined in this paper with specific reference to two important propositions. The first holds that ‘ASEAN Way’ is a normative approach to conduct intraregional affairs and it possess distinctive features compared to other regional practices. The second proposition holds that ‘ASEAN Way’ is potential as a mean for peaceful settlement of regional disputes. In order to realize these objectives, this study intends to answer these two research questions; what are the distinctive features of ‘ASEAN Way’ as an approach to conduct regional affairs and how it can be attributed as a peaceful mean for settling regional disputes. This study adopts a qualitative approach and primarily depends on the secondary data to answer the aforesaid research questions.

Creating Strategic Opportunities: The Concept and Practice of China-ASEAN Security Cooperation

The cooperation between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) began with the establishment of dialogue relations between the two sides after the ending of the Cold War. In 1994, when the ASEAN Regional Forum was established, China was one of the founding members, marking the beginning of formal security cooperation between China and ASEAN. The decision to shift to cooperation/enhance willingness to cooperate was made by the two parties after taking stock of the international and regional situation and their respective interests in the wake of the collapse of the bipolar system. Security cooperation was driven by a consensus on seizing, creating and maintaining strategic opportunities; or more specifically, by taking advantage of development opportunities and striving to maintain regional stability in difficult situations, thus creating a peaceful and amicable strategic regional context for sustainable development. The core concept of China-ASEAN security cooperation is developmental peace, with the norms of cooperation being the ASEAN way, cooperative security, the new security concept and the Asian security concept. In practice, China-ASEAN security cooperation covers three dimensions—strategic stability, management and control of high tension issues, and practical cooperation. New opportunities and challenges are emerging in the new era for China-ASEAN security cooperation. Fundamentally speaking, the two sides need to strive for the goal of building an ASEAN community and a China-ASEAN community with a shared future and to properly coordinate the strategic positioning of the long-term core interests of both parties.

Problems faced by ASEAN in dealing with transnational drug smuggling in Southeast Asia region

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the factors that caused The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) security regime to be ineffective in saving transnational drug smuggling, including the internalization of non-optimal values and norms of the ASEAN Drug-Free Declaration. Design/methodology/approach This study uses primary data and secondary data. Data analysis and observation are carried out simultaneously, where data are analyzed directly after it is obtained using descriptive analysis. Interactive data analysis is carried out at the initial step by collecting primary and secondary data. Data are analyzed inductively by drawing conclusions from data obtained from general views to specifics. Findings The development of ASEAN has led to the idea of “ASEAN Way,” namely, the ASEAN security forum to eliminate the use of force in maintaining relations between member countries through the dissemination of agreed values. Multilateral negotiations refer to the establishment of a negotiation regime at the ASEAN level that emphasizes the interests of ASEAN member countries in determining agreements relating to transnational drug crimes. There are several inhibiting factors in the negotiation process, namely, perception differences between ASEAN countries on the threat of drug smuggling in the Southeast Asia region and the differences of ASEAN leaders’ priorities and agenda. Originality/value The originality/authenticity of research is analyzing the factors that affect the ASEAN security system in transnational protection policies by using two models, namely, the international level negotiation model and one at the national level in the form of ratification of ASEAN international relations related to drug smuggling. At present, transnational crimes, especially drug smuggling, appear and pose a threat to national and international security. The object of this research is ASEAN international organizations in cases of transnational drug smuggling.

Democratic backsliding, regional governance and foreign policymaking in Southeast Asia: ASEAN, Indonesia and the Philippines

ABSTRACT This article examines democratic backsliding in the spheres of regional cooperation and foreign policymaking in Southeast Asia. It argues that backsliding is limited because the space for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its member states to promote democracy has always been strongly curtailed by ideational path dependencies. These include an autocratic type of regional corporatism and the ASEAN Way as the region’s established repository of cooperation norms. While ASEAN has thus largely failed to become more inclusive, democracy promotion policies of the grouping’s democratically most advanced member states, Indonesia and the Philippines, are more ambiguous. Despite eroding democratic practices at home, democracy is still a pillar of Indonesia’s foreign policy. By contrast, in the Philippines, the incumbent Duterte presidency increasingly securitizes foreign policy, relegating democracy to a backseat.

