Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ASEAN Way and Security PDF
ASEAN Way and Security PDF
Politics & Policy, Volume 35, No. 1 (2007): 42-56. Published by Blackwell Publishing Inc.
© The Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved.
Nishikawa The “ASEAN Way” 43
polities. Given the strong reliance on personal rule, the more formal and
legalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not become
established Southeast Asian political practices.
critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization was
established—that is, the organization’s goals, objectives, and aspirations.
These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of the
conflict reduction mechanisms available. Therefore the member-states’
compliance with norms and rules will influence the organization’s
perspective. At this point, the kind of customarily exercised
communication and socialization patterns among member-states has a
critical impact. Similarly, the degree of institutionalization of norms
and rules will have some importance in practice. Given the various
factors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanisms
and considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region, it is not
surprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within which
regional organizations should work. Each regional organization
develops its own unique dispute management tactics, thereby creating
their own security formula. These reflect the nature of conflicts in the
region and the relationships, communication, and socialization
practices of each member.
Conclusion
Notes
1
This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on “Asian
Values and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing World” held in Kobe on November
27-28, 2004.
2
The terms “dispute” and “conflict” are used interchangeably in this article. Although some
distinguish the use of these terms, in this article they are employed synonymously except in specific
cases.
3
For overall realist perspectives, see, for example, Baylis and Smith (1997), chapter 6.
4
For details of the Sabah dispute, see Caballero-Anthony (1998, 53-5).
5
Regarding this point, Caballero-Anthony observes that “in ASEAN’s history as a corporate,
inter-state organization, it has not resolved any regional conflict.” See Caballero-Anthony (2002,
534).
6
For a positive view of ASEAN’s role in security issues, see Narine (1998), and Snitwongse (1998);
for a critical view, see Caballero-Anthony (2002), and Leifer (1999).
7
Regarding the region’s diversity, Ba (1997, 636) states: “Southeast Asia is far more
heterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions, cultures, ethnicities
and languages.”
8
Major types of disputes in the region are border, water boundary, and territorial, which may be
broadly defined as economic-related disputes. See Azar and Burton (1986).
9
Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples: border disputes between Malaysia and
Thailand, and between Malaysia and Indonesia.
10
Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992.
11
In fact, some argue that the idea of an “ASEAN way” has been developed by encountering
external approaches. See Inoguchi and Newman (1997).
Nishikawa The “ASEAN Way” 55
References
Acharya, Amitav. 1997. “Ideas, Identity and Institution-Building: From the ‘ASEAN Way’ to
‘Asia-Pacific Way’?” The Pacific Review 10 (3): 319-46.
Ayoob, Mohommed. 1995. The Third World Security Predicament. State Making, Regional
Conflict, and the International System . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Azar, E. Edward, and John W. Burton. 1986. International Conflict Resolution: Theory and
Practice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Ba, D. Alice. 1997. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Maintaining the Regional Idea in Southeast
Asia.” International Journal LII (4): 635-56.
Baylis, John, and Steve Smith, eds. 1997. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
Intentional Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Busse, Nikolas. 1999. “Constructivism and Southeast Asia Security,” The Pacific Review 12 (1):
39-60.
Caballero-Anthony, Mely. 1998. “Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement.” Contemporary Southeast
Asia 20 (1): 38-66.
___. 2002. “Partnership for Peace in Asia: ASEAN, the ARF, and the United Nations.”
Contemporary Southeast Asia 24 (3): 528-48.
Garofano, John. 2002. “Power, Institutions, and the ASEAN Regional Forum.” Asian Survey XLII
(3): 502-21.
Higgot, Richard. 1994. “Ideas, Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacific.” The Pacific
Review 8 (4): 367-79.
Inoguchi, Takashi, and Edward Newman. 1997. Asian Values’ and Democracy in Asia . Proceedings
of a conference held on March 28, 1997 at Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan, as part of the First
Shizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum: The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region . Available online at: http://
www.unu.edu/unupress/asian-values.html. Accessed on January 3, 2007.
Jackson, H. Robert. 1993. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World .
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, Pauline. 1994. “The Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacific.” The Pacific Review 7 (4): 397-409.
Leifer, Michael. 1999. “The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake.” The Pacific Review 12
(1): 25-38.
Michell, R. Christopher. 1981. The Structure of International Conflict . New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Narine, Shaun. 1998. “ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security.” Pacific Affairs 71 (2):
195-214.
Simon, W. Sheldon. 1998. Security Prospects in Southeast Asia: Collaborative Efforts and the
ASEAN Regional Forum.” The Pacific Review 11 (2): 195-212.
56 Politics & Policy Vol. 35 No. 1
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February. 1976. Available online
at http://www.aseansec.org. Accessed on January 3, 2007.
Wolters, W. Oliver. 1982. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives . Singapore:
Institute for Southeast Asian Studies.