Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Importing EU Norms pp 153–167Cite as

Ambitions Versus Capacity: The Role of Institutions in ASEAN

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: United Nations University Series on Regionalism ((UNSR,volume 8))

Abstract

Is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) receptive to the norm exports of the EU? Is it thus appropriate to analyse ASEAN in comparison to the EU, or does ASEAN provide a distinct example of regionalism? This chapter explores these questions in the context of a particular empirical puzzle. The 2008 ASEAN Charter purportedly establishes a ‘legal and institutional framework’ for ASEAN. It contains several apparent institutional innovations, including the strengthening of the ASEAN Secretariat. However, these ambitions are not matched by changes to the Association’s institutional capacity. This chapter reviews the institutional innovations made by the Charter, and argues that change in ASEAN institutions is contingent upon traditional interpretations of ASEAN norms—particularly sovereignty, non-interference and the ‘ASEAN Way’ of consensus decision-making. ASEAN states do consider the EU ‘model’ to some extent, but they often do this to highlight the ways in which ASEAN is distinct. Thus, for the most part, ASEAN is a ‘resister’ of EU norm exports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter employs Keohane’s (1988) oft-cited definition of institutions as ‘persistent and connected sets of rules that prescribe behavioural roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations’ (386). Thus, ‘institutionalisation’ refers to the degree to which institutional rules regulate (or attempt to regulate) the behaviour of actors.

  2. 2.

    Johnston noted in 2005 the ‘almost nonexistent’ comparative work on regional institutions (Johnston 2005, p. 1036).

  3. 3.

    The volume compares and contrasts the features of various regional institutional institutions, including membership; scope; formal rules; norms and ideology; and mandate. The contributors’ case studies are the EU, ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the Organization of American States and the African Union. The volume thus provides a useful typology of regional institutional design.

  4. 4.

    These ‘roads’ are: the genesis and growth of regional organisations, institutional design, member states’ behaviour in regional organisations and the effects of regional organisations on their member states.

  5. 5.

    Some scholars (e.g. De Lombaerde et al. 2010; Söderbaum and Sbragia 2010) explore the conceptual and methodological aspects of comparative regional analysis, particularly with a view to interrogating the (lack of) dialogue between scholars of EU studies and regionalism elsewhere in the world. This too is an important line of inquiry.

  6. 6.

    Former ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan has said that ‘the APRIS support from the EU has been successful and helpful to ASEAN…The EU’s experiences in integrating their economies are certainly good pointers for ASEAN and will help us realise these gains faster’ (ASEAN 2011). Such comments do not, however, ‘prove’ emulation.

  7. 7.

    Other constitutive norms—the peaceful settlement of disputes, the non-use of force, effective cooperation, and the norm of inclusion—are not discussed here given space constraints.

  8. 8.

    The ASEAN Secretariat was established in 1976, at the first ASEAN Summit in Bali, Indonesia. The member states signed the Agreement on the Establishment of the ASEAN Secretariat, which states that the basic mandate for the Secretariat is ‘to provide greater efficiency in the coordination of ASEAN organs and for more effective implementation of ASEAN projects and activities’ (ASEAN 1976).

  9. 9.

    Interviews conducted by the author with various Southeast Asian commentators and Secretariat staff in 2008–2009 did not clarify how ASEAN would ‘enter into contracts’ of its own accord; the interview subjects could not (or would not) provide an answer.

  10. 10.

    The foreign ministers have traditionally wielded significant influence in ASEAN decision-making, and have long met regularly in ASEAN Ministerial Meetings.

  11. 11.

    At the time of writing, these states each have a significantly lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than most other member states.

  12. 12.

    It also constrains important functions such as ASEAN’s ability to respond collectively to regional crises remains constrained. For example, in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008, ‘ASEAN was not able to shell out monetary resources on its own’; rather, the crisis fund was provided by private organisations (Amador 2009, p. 11). The Secretariat lacks fiscal, human and other resources, and thus it ‘could not have responded to the situation on its own initiative had the member states not contributed’ (11). Instead, Surin had to appeal for aid from the member states in order that some relief efforts could be undertaken.

  13. 13.

    According to the World Bank (2013), Singapore’s GDP was US$ 275 billion in 2012 and Indonesia’s GDP was US$ 878 billion (in current US dollars).

  14. 14.

    In other words, the norm of equality is not reflected in the practical reality of ASEAN dialogue. As Emmerson (2007) notes, ‘acknowledging the formal equality and autonomy of member states need not deter big states from informally “persuading” small ones’ (438). Naturally, all member states do not have equal influence in ASEAN. Some member states—particularly the founding member states of Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines—undoubtedly have more influence than others in regional dialogue and decision-making. The so-called ‘CLMV’ states, which are newer members (having been admitted to ASEAN between 1985 and 1999), and are less developed and less economically significant, tend to have less clout.

  15. 15.

    The editors were Tommy Koh, Rosario G. Manalo, and Walter Woon. Tommy Koh is an Ambassador-At-Large in Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was Singapore’s representative to the HLTF. Rosario G. Manalo is a career diplomat from the Philippines and acted as its Special Envoy for the Drafting of the ASEAN Charter (ie. its representative to the HLTF). Koh and Manalo shared the role of Chair of the HLTF. Walter Woon is a Singaporean lawyer, academic, diplomat and former Attorney-General; he was part of Singapore’s delegation to the HLTF.

  16. 16.

    For example, Hurd (2011) calls ASEAN ‘a framework of possible future cooperation but not much more than that’. It is characterised by a ‘substantive emptiness…that is remarkable’ (256). Other scholars, such as Jones and Smith (2002), have referred to ASEAN as an ‘imitation community’ and ‘rhetorical shell’ that gives ‘form but no substance to domestic and international arrangements’ (93). Khoo (2004) and Sharpe (2003), among others, have referred to ASEAN as merely a ‘talk shop’. This criticism has been motivated in part by ASEAN’s perceived failures in responding to regional problems (particularly since the Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998, and Burma’s admission as a member in 1998). This, for critics, reflects the limits of ASEAN’s regional ‘experiment’.

  17. 17.

    Note, however, that Barnett and Finnemore (2004) conceptualise international organisations as themselves bureaucracies—rather than focusing only on the secretariats of those organisations.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and international change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58, 239–275. doi:10.1017/s0020818304582024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A., & Johnston, A. I. (Eds.). (2007). Crafting cooperation: Regional international institutions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alagappa, M. (1987). Asean institutional framework and modus operandi: Recommendations for change. In N. Sopiee, L. S. Chew, & S. J. Lim (Eds.), ASEAN at the crossroads: Obstacles, options and opportunities in economic cooperation (pp. 183–230). Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alatas, A. (2001). ASEAN in a globalizing world. Asia-Pacific Review, 8(2), 1–9. doi:10.1080/09544120120098645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amador, J. S. (2009). Community building at the time of Nargis: The ASEAN response. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 28(4), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASEAN. (1967). The ASEAN declaration (Bangkok Declaration). http://www.asean.org/news/item/the-asean-declaration-bangkok-declaration. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (1976). Treaty of amity and cooperation in Southeast Asia. http://www.asean.org/news/item/treaty-of-amity-and-cooperation-in-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976-3. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2005). Kuala Lumpur declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN charter. http://www.asean.org/news/item/kuala-lumpur-declaration-on-the-establishment-of-the-asean-charter-kuala-lumpur-12-december-2005. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2006). Report of the eminent persons group on the ASEAN charter. http://www.asean.org/archive/19247.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2007). Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. http://www.asean.org/archive/publications/ASEAN-Charter.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2011). ASEAN and EU: Family matters. http://www.asean.org/news/asean-secretariat-news/item/asean-and-eu-family-matters. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2013a). ASEAN coordinating council. http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-structure/asean-coordinating-council. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2013b). ASEAN community councils. http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-structure/asean-community-councils. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • ASEAN. (2013c). Committee of permanent representatives. http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-structure/committee-of-permanent-representatives. Accessed 28 Oct 2013

