Role of ASEAN in Conflict Management

The “ASEAN Way”

A Critical Assessment of the Role of ASEAN inConflict Management in Southeast Asia

Introduction

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been at the forefront of managing conflicts in Southeast Asia (SEA) since its creation in 1967. For fifty years, it has maintained peace and security in the region, and has been touted as the most successful inter-governmental organization in this respect.[1] However, the role played by ASEAN and the nature of its contribution to conflict management in SEA remains widely debated. ASEAN is criticised for having a weak mandate, and for not playing a decisive role in managing conflicts between its member-states.[2]

Some pundits claim that ASEAN has contributed to
conflict avoidance, but has failed to resolve actual conflicts.[3] The
failure to directly address and ultimately resolve conflicts between its
member-states undermines ASEAN’s credibility as a regional body with conflict
management responsibilities. On the other hand, several reputable observers have
noted that ASEAN is not intended to formally act as a third-party mediator unless
it is requested to do so by member-states.[4]
Rather, the Association is intended to serve as a vehicle to promote better relations
among its members.[5]

In light of such contending perspectives, this essay
argues that a common and accurate understanding of ASEAN’s actual and potential
role in conflict management can be achieved through an examination of the
organisation’s mandate and mechanisms. This paper will clarify the role played
by ASEAN and provide an objective assessment of ASEAN’s performance in conflict
management.

The essay begins with an examination of key ASEAN
documents which provide foundational authority and guidance for the
establishment of mechanisms for conflict management. This is followed by a
critical discussion of the theory behind the creation of ASEAN and an analysis
of how the Association has utilised available mechanisms in managing conflicts
in the region. The analysis will be informed and illustrated by examples of bilateral
disputes in SEA where ASEAN has played a role in conflict management. The paper
will conclude with a summary of pertinent findings and a brief assessment of
the implications of the study.

ASEAN Conflict Management: Mandate and Mechanisms

ASEAN’s mandate and mechanisms for conflict management
are drawn from seven key ASEAN documents.[6] An
examination of these documents will clarify what ASEAN does and could do in
terms of conflict management in the region.

The ASEAN Declaration

TheASEAN
Declaration was adopted on 08 August 1967.[7]
Otherwise known as the Bangkok Declaration, it outlines the aims and purposes
that the regional cooperation intends to achieve, as well as processes and
mechanisms that shall be established to carry out these objectives. The ASEAN Declaration
establishes ASEAN as an Association for regional cooperation among the
countries of Southeast Asia. Cooperation is aimed at the “economic, social,
cultural, technical, educational and other fields, and in the promotion of
regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice, rule of law
and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter”.[8]

The reference to ASEAN’s approach to conflict management
was broadly highlighted in the Association’s desire to “establish a firm
foundation for common action to promote regional cooperation that contributes
towards peace, progress and prosperity in the region”.[9] In
essence, the document lays the foundation of the role ASEAN plays in managing
conflicts between its member-states in SEA.

The Declaration of ASEAN Concord

The so-called “formative years” from 1967 to 1976 led to
the signing of the Declaration of ASEAN Concord on 24 February 1976 at Bali,
Indonesia.[10]
In pursuit of political stability, the ‘ASEAN
Concord’ contains general principles and programme of action for ASEAN
member-states to adopt as a framework for cooperation and improvement of ASEAN mechanisms
for conflict management.

Notably, the dominant principles advocated in this
document are the exclusive reliance on peaceful processes in the settlement of
intra-regional differences; mutual respect and benefit, self-determination;
sovereign equality; and non-interference in the internal affairs of nations.[11] In
addition, the establishment of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN)
is also pursued.[12]
These formative years saw the development of a more vigilant ASEAN,
particularly in its approach to regional peace and security.

The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation

The
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) was also adopted in Bali in February
1976.[13]
Signed by the Heads of States of ASEAN’s founding members,[14] TAC
provides guidelines on conflict management, particularly the “pacific
settlement of disputes” between its members.[15] TAC
outlines fundamental principles that guide relations between the signatories,
including: non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries;
peaceful settlement of disputes; and the renunciation of the threat or use of
force. [16]

Adherence
to these critical considerations was evident in TAC Chapter 4, Article 13, ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’, which stipulates
that signatory member-states: “[S]hall have the determination and good faith to
prevent disputes from arising. In case disputes on matters directly affecting
them should arise, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force and shall
at all times settle such disputes among themselves through friendly
negotiations”.[17] This
basically determines how member-states should behave in situations where
disputes may arise or have risen between them.

In addition to settling disputes through regional
processes, the TAC provides for the creation of a ‘High Council’,[18]
composed of representatives at the ministerial level with the role of taking
“cognizance of the existence of disputes or situations likely to disturb
regional peace and harmony”.[19] Further,
Article 15 of TAC designates the ‘High
Council’ authority to recommend among disputing parties settlement of disputes
through (e.g. UN) mediation, inquiry or conciliation.[20]
However, upon agreement of the parties in dispute, the ‘High Council’ can in itself “constitute into a committee of
mediation, inquiry or conciliation” [21]
and resolve the conflict at the regional level.

Salient to the aforementioned articles of TAC are
prescribed limitations on the role of the ‘High
Council’ in dispute settlement. Article 16 emphasizes that Articles 14 and
15 cannot be applied unless parties to the dispute agree to their application.[22] Explicitly
stated, mediation can only be employed in a dispute if parties to the dispute
agree to bring the matter to the ‘High
Council’ for settlement. In effect, this provision significantly constrains
ASEAN’s conduct of conflict management between its member-states. As time
progressed, further policies were adopted by ASEAN, which saw its role in the
region continue to evolve.

The Rules of Procedure of the High Council

On July 2001, during the 34th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting
in Hanoi, member-states adopted the Rules of Procedure of the High Council of
the TAC in Southeast Asia.[23]
The Rules of Procedure consist of ten parts covering twenty-five ‘Rules’ that apply to the ‘High Council’ and to any of its working groups
in pursuance of its conflict management role.

These Rules of Procedure prescribe the ‘High Council’ composition and designation
of the Chairperson; initiation of dispute settlement procedures; convening of proceedings
at the meetings of the ‘High Council’;
decision-making; as well as procedures for making amendments to the ‘Rules’.[24] Notable
among the procedures is a recurring thematic emphasis on expressed written communications
by parties in dispute when invoking the dispute settlement procedure. Of
crucial importance is the written confirmation and “agreement on the
procedures” from disputing parties by the Chairperson before the dispute
settlement process can proceed.[25] Moreover,
all decisions made at or by the ‘High Council’
shall be through consensus and any amendment to these ‘Rules’ shall be unanimously agreed by all the signatory
member-states.[26]

The Declaration of the ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II)

The Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, adopted in October
2003 during the 9th ASEAN Summit in Bali, demonstrates ASEAN’s commitment to collaboration
and development within its member-states.[27]
The ‘Bali Concord II’ reaffirms the Association’s
resolve in pursuing fundamental values and principles enshrined in its
declarations, treaties and other key documents since 1967. The document reaffirms
the importance of adhering to the principles of non-interference and consensus
in ASEAN cooperation and reiterates that TAC is an effective code of conduct
for relations among governments.[28]

ASEAN’s commitment in upholding cultural diversity and
social harmony is evidenced by the ten ‘Declarations’
made in this second ‘Concord’. Direct
reference to the significant role of ASEAN in conflict management is made in
Declaration 4, which resolves “to settle long-standing disputes through
peaceful means.[29]
Declaration 5 similarly promotes TAC as “a diplomatic instrument for the
promotion of peace and stability in the region”.[30]
Aside from endorsing the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) as the primary means to
enhance political and security cooperation in the wider ASIA-Pacific, new
frameworks were adopted to achieve a more “dynamic, cohesive, resilient and
integrated ASEAN community”.[31]

To attain these overarching goals, the Association
adopted frameworks for an ASEAN Security Community (ASC); an ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC); and an ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC).[32]
Most relevant, however, to ASEAN’s role in conflict management is the creation
of the ASC. The ASC framework clearly establishes ASEAN’s commitment to the UN
Charter and adherence to international law, aside from reiterating the
promotion of the well-established principles of ASEAN.[33]

It is also interesting to note that to be forward
looking, ASEAN will “explore innovative ways to increase
its security and establish modalities for the ASEAN Security Community, which
include, inter alia, the following
elements: norms-setting, conflict prevention, approaches to conflict
resolution, and post-conflict peace-building”.[34] The
‘Bali Concord II’ clearly indicates
that ASEAN is determined to play a decisive role in managing conflicts in the
region.

The ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action

In late November 2004, during the 10th ASEAN Summit at
Vientiane, Laos, the Association adopted the ASEAN Security Community Plan of
Action (ASCPA). ASCPA is underpinned by the “principle of comprehensive
security” and seeks to operate on “shared norms and rules of
good conduct in inter-state relations; effective conflict prevention and
resolution mechanisms; and post-conflict peace building activities”.[35]
It should be clarified, however, that ASCPA promotes an ASEAN-wide political
and security cooperation, and not a defence pact, military alliance or joint
foreign policy.[36]
ASCPA processes are guided by ASEAN’s fundamental principles as outlined in
1967, which serves as a strong foundation of ASEAN cooperation.[37]

In particular, ASCPA displays a high degree of
continuity and adherence to principles of inter-state collaboration while strengthening
frameworks for conflict management in SEA. The ‘Plan’, which includes six components, is geared towards creating an
environment that ensures continued peace, security and stability in the region.[38]
The emphasis is on exclusive reliance to peaceful processes in settling
intra-regional differences and disputes. The ‘Plan’ also aims to achieve a standard of common adherence to norms
and good conduct among its member-states, strengthening confidence-building
measures, carrying out preventive diplomacy, resolving outstanding regional
issues and enhancing cooperation on non–traditional issues.[39]

In addition, the ‘Plan’
aims to create conditions for sustainable peace and preventing the re-emergence
of conflicts in affected areas. As part of its role in conflict resolution, ASEAN
encourages using existing regional dispute settlement mechanisms and processes
(e.g. TAC), but does not prohibit member-states to utilize national, bilateral
and international mechanisms (e.g. UN). To ensure effective implementation of ASCPA,
specific measures are envisaged – such as strengthening of the TAC regime; dispute
settlement mechanisms; and the ARF process.[40]
The development of an ASEAN Charter is also a priority of the ‘Plan’. It can be surmised that ACSPA, provides
a workable framework with which ASEAN can operate to promote and enhance its
role in managing conflicts between its member-states in SEA.

The Charter of ASEAN

One of ACSPA’s top priorities, the ASEAN Charter, was adopted
in 2007, and it entered into force on 15 December 2008. The Charter serves as a
“firm foundation in building an ASEAN community by providing ‘legal status’ and ‘institutional framework’ for ASEAN”.[41]
The ‘Charter’ not only reaffirms
well-established principles and mechanisms advocated in other key ASEAN
documents, but substantially highlights the importance of conflict management
through peaceful settlement of disputes.[42]

As a testament to ASEAN’s resolve in pursuing peaceful
settlement of disputes, Chapter VIII of the ‘Charter’ was dedicated to this end. Aside from promoting timely dialogues,
consultation and negotiation in settling disputes, Article 22 of the ‘Charter’ stipulates that ASEAN should
maintain and establish dispute settlement mechanisms in all areas of
cooperation.[43] Disputing
member-states can, likewise, resort to good office; conciliation; or mediation.[44]
Compliance with findings, recommendations or decisions resulting from these
mechanisms shall be monitored by the ASEAN Secretariat or any other designated
ASEAN body. Needless to say, the ‘Charter’
embodies aspirations for an ASEAN community that promotes “common desire and
collective will to live in a region of lasting peace, security and stability”.[45]
Essentially, these aspirations prompt ASEAN to play a decisive role in conflict
management with the ultimate objective of improving peace and security in SEA.

Conflict Management in Southeast Asia

The creation of ASEAN was primarily the result of resolute
efforts of founding member-states to establish a regional cooperation that
could provide a viable framework for conflict management.[46]
The formation manifested the original member-states’ sincere desire to handle
existing and future disputes through peaceful means, seeking to improve peace
and security in SEA. Thus far, ASEAN has been credited as “one of the most
successful experiments in regional cooperation in the developing world”.[47]
At the heart of this claim, is ASEAN’s role in “moderating intra-regional
conflicts” that has not only significantly reduced the likelihood of war, but
maintained peace in the region.[48]

International Relations Theories on Regional Cooperation

The success of ASEAN in managing disputes in the
region, particularly in the early 1990s,[49]
has led regional scholars to question ‘Western’
models of regional cooperation that advocate legalistic and formalistic
institutions.[50] These
western constructs draw on the ‘International
Relations Theories’ on ‘Realism’
and ‘Liberalism’. ‘Realists’ such as John Hertz, view international
relations as a “vicious circle of security and power accumulation as states are
driven to acquire more and more power in order to escape the impact of the
power of  others”.[51]
For ‘realists’, survival in an ‘anarchic’ international system cannot be
achieved through interdependence, but rather states are inclined to be isolationist
in character, which guides their behavior in their relations with other states.[52]

‘Liberalism’,
on the other hand, particularly ‘neo-liberalism’,
accepts the ‘realist’ premise
concerning “anarchy as a given of the international system and that cooperation
among states, while possible, arises only in response to states pursuing their
short-term self-interests.” [53]
‘Neo-liberalism’ proved influential
in the study of international organizations from late 1970s, as it advocates
interdependence and international collaboration among states.[54]
Interestingly, both ‘neo-liberalists’
and ‘neo-realists’ view international
institutions (e.g. ASEAN), as “key agents of peaceful change” that can regulate
the behavior of states – i.e. manage conflicts between states. However, ‘neo-realists’ view ‘change’ as a “consequence of shifts, often violent, in the balance
or distribution of power”.[55]
On the other hand, ‘neo-liberalists’
posit that change can “occur peacefully through international institutions”.[56]
Nonetheless, it has been argued by some scholars, that ‘constructivism’ has been the main theoretical framework for the
study of regional cooperation in SEA.[57]

The theory of ‘constructivism’
postulates that international relations is “a process of social learning and
identity formation, driven by transactions, interactions and socializations”.[58]
Like ‘realism’ and ‘liberalism’, ‘constructivism’ recognizes the “possibility of change being a
fundamentally peaceful process with its sources lying in the ‘perceptions’ and ‘identifications’ among actors – or states”. Acharya suggests that
such processes explains the propensity of states to develop cooperation and “mutual
interdependence”, which encourages states to renounce the use of force in
settling disputes between them.[59]

‘Constructivism’
advocates the idea of a ‘community’ –
the sharing of “values, norms and symbols that provide social identity” that
ultimately reflects long-term interests, such as peaceful settlement of
disputes and maintenance of peace and security in the region. Notably, ‘constructivists’ recognize the importance
of norms, particularly their impact in shaping international relations. Norms
not only “regulate state behavior”, but also, redefine state interests as well
as create state and collective identities.[60]
ASEAN, as a collection of diverse identities with shared values and norms, is
clearly a product of a ‘constructivist’
tradition.

The ‘ASEAN Way’

The ASEAN model for conflict management, otherwise known
as the ‘ASEAN Way’, is a classic
manifestation of ‘constructivism’. Characterized
by “informality and organizational minimalism” in contrast to ‘Western’ constructs’ primacy of legal
and formal institutions, the ‘ASEAN Way’
of managing disputes is regarded as vital to the success of regional
cooperation in SEA. The ‘ASEAN Way’ is
characterized by a preference to work outside the parameters of formal or
institutional frameworks in order to avoid conflict or contain it.[61]
In effect, this has led ASEAN to successfully build its own unique mechanism
for dispute settlement.[62]
Despite ASEAN’s perceived success, the organization has been widely criticized
as having a weak mandate, ineffective mechanisms, and of not playing a decisive
role in managing disputes between its member-states [63]
– an aspect that will now be explored.

This essay argues that ASEAN’s success in conflict
management can be measured by the role it has played in managing conflicts
between member-states. Several scholars suggest that ASEAN has been effective
in avoiding conflict, but has failed to resolve conflicts between its member-states.[64]
In order to objectively determine the effectiveness of ASEAN in this realm, conceptual
clarity is needed. Conflict management is a combination of three elements: Conflict
prevention or avoidance, conflict containment and conflict termination (settlement
and resolution).[65] Muthiah Alagappa distinguishes
‘conflict avoidance’ – as the
practice of not addressing specific disputes for the sake of the larger
grouping and regional stability – from ‘conflict
resolution’ as the attempt at solving the historical, diplomatic, economic
and or military origins of a particular conflict.[66]
Research suggests ASEAN has been successful in managing conflicts, particularly
between the original member-states.[67]
This does not, however, mean all conflicts were resolved or did not occur.

