Which “ASEAN Way” Forward?: Southeast Asian Perspectives on Peace and Institutions

  • Ekaterina KoldunovaEmail author


ASEAN and its offshoots, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Dialogue partnerships, present a successful non-Western example of institutionalized regional cooperation. ASEAN’s activity since its inception in 1967 and its normative culture, the so-called ASEAN Way, is believed to have brought peace and stability to Southeast Asia, a politically polarized region during the Cold War. Some scholars view the “ASEAN Way” as a distinct conceptual framework of international relations, which differs from Western IR theories. This chapter assesses Southeast Asian IR perspectives concerning peace and international institutions by examining, specifically, ASEAN’s approach to subsidiarity and explores the potential and limits of the “ASEAN Way” to secure endurable peace in Southeast Asia and serve as a model for other non-Western regions.


  1. Acharya, A. (1997). Ideas, Identity, and Institution-Building: From the “ASEAN Way” to the “Asia-Pacific Way?”. The Pacific Review, 10(3), 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Acharya, A. (2017). The Myth of ASEAN Centrality? Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs, 39(2), 259–264.Google Scholar
  4. Acharya, A., & Johnston, A. I. (Eds.). (2007). Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alagappa, M. (1993). Regionalism and the Quest for Security: ASEAN and the Cambodian Conflict. Journal of International Affairs, 46(2), 439–467.Google Scholar
  6. ASEAN. (1976, February 24). Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from:
  7. ASEAN. (2007a, January 13). Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015. Retrieved from:
  8. ASEAN. (2007b, November 20). ASEAN Charter. Retrieved from:
  9. BBC. (2011, February 7). Cambodia Calls for UN Buffer Zone at Thai Border. Retrieved from:
  10. Beeson, M. (2016). Multilateralism in East Asia: Less Than the Sum of Its Parts? Global Summitry, 2(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogaturov, A. D. (2009). Liderstvo i kriterii liderstva v mirovoi sisteme [Leadership and the Criteria of Leadership in the World System]. Sovremennaia mirovaia politika: prikladnoi analiz [Contemporary World Politics: Applied Analysis] (pp. 153–166). Moscow: Aspekt Press.Google Scholar
  12. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way. Singapore: ISEAS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cirociari, J. D. (2004). “Auto-Genocide” and the Cambodia Reign of Terror. In D. Schaller, R. Boyadjian, V. Berg, & H. Scholtz (Eds.), Enteignet, Vertrieben, Ermordet: Beiträge zur Genozidforschung (pp. 413–435). Zürich: Chronos.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A. (2000). The Security Dilemmas of Southeast Asia. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emmers, R. (2017, October 24). ASEAN Minus X: Should This Formula Be Extended? RSIS Commentary, 199.
  16. Emmers, R., & Tan, S. S. (2011). The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail? Asian Security, 7(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haacke, J. (2005). ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hänggi, H. (1991). ASEAN and the ZOPFAN Concept. Singapore: ISEAS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatch, W. (2010). Asian Flying Geese: How Regionalization Shapes Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, L. (2007). ASEAN Intervention in Cambodia: From Cold War to Conditionality. Pacific Review, 20(4), 523–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahler, M., & MacIntyre, A. (Eds.). (2013). Integrating Regions: Asia in Comparative Context. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kawamura, K. (2011). Consensus and Democracy in Indonesia: Musyawarah-Mufakat Revisited (IDE Discussion Paper No. 308). Retrieved from:
  23. Kapoor, K., & Mogato, M. (2017, April 28). South China Sea Code with Beijing Must Be Legally Binding: ASEAN Chef. Retrieved from:
  24. Katsumata, H. (2009). ASEAN’s Cooperative Security Enterprise: Norms and Identities in the ASEAN Regional Forum. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kivimäki, T. (2001). The Long Peace of ASEAN. Journal of Peace Research, 38(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kivimäki, T. (2016). The Long Peace of East Asia. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khong, Y. F., & Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2007). Hanging Together, Institutional Design, and Cooperation in Southeast Asia: AFTA and the ARF. In A. Acharya & A. I. Johnston (Eds.), Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective (pp. 32–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Koga, K. (2010). The Normative Power of the “ASEAN Way”: Potentials, Limitations and Implications for East Asian Regionalism. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, 10(1), 80–95.Google Scholar
  29. Mahbubani, K., & Sng, J. (2017). The ASEAN Miracle: A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: Ridge Books.Google Scholar
  30. Narine, S. (2002). Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  31. Pham, Q. M. (2015). ASEAN’s Indispensable Role in Regional Construction. Asia-Pacific Review, 22(2), 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shekhar, V. (2015). Indonesia’s Rise: Seeking Regional and Global Roles. New Delhi: Pentagon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shih, C. (2013). Sinicizing International Relations: Self, Civilization, and Intellectual Politics in Subaltern East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shih, C. (2014). China’s Rise Syndromes? Drafting National Schools of International Relations in Asia. Comparative Politics (Russia), 3(17), 128–142.Google Scholar
  36. Solingen, E. (2015). Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Stanton, G. H. (1993). The Khmer Rouge Genocide and International Law. In B. Kiernan (Ed.), Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge, the United Nations and the International Community (pp. 141–162). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stuenkel, O. (2017). Post-Western World: How Emerging Powers Are Remaking Global Order. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sumsky, V. (2017, May 12). The Manila Summit: No Grounds to Doubt ASEAN’s Standing, Valdai Club. Retrieved from:
  40. Tan, S. S. (2016). Rethinking “ASEAN Centrality” in the Regional Governance of East Asia. The Singapore Economic Review, 63(1). Scholar
  41. Tang, S. M. (2017). Is ASEAN Due for a Makeover? Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 39(2), 239–244.Google Scholar
  42. Tay, S. (2001). Institutions and Processes: Dilemmas and Possibilities. In S. C. Simon Tay, J. P. Estanislao, & H. Soesastro (Eds.), Reinventing ASEAN (pp. 243–272). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  43. Tay, S. (2010). Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America. Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. The Economist. (2012, August 18). Divided We Stagger. Retrieved from newspaper homepage
  45. Weatherbee, D. (2009). International Relations in Southeast Asia: The Struggle for Autonomy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, E. (2015, July 2). Security Law Suggests a Broadening of China’s “Core Interests”. The New York Times. Retrieved from:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), the MFA of RussiaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations