Introduction: The ASEAN Way of Conflict Management Under Challenge

  • Mikio OishiEmail author
Part of the Asia in Transition book series (AT, volume 3)


This introductory chapter of the book first revisits conceptually the ASEAN Way of conflict management (AWCM)—its basic ideas and mode of operation—and identifies several challenges that has made it increasingly dysfunctional in the post-Cold War Southeast Asia. Based on this perception of the inadequacy of the conventional AWCM, the chapter sets up the overall goal of the book: to find emerging patterns of managing conflict within the domain of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which may represent a new AWCM. To achieve this objective, seven conflicts—intrastate and interstate—in contemporary Southeast Asia are chosen for the investigation of the following chapters. These conflicts are: Aceh in Indonesia, the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, and the political conflict in Myanmar as intrastate conflicts, and the Thailand–Cambodia Preah Vihear temple dispute, the Indonesia–Malaysia Ambalat block dispute and the South China Sea (SCS) dispute as interstate conflicts. The chapter then introduces the concepts of incompatibility management and mediation regime, which would be used as analytical tools in the case study chapters.


The ASEAN Way of conflict management Conflict avoidance Internationalisation of intrastate conflict Incompatibility management Mediation regime 


  1. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised version). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Askandar, K., Bercovitch, J., & Oishi, M. (2002). The ASEAN way of conflict management: Old patterns and new trends. Asian Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayoob, M. (1991). The security problematic of the third world. World Politics, 43(2), 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1984). The planning of change (4th ed.). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Bercovitch, J., & Oishi, M. (2010). International conflict in the Asia-Pacific: Patterns, consequences and management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). Regional security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN way. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Chasek, P. S. (2003). The ozone depletion regime. In B. I. Spector & I. W. Zartman (Eds.), Getting it done: Postagreement negotiation and international regimes (pp. 187–227). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fiorino, D. J. (2001). Environmental policy as learning: A new view of an old landscape. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Haacke, J. (2003). ASEAN’s diplomatic and security culture. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
  11. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (1997). Theories of international regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. He, K. (2008). Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keohane, R. O. (1983). The demand for international regime. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 141–171). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kivimäki, T. (2014). The long peace of East Asia. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Korula, A. R. (2003). The regimes against torture. In B. I. Spector & I. W. Zartman (Eds.), Getting it done: Postagreement negotiation and international regimes (pp. 229–268). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  16. Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–22). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kratochwil, F. V., & Ruggie, J. G. (1986). International organization: A state of the art on an art of the state. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mak, J. N. (2009). Sovereignty in ASEAN and the problem of maritime cooperation in the South China Sea. In S. Bateman & R. Emmers (Eds.), Security and international politics in the South China Sea: Towards a cooperative management regime (pp. 110–127). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Miall, H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  20. Oishi, M. (2011). Managing conflict in economic development: Southeast Asian experiences. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2005). Cotemporary conflict resolution (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rüland, J. (2011). Southeast Asian regionalism and global governance: “Multiparty utility” or “hedging utility”? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(1), 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thayer, C. A. (2012, July 27). Behind the scenes of ASEAN’s breakdown. Asia Times Online. Accessed November 3, 2013.
  24. Wagner, L. (2003). The Mediterranean Action Plan. In B. I. Spector & I. W. Zartman (Eds.), Getting it done: Postagreement negotiation and international regimes (pp. 115–142). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  25. Yang, C. (2013). The Shanghai sprit and SCO mechanisms: Beyond geopolitics. In M. Fredholm (Ed.), The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian geopolitics: New directions, perspectives and challenges (p. 199). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiti Brunei DarussalamBandar Seri BegawanBrunei Darussalam

Personalised recommendations