ASEAN’s
effectiveness in managing conflicts through ‘conflict avoidance’ was exemplified during the expansion of ASEAN
in the 1990s. The addition of new member-states ushered in new challenges, often
involving border disputes – e.g. between Thailand and Cambodia (Preah Vihear
Temple Dispute), the sovereignty disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia over Pulau
Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan or the Philippines and Malaysia (Over Sabah Island).[68]
The majority of these cases were peacefully settled bilaterally or through
dialogue with other member-states.

Bilateral
efforts were managed and facilitated by mechanisms established by ASEAN, in
particular the TAC and the ASEAN Charter.[69]
This also highlights the role of ASEAN as a facilitator rather than a
third-party mediator in the disputes. However, some member-states preferred
international arbitration (e.g. Malaysia and Singapore over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh) at the International Court of Justice when bilateral negotiations
failed or were unable to deliver amicable solutions.[70]
If success in conflict management is examined from the perspective of prevention
or avoiding member-states’ use of military might, then ASEAN can be regarded as
“impressive”, in as much as no border or sovereignty dispute has resulted in a shooting-war
since regional cooperation was established.[71]

The ‘ASEAN Way’ of peacefully managing existing
and potential disputes among member-states has indeed achieved peace, stability
and security in the region. However, even with such commendable
accomplishments, ASEAN was criticised of “sweeping the conflicts under the
carpet” rather than resolving them.[72]
Some scholars claim that these failings illustrate the limitations of ASEAN’s ‘institutional framework’ in conflict
management.[73]

Ralf
Emmers claims that ASEAN fails to resolve conflicts because of the ‘residual mistrust’ between the
member-states.[74] From
a ‘constructivist’ perspective, he
clarifies that ‘trust’ is “a belief
that the other side is trustworthy, and that is willing to reciprocate
cooperation”.[75] ‘Mistrust’, on the other hand, is a “belief
that the other side is untrustworthy, or prefers to exploit one’s cooperation”.[76]
This ‘mistrust’ has roots in deep-seated
domestic and regional circumstances. Prevalence of strategic competition,
national identities and patriotic nationalism, suspicion and historical
animosities are among those cited.[77]
Domestic interests which are driven largely by politics rather than domestic
institutions and bureaucracies are also offered as an explanation.[78]
Emmers argued that this ‘mistrust’
between the member-states essentially restricts ASEAN’s ability to address
conflicts in SEA.

Rising
above these ‘mistrusts’ will remove this
stumbling block which undermines ASEAN’s ability to resolve conflicts. It will enable
ASEAN to progress from conflict avoidance to conflict resolution. Cultivating ‘trust’ between member-states can be
challenging, but not impossible. ASEAN has in fact started to create conditions
for increased interaction through overall cooperation of member-states under
the “ASEAN-umbrella”.[79]
This is evidenced by increased conduct of ASEAN summits (twice a year), regular
consultations and dialogues, and regional military training exercises, among
others.

It
should be noted that the Association’s creation was primarily rooted in the
desire to promote better relations among its member-states. More importantly,
ASEAN can only formally act as a third-party mediator, and only has the mandate
to resolve conflicts if member-states voluntarily subscribe to its mechanisms
for conflict management. Therefore ASEAN’s effectiveness in conflict management
is considerably enhanced if member-states actively utilize these regional
mechanisms. Until then, ASEAN conflict management will only be successful in
terms of conflict avoidance and prevention rather than conflict resolution.

Conclusion

This
essay examined key ASEAN documents to provide an understanding of what ASEAN
can and cannot do in managing conflicts between its member-states. An analysis
of pertinent documents reveals that ASEAN is putting considerable effort into
promoting peaceful settlement of disputes among its members. ASEAN’s approach
was to adopt fundamental principles which create readily available mechanisms for
conflict management for member-states. The ‘ASEAN
Way’ of managing conflicts is underpinned by well-established principles of
respect for national sovereignty, non-interference in
the internal affairs of a member-state, peaceful settlement of disputes and renunciation
of the threat or use of force.

ASEAN’s institutional framework in conflict management
is inherently characterised by a preference to work outside formal or
institutional models in order to avoid or contain conflict. This led ASEAN to build
its unique mechanisms for dispute management. The ‘ASEAN Way’ manifests ‘constructivism’
through ‘constructivist’ traditions
that promotes shared norms, values, and collective identities. This explains
ASEAN’s predisposition to develop cooperation and mutual interdependence which renounces
the use of force in settling disputes.