  • ASEAN. (2013d). The ASEAN secretariat: Basic mandate, functions and composition. http://www.asean.org/news/item/asean-secretariat-basic-documents-asean-secretariat-basic-mandate-2. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M. (2005). Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in comparative perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 969–985. doi:10.1080/13501760500270620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, A. J. (2004). Security communities and their neighbours: Regional fortresses or global integrators? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (Eds.). (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A. (2012). Do all roads lead to regionalism? In T. A. Börzel, L. Goltermann, M. Lohaus, & K. Striebinger (Eds.), Roads to regionalism: Genesis, design, and effects of regional organizations (pp. 255–268). Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2009). The rise of (inter-) regionalism: The EU as a model for regional integration. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada, 2–6 September 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., Goltermann, L., Lohaus, M., & Striebinger, K. (Eds.). (2012). Roads to regionalism: Genesis, design, and effects of regional organizations. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, E. Z. (2010). Balance & good health come from a strong core: Is the ASEAN secretariat properly resourced? Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. http://csis.org/publication/balance-good-health-come-strong-core. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39–60. doi:10.1080/09512749908719277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capie, D., & Evans, P. (2007). The Asia-Pacific security lexicon. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Intelligence Agency. (2012). The world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • Chalermpalanupap, T. (2008). Institutional reform: One charter, three communities, many challenges. In D. K. Emmerson (Ed.), Hard choices: Security, democracy and regionalism in Southeast Asia (pp. 91–131). Stanford: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, K. W. (2009). Emerging East Asian regional architecture: ASEAN perspectives. In W. T. Tow & K. W. Chin (Eds.), ASEAN-India-Australia: Towards closer engagement in a New Asia (pp. 22–39). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (2003). Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, regional, and global issues. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lombaerde, P., Söderbaum, F., Van Langenhove, L., & Baert, F. (2010). The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of International Studies, 35, 731–753. doi:10.1017/S0260210510000707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson, D. K. (2007). Challenging ASEAN: A “topological” view. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 29(3), 424–446. doi:10.1355/cs29-3c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. doi:10.1162/002081898550789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuzi, A. (2008). Facing unfair criticisms. In D. K. Emmerson (Ed.), Hard choices: Security, democracy and regionalism in Southeast Asia (pp. 17–26). Stanford: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goltermann, L., Lohaus, M., Spielau, A., & Striebinger, K. (2012). Roads to regionalism: Concepts, issues, and cases. In T. A. Börzel, L. Goltermann, M. Lohaus, & K. Striebinger (Eds.), Roads to regionalism: Genesis, design, and effects of regional organizations (pp. 3–21). Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haacke, J. (2005). “Enhanced interaction” with Myanmar and the project of a security community: Is ASEAN refining or breaking with its diplomatic and security culture? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(2), 188–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, C. (2007, February 3). Consensus builder for ASEAN Charter. The Straits Times, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (2011). International organizations: Politics, law, practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetschke, A., & Murray, P. (2012). Diffusing regional integration: The EU and Southeast Asia. West European Politics, 35(1), 174–191. doi:10.1080/01402382.2012.631320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetschke, A., & Rüland, J. (2009). Decoupling rhetoric and practice: The cultural limits of ASEAN cooperation. The Pacific Review, 22(2), 179–203. doi:10.1080/09512740902815326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. I. (2005). Conclusions and extensions: Toward mid-range theorizing and beyond Europe. International Organization, 59(4), 1013–1044. doi:10.1017.S0020818305050344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. R. (2002). ASEAN’s imitation community. ORBIS, 46, 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0030-4387(01)00108-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsumata, H. (2004). Why is ASEAN diplomacy changing? From “non-interference” to “open and frank discussions”. Asian Survey, 44(2), 237–254. doi:10.1525/as.2004.44.2.237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsumata, H. (2009). ASEAN and human rights: Resisting Western pressure or emulating the West? The Pacific Review, 22(5), 619–637. doi:10.1080/09512740903329731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsumata, H. (2011). Mimetic adoption and norm diffusion: ‘Western’ security cooperation in Southeast Asia? Review of International Studies, 37(2), 557–576. doi:10.1017/S0260210510000872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P. (1996). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (1988). International institutions—two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalik, A. (2007, April 19). FM: ASEAN charter to have dispute settlement mechanisms. The Jakarta Post.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoo, N. (2004). Rhetoric vs. reality: ASEAN’s clouded future. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 5(2), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, T., Manalo, R. G., & Woon, W. (Eds.). (2009). The making of the ASEAN charter. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. A. (2008). The state and international relations. In C. Reus-Smit, & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 41–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morada, N. (2011). The role of regional and subregional arrangements in strengthening the responsibility to protect: ASEAN and the ARF. In The Stanley Foundation (Ed.), The role of regional and subregional arrangements in strengthening the responsibility to protect (pp. 19–29). New York: The Stanley Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, P. (2010). Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia: Moving beyond integration snobbery. International Politics, 47(3/4), 308–323. doi:10.1057/ip.2010.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narine, S. (2004). State sovereignty, political legitimacy and regional institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific. The Pacific Review, 17(3), 423–450. doi:10.1080/0551274042000261524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severino, R. C. (2006). Southeast Asia in search of a community: Insights from the former secretary-general. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, S. (2003). An ASEAN way to security cooperation in Southeast Asia? The Pacific Review, 16(2), 231–250. doi:10.1080/0951274032000069624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum, F., & Sbragia, A. (2010). EU Studies and the ‘New Regionalism’: What can be gained from dialogue?’ European Integration, 32(6), 563–582. doi:10.1080/07036337.2010.518716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanandi, J. (2006). ASEAN future challenges and the importance of an ASEAN charter. ASIEN, 100, 85–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2013). Data: Countries and economies. http://data.worldbank.org/country. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

  • Zee News. (2007, January 1). ASEAN risks irrelevance unless it transforms: Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social and Political Science, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Dr. Avery Poole

Authors
  1. Dr. Avery Poole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avery Poole .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden

    Annika Björkdahl

  2. National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Natalia Chaban

  3. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    John Leslie

  4. College of Business and Law, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Annick Masselot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poole, A. (2015). Ambitions Versus Capacity: The Role of Institutions in ASEAN. In: Björkdahl, A., Chaban, N., Leslie, J., Masselot, A. (eds) Importing EU Norms. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13740-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation