ASEAN's Quest for Security: A Theoretical Explanation
01 Oct 2004-International Studies (Sage PublicationsNew Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London)-Vol. 41, Iss: 4, pp 349-369
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors make an attempt to focus upon the debate between the Realist and the Constructivist perspectives on south-east Asian security and argue that Realism is no longer the sole perspective.
Abstract: The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) role in managing southeast Asian security has been analysed by different scholars from diverse theoretical perspectives. A careful scrutiny of these makes it clear that Realism1 which once dominated the discourse on south-east Asian security is no longer the sole perspective.2 Within mainstream international relations theory, the predominance of Realism has come under sharp attack from Neo-Liberal Institutionalism. Although both Realism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism differ on how anarchy in the international system is to be managed, these two perspectives share many commonalties including rationalism as an approach to the understanding of international politics. Moreover, both Realism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism emphasize the role of material factors in explaining the notion of security and behaviour of states in the international system. Also, Realism has come under serious assault from the postPositivist perspectives, most notably Constructivism. Constructivisms strength lies primarily in its challenge to Realisms epistemological foundations. The salience of ideational factors in explaining state behaviour in the south-east Asian region is an issue of contention between the Realist and Constructivist scholars. By detecting the limitations of Realisms material determinism, Constructivism has put forward cultural and ideational factors like norms and identities as the fundamental determinants of security and politics in south-east Asia. This article makes an attempt to focus upon the debate between the Realist and the Constuctivist
Citations
More filters
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2014
Abstract: ................................................................................................................................... ii Declaration ............................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgment ..................................................................................................................... iv Table of contents ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables, Images, and Illustrations .................................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations and Glossaryy ....................................................................................... x CHAPTER
11 citations
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this paper, a pluralist English School perspective offers a number of possibilities that are useful in analysing SEA, including a socially oriented understanding of the role of great powers and a more subtle interpretation of what Indonesia offers the region, and the challenges it faces there.
Abstract: This article elaborates that a pluralist English School perspective offers a number of possibilities that are useful in analysing SEA. Its prime contribution is to help locate the middle ground that is often missing from theoretical debates. Thus, it can bridge parallel discourses, whether they be realist and constructivist, or realist and liberal. It can also provide a socially oriented understanding of the role of great powers – an understanding that provides a much more subtle interpretation of what Indonesia offers the region, and the challenges it faces there.
3 citations
Cites background from "ASEAN's Quest for Security: A Theor..."
...As a result, eclecticism – combining elements from multiple theories – is often suggested as the best way forward (see, for example, Batabyal, 2004, 350, 368; Ganesan, 2003)....
[...]
Dissertation•
01 Sep 2014
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore why ASEANET has not brought adequate security to the region's peoples despite the decision to create the people-oriented APSC, and argue that traditional state-centric approaches have failed to rigorously explore security issues in Southeast Asia, owing to discrepancies between the statecentric approaches and Southeast Asian security culture.
Abstract: In 2003, ASEAN issued the Bali Concord II. In this declaration, ASEAN set the goal of creating the people-oriented ASEAN Community (AC) by 2015. The ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) is a pillar of the AC. The APSC’s blueprint addressed several security issues that are central to ASEAN’s own objectives, which are prominent in the ASEAN Charter and which play no less an important role in the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). However, although ASEAN has pledged to address these security issues, many Southeast Asians continue to suffer from significant security threats. This study will explore why ASEAN has not brought adequate security to the region’s peoples despite ASEAN’s decision to create the people-oriented APSC.
The research question guiding this study is simple, but no comprehensive answer is readily forthcoming because so diverse a population of actors and security issues has been involved in the creation of the APSC. Hence, rather than adopt a traditional state-centric approach, this study starts from the human-security concept to explore the creation of the APSC. I argue that traditional state-centric approaches have failed to rigorously explore security issues in Southeast Asia, owing to discrepancies between the state-centric approaches and Southeast Asian security culture. The human-security concept discursively embraces both the diversity of threats in the world and the wisdom of having diverse actors address these diverse threats. Because the human-security concept is not a theoretical approach, I endeavour in this study to transform the concept into a theory before embarking on an exploration of the ongoing effort to create the APSC.
2 citations
31 Oct 2014
TL;DR: Ta-Wei Chu et al. as mentioned in this paper investigated the capacity of realism and constructivism to rigorously strengthen explorations of Southeast Asian security issues, owing to a discrepancy between the theories' discursive foundations and current Southeast Asia security culture.
Abstract: Ta-Wei Chu is a PhD candidate of East Asian studies at the University of Leeds. He got his master’s degree from the Graduate Institute of Asian Studies at Tamkang University. Ta-Wei's research interests are human security, Southeast Asian international relations, and the ASEAN community. He has presented several papers in international conferences. ! In their research on Southeast Asian international relations, many scholars have heavily applied two mainstream theories—realism and constructivism—to the task of explaining security issues in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the capacity of realism and constructivism to rigorously strengthen explorations of Southeast Asian security issues has diminished, owing to a discrepancy between the theories’ discursive foundations and current Southeast Asian security culture. Given this diminishment in the theories’ explanatory power, the emergence and promotion of new theories in Southeast Asian international relations may be necessary. The current study comprises two sections. The first section will explicate the foundations of the mainstream theories’ discourses. The second section will explore the mainstream theories’ gradually reduced capacity to facilitate analyses of Southeast Asian security issues. ! Introduction
1 citations
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors adopt the less common neoliberal institutionalist perspective as a mirror that reflects the state of security cooperation in Southeast Asia and by which its limits can be identified.
Abstract: Theoretical debates on whether or not ASEAN matters in the realm of security, are quite recent. Until the 1990s students of Southeast Asian affairs were unwilling to go out on a limb with theory and prediction,1 and even theoretically-oriented scholars cast doubts on the usefulness of theories on Asia.2 Over the last two decades, this picture has changed profoundly, and a prolific debate centered on a crucial question first raised by Kivimaki in ‘Power, Interest or Culture — is there a paradigm that explains the ASEAN political role best?,’3 has opened up. In an attempt to answer this question two major perspectives, realism and constructivism, have emerged in both academic and policy debates. While acknowledging that there are important insights to be gained from both perspectives, this monograph adopts the less common neoliberal institutionalist perspective as a mirror that reflects the state of security cooperation in Southeast Asia and by which its limits can be identified.
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a discussion and evaluation of ASEAN's efforts to manage its regional security environment (i.e., to affect the actors and events shaping security in Southeast Asia) is presented.
Abstract: T n HE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN) has the reputation of being the most successful indigenously produced regional organization in the developing world.' Much of that reputation is attributable to ASEAN's apparent internal cohesion and international effectiveness. In the post-cold war era, ASEAN hopes to build on its success by shaping the emerging security relations of the Asia-Pacific through new mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). However, ASEAN's influence on Southeast Asia's regional security environment during the cold war was both more nuanced than is commonly recognized and dependent on a set of unique circumstances. ASEAN's experiences with regional security in the cold war are not readily transferred to the post-cold war era. This paper is a discussion and evaluation of ASEAN's efforts to manage its regional security environment (i.e., to affect the actors and events shaping security in Southeast Asia). The main argument of this paper is that ASEAN's ability to manage regional security in Southeast Asia has been, and is, limited by two factors: one, the interests and actions of the great powers, which have defined the parameters of ASEAN's security policies; and two, divergent security perceptions and interests within ASEAN, which have defined the limits of intraorganizational cooperation and made it difficult to evaluate the significance of ASEAN's stated security objectives. ASEAN has improved relations between its member states, but these achievements are contingent on its success as a larger regional actor. The ASEAN member states remain mostly motivated by narrow understandings of their self-interests, which are not always congruent and can undermine ASEAN's unity and ability to function effectively. ASEAN's present efforts to incorporate Vietnam, Burma, Laos and, eventually, Cambodia, may exacerbate this problem. This paper is broken into five sections. After a brief historical overview, I review ASEAN's stated regional security objectives and the political and
75 citations
10 Feb 2000
4 citations