ASEAN’s role expectations and the diffusion of common but differentiated responsibilities principle in the climate change context

This article examines the diffusion of the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) from the United Nations (UN) to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Despite its varying interpretations in international negotiations since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), CBDR’s meaning hardly experienced any change in ASEAN. ASEAN’s different interpretation of CBDR from the UN matched the unchanging internal and external role expectations of ASEAN, which were a product of member states’ learning and conditioned by cognitive priors in the region. Cognitive priors in the climate change context included the ‘ASEAN Way’ of collaboration and member states’ deep-seated aspirations for development. The empirical study shows that internally, ASEAN acted as an interactive space for information exchange and a relationship facilitator; externally, it has embraced the position as the voice amplifier for member states in international negotiations. Maintaining the UNFCCC version of CBDR tallied well with ASEAN’s role expectations to: 1) provide member states with room to develop national actions that meet their respective priorities (internal); and 2) put member states in a better position to defend their interests in negotiating adaptation and mitigation responsibilities with extra-regional states (external).

Reviewing ocean governance in Asia

Oceans are the life support system for our planet and are vital to human health. It is said that half of the oxygen we breathe is generated by our oceans. However, ocean space is becoming more globalized over time. Hence, it is essential for countries to take up a more holistic approach to ending ocean exploitation on the one hand, and also to ensuring a healthy ocean future on the other. Today, maritime cooperation is key to the management of the global commons, and ocean governance is important in establishing maritime connectivity. This article is a qualitative analysis of how the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will undertake such an initiative to promote diverse and collaborative ocean governance in Asia. The article will analyze whether ASEAN countries are ready to take up the great power game challenge, and simultaneously motivate each other to promote sustainable development of common ocean governance structures and principles in the region. Last but not the least, we will see how ASEAN (Way) will connect with global trends in order to realize its a vision of building a community conscious of its historical ties and cultural heritage to improve the overall ocean health in Southeast Asia.

The Historical Evolution of ASEAN and Regionalism in Southeast Asia: With a Special Reference to ASEAN’s Role in the Cambodian Conflict (1978-1989)

In 1967, when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established, its members (then Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand; Brunei joined in 1984) found themselves plagued by a wide range of security problems. These included intra-regional conflicts, domestic instability, extra-regional intervention, and latent inter-ethnic tensions. It was not accidental that the ASEAN states as a group of newly independent (with the exception of Thailand, which had never been a colony) developing countries prioritized ‘respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states’ and ‘non-interference in the affairs of States’. Rather, the commitment of ASEAN members to the principle of the modern Westphalian state system should be understood in the context of the search for internal stability and regime security as newly independent countries engaged in nation-building and state-making. What made ASEAN politico-security regionalism (driven by nation-state centrism) really distinctive were the norms and values which came to be known as the ‘ASEAN Way’, Within the ASEAN Way context, in particular, this article explores ASEAN’s role in the Cambodian conflict (1978-1989) for the purpose of tracing the scope of which it contributed to the consolidation of ASEAN’s norms and principles regarding the way of conflict management in Southeast Asia. Indeed, ASEAN had considered the feasibility of accepting Vietnam (as well as Laos and Cambodia) within its group. However, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in December 1978 undermined an initial idea on the part of ASEAN to include Vietnam within its regional grouping. Therefore, by 1978 the intensifying conflict between Vietnam (supported by the Soviet Union) and Cambodia (backed by China) was a great difficulty to ASEAN for achieving the goal of ‘One Southeast Asia’ concept through including the rest of Southeast Asia. Against this background, this article analyses the creation, evolution and process of ASEAN politico-security regionalism up to the end of Cold War in order to highlight ASEAN’s approach to conflict management in the Cambodian crisis. Key words: Historical Evolution, ASEAN, Regionalism, ASEAN Way, Cambodian Conflict, Southeast Asia DOI : 10.7176/JAAS/58-12 Publication date :November 30 th 2019

W(h)ither the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)? W(h)ither constructivism? Fixity of norms and the ASEAN Way

This article uses the reflection on the direction (whither) and health (wither) of constructivism and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that was witnessed in 2017 to see what these deliberations reveal about the fixity of norms and their contestation. The argument presented is that constitutive norms create fixed parameters of shared understandings but that within those parameters the meaning and application of the norm can be contested and debated. This insight helps to bridge the gap between conventional and critical constructivists and shows that the premise of jettisoning the ASEAN Way as necessary for ASEAN to achieve its ambitious community-building project is flawed. The argument relies on insights from the constructivist literature on norm degeneration to show how contestation is not one part of a norm’s life cycle but rather a constant companion. However, norms are not just contested, but they have fixity, and here practice theory can help show that the social world is just as much about continuity as it is change. The ASEAN case study is timely as introspection about the efficacy of its constitutive norms – the ASEAN Way – was prominent in 2017 as ASEAN turned 50.

Saving face in diplomacy: A political sociology of face-to-face interactions in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Face-saving is a ubiquitous yet under-theorized phenomenon in International Relations. Prevailing accounts refer to face-saving as a shorthand for status and reputation, as a “cultural” trait found outside Euro-American societies, and as a technique for defusing militarized inter-state crisis, without, however, an explanation of its source and repertoire. In this article, I argue that it is possible to recover face-saving from cultural essentialism, and that face-saving practices geared to avoid embarrassment are micro-level mechanisms that produce international institutions like diplomacy. Drawing on the work of sociologists Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu, I propose a theory of face-saving that accounts for its source, effects, and variation. I evaluate this theory with a study of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a diplomacy that has long espoused a discourse of “saving face” couched in Asian cultural exceptionalism. I combine a political sociology of ASEAN’s ruling regimes with an ethnography of its diplomats based on 13 consecutive months of fieldwork in Jakarta, Indonesia, to substantiate this wider theoretical argument. I demonstrate that, first, ASEAN’s face-saving practices are rooted in the legacies of authoritarianism rather than essentialist “culture,” and, second, that face-saving practices enable performances of sovereign equality, diplomatic kinship, and conflict avoidance among ASEAN’s diplomats. This article grants a distinct conceptual space to face-saving in International Relations, contributes to international practice theory by situating practices in the context of state–society relations, and offers a novel interpretation of what the “ASEAN Way” of doing diplomacy looks like in practice.

Understanding the ASEAN way of regional qualification governance: The case of mutual recognition agreements in the professional service sector

AbstractExisting studies on Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are mostly based on the European experience. In this paper, we discuss the ongoing attempt of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to establish very unique MRAs, using professional service qualifications, particularly engineering, as a case study. Several ASEAN professional service qualification MRAs employ a “hub‐and spoke” model, wherein neither the hub (regional mechanism) nor the spokes (national authorities) are more powerful than the other. This model features both harmonization of professional qualifications led by regional mechanisms and the recognition of partner countries’ qualifications granted by national authorities. Why does ASEAN need unique MRA governance that features both harmonization and mutual recognition? We find several valid practical explanations, such as limitations of supranational power, confidence building among members, and capacity development. More fundamentally, neither simple harmonization nor simple mutual recognition functions well in ASEAN, where three types of gaps exist among member states. The diversity in legal backgrounds suggests that the combination of harmonization preferred by civil law countries and mutual recognition preferred by common law countries is suitable. The variety in social norms ranging from market mechanisms to social safety implies that the combination of harmonization and mutual recognition is also suitable. Gaps in the price and quality of professional services across ASEAN member states requires the unique approach to facilitate and control the movement of professionals and to promote the joint practice between foreign and local professionals in both high and low income countries to create a win‐win situation.

Legalizing the ASEAN Way: Adapting and Reimagining the ASEAN Investment Regime

This Article explores the legalization characteristics of the investment rules of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Measured against orthodox and external benchmarks, ASEAN’s investment regime is relatively limited. We make the following two arguments in this Article. First, we argue that while ASEAN members have subscribed to global norms in their own collective investment rules, they have done so in an intentionally selective manner shaped fundamentally by key contextual dynamics. These encompass a complex combination of ASEAN members’ unique deliberation modality (the “ASEAN Way”) informed by their shared historical experience coupled with negative social learning. Using those insights, we suggest that is both possible and desirable to understand the ASEAN approach as an independent and legitimate form of legalization, rather than as a failed or flawed model. Second, and relatedly, we argue that the idiographic nature of legalization in ASEAN compels us to rethink the conventional universal (nomothetic) approach to legalization and embrace a more nuanced conception.

The ASEAN Way of Making Regionalism Work Beyond Five Decades: Processes, Remodelling and transformation

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has reached its five decades of existence and expansion. While it has several limitations as a regional organisation, its lustre both from within and outside the region seems to have increased in recent decades where countries of distant locations have expressed their desire in joining as members. Why is it that, despite its limited performance as a regional organisation, its gatherings are more attended? What made the ASEAN process-oriented regionalism tick and remain fundamentally relevant? Regionalism that is non-legalistic tends to offer different recipes, and somehow keeps thriving in a world of developing economies. ASEAN has its own style known as the ASEAN way to make regionalism work. Even though it may not mean much, its relevance seems to resonate well with great powers from both far and near. Its dynamics, processes and structural mechanisms for cooperation demonstrate the kind of flexibility and adaptability to a changing strategic scenario that is compatible with regional needs without sacrificing sovereignty of its members. This article offers some theoretical explanations of what entails regionalism in its changing context. ASEAN’s practical and pragmatic responses towards keeping regionalism alive in its own unique way are also deliberated. Besides its thriving and adaptive nature, it also discusses the limitations, which ASEAN must address in order for it to execute its plans to sustain regionalism into the next century.