Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Class Notes - Regional Institutional Building
Class Notes - Regional Institutional Building
The five decades of the successful existence of the ASEAN can be attributed to the
political will of the founding ASEAN member states. Throughout the years, the organization had
developed its norms and values, uniquely defining the ASEAN as a whole. Foremost, the
ASEAN Way or the non-interference principle had helped to ease and prevent the on-going
political distrust among the ASEAN members during its formative years. However, as the
globalization arises and more complex problems came about in the ASEAN Community, it is
now being critiqued how the ASEAN Way can resolve these problems. Notably, the region is
facing wide-range of issues as human rights violations, poverty, discriminations, transboundary
environmental problems, the threat of external powers (particularly the issue of the South China
Sea Dispute) and other alarming issues. Needless to say, these issues may put at stake the
ASEAN’s regional institution building. As what stated in the organization’s Vision 2020
Declaration that the ASEAN region is outward looking, living in peace, stability, and prosperity
bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies,
thus it is hopeful that this objective will be achieved by all the ASEAN. However, at the opposite
side, problems still linger in respect to the non-interference principle of the ASEAN.
Today, the issue of human rights violations continue to happen in many ASEAN
countries. The issue of the Rohingya Muslims and even other marginalized sectors such as the
indigenous peoples demonstrated that the democratization process of the ASEAN hinders with
the dualist action of the ASEAN governments. In other words, the ASEAN vowed to protect the
interest of the people yet it opposes the scenarios at the national level and that the government
also violates the mutual agreements. Unfortunately, due to the non-interference principle, other
ASEAN countries may not be able to practice flexible engagement particularly giving criticisms.
Having said that, the continuous human rights violations hinder the ASEAN Community-
Building Process as it challenges the right of the ASEAN people to live in peace and equity.
Another issue in the history of ASEAN which directed affected by the non-interference
principle was the 2007 domestic conflict in Thailand. The said crisis which resulted in killing
and injuring numbers of Thai people was one of the scenarios that tested the worth of the
ASEAN. Analysts and observers said that even the crisis was a local affair it still hurt the pro-
democracy stance of the organization and the pathway to economic integration of the
organization; Nonetheless, it losses the credible of the organization to solve internal issues.
On the other hand, the ASEAN Charter, the institutionalized document of the
organization had transformed the plans and objectives of the ASEAN in more concrete actions.
In terms of transforming the ASEAN into a more people-oriented and people-centered
organization, the ASEAN Charter shifted from an elite-governmental organization and
encouraged the participation of the civil societies in the Community-Building Process. The
ASEAN Charter guided the ASEAN States on the strategic areas to be prioritized. For instance,
the ASEAN Charter focusing on the three pillars manifested a clear direction toward an
integrated ASEAN Community. The clear objectives along with the legal personalities will
largely contribute to the community building process. The clear tasking of each legal personality
would monitor and strengthen the programs and projects of the ASEAN and that would help fast-
track the regional integration.
In the end, the ASEAN’s norms and values had much contributed to the success of the
organization. However with the emerging of modern issues which requires greater participation
and statement from its co-ASEAN members then it is perhaps necessary to gradually adjust to a
more flexible engagement, otherwise sticking to the “Non-Interference Principle”, ASEAN will
fall short to create a progressive ASEAN Community.
On the other hand, the participation of the people in the ASEAN processes is part of Dr.
Mahiwo’s Meta-Nation State Paradigm. The paradigm emphasizes that global issues are not the
sole responsibility of the state or any influential global powers or global institutions but rather
the participation of the people can create impact in solving or addressing global issues. The
current global system tells it is no longer about the quest for hegemony but rather recognizing the
capacities of even the smallest entities have impact and influence in the global system. The
phenomenon of globalization requires greater involvement of the people in the process.
However, to view Meta-Nation State Paradigm may create confusion as it suggests an
interlocking interaction and between the involved entities
Foremost, Dr. Mahiwo framework called the “Meta-Nation State Paradigm” presented
the inclusion of the people in the development process. Accordingly, the “Meta-Nation State
Paradigm” suggests that there is a shift from conventional state-to-state domination to a more
dynamic multi-channeled, multi-level interaction between and among nation-states (Mahiwo,
n.d.). Primarily, this paradigm postulates that three important strata comprise the system,
identified as the Nation-State Stratum, Sub-Nation State Stratum and Supra-Nation State
Stratum. Meanwhile, under each stratum is represented by certain entities; the Nation State
Stratum refers to government or any related entities like government agencies, the core player in
the system. The Sub-Nation State Stratum refers to sub-national entities like LGUs, provinces,
cities, municipalities, NGOs, multi-national corporations; and Supra-Nation State Stratum refers
to international and regional agencies like UN, ASEAN, APEC, and EU. Mahiwo (n.d.) pointed
out that each stratum plays a dynamic role in the movement of the global system and has
influence over the other. There is the direct connection of entities from the grassroots level to
international level. Mahiwo emphasized the dynamics of the actor or entity in the movement of
global community and each player whether the government, local entities, and international
organization has the influence over the other. Finally, we may see that meta-nation paradigm is
about the relationship, connection, interdependence, integration, of the lowest (grassroots) to
highest (international organizations) entities.
Mahiwo, S. (n.d.). “A View on Global Tourism: The Philippines in Asia”. Retrieved from
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/hss/book/pdf/vol03_03.pdf