ASEAN, thus far, can be considered successful,
particularly in its role in regional conflict avoidance or conflict prevention.
On the other hand, it can only effectively act to resolve conflicts if
member-states voluntarily subscribe to ASEAN’s prescribed mechanisms. Bilateral
disputes among member-states in the region have considerably benefited from
these processes, but have mostly fallen short of formal resolution.

‘Mistrust’
between member-states is cited as an enduring factor that undermines ASEAN’s
capacity for successful conflict management. Overcoming this challenge should
be ASEAN’s top priority, if it is determined to act decisively and maximize its
full potential in managing conflicts in the region. This is the only way that
ASEAN can truly fulfil its mandate of promoting peace, stability and security
in Southeast Asia – and beyond.

Bibliography

Acharya, Amitav.
“Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, in Constructing a Security Community in
Southeast Asia: Politics in Asia
Series, edited by Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York: Routledge,
2001).

Alagappa, Muthiah.
“Regionalism and Conflict Management: A Framework for Analysis”. Review of
International Studies 21:4 (1995): 369.

Amer, Ramses. “Expanding
ASEAN’s Conflict Management Framework in Southeast Asia: The Border Dispute
Dimension”. Asian Journal of Political
Science 6(2), 35-56.

Amer, Ramses. “Managing
Border disputes in Southeast Asia”. Kaijan
Malaysia: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Southeast Asia
XVIII(1-2). 30-60.

Amer, Ramses.
“The Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN): Conflict Management
Approach Revisited; Will the Charter Reinforce ASEAN’s role?”. Austrian
Journal of South-East Asian Studies 2:2 (2009). 6-27. at
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-362807. [Accessed
on 01 Jun 2017].

ASEAN Charter. at

http://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/publications/ASEAN-Charter.pdf.
[Accessed
on 18 Jun 2017].

ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action. at
http://asean.org/?static_post=asean-security-community-plan-of-action. [Accessed on 18
Jun 2017].

Association of
Southeast Asian Nations Website. at http://asean.org/. [Accessed on 18 Jun
2017].

Caballero-Anthony, Melly. “Mechanisms
of Dispute Settlement: The ASEAN Experience”. Contemporary Southeast Asia 20:1 (April 1998). 38-66.

Chareonwongsak,
Kriengsak, “ASEAN’s limits in conflict resolution in the region”, Presented at
the International Security in the Asia-Pacific: Beyond ASEAN-centred Security?
Nanyang Technological University, 9–10 October 2014.

Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). at http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-ii.
[Accessed
on 18 Jun 2017].

Emmers, Ralf. “Enduring Mistrust and
Conflict Management in Southeast Asia: An Assessment of ASEAN as a Security
Community.” TRaNS: Trans-Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia
5:1 (2017): 75–97. at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/trans-trans-regional-and-national-studies-of-southeast-asia/article/enduring-mistrust-and-conflict-management-in-southeast-asia-an-assessment-of-asean-as-a-security-community/.
[Accessed on 01 Jun 2017].

Hertz, John. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security
Dilemma”. World Politics 2 (January 1950): 157–180. in Acharya, Amitav.
“Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”. in Constructing a Security Community in
Southeast Asia: Politics in Asia
Series, edited by Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York: Routledge,
2001).

History: The
Founding of ASEAN. at http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/history/. [Accessed on
18 Jun 2017].

Jacob, Philip E. and Henry Teune. “The Integrative Process:
Guidelines for Analysis”. in Philip E. Jacob and James V.Toscano (eds), The
Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1964). 4. cited
in Joseph S. Nye, ‘Comparative Regional Integration: Concept and Measurement’, International
Organization 22:4 (Autumn 1968). 863. in Acharya, Amitav. “Security
Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, in Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: Politics in Asia Series, edited by
Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York: Routledge, 2001).

Jho, Whasun and
Soo A Chae. “Hegemonic Disputes and the Limits of the ASEAN Regional Forum”. Pacific Focus XXIX:2 (August 2014).
237-259.

Keohane, Robert. “International Institutions: Two
Approaches”. International Studies Quarterly 32:4 (December 1988).

Keohane, Roberto. International Institutions and State
Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 1989). in Acharya, Amitav. “Security Communities and ASEAN in
Theoretical Perspective”. in Constructing
a Security Community in Southeast Asia: Politics
in Asia Series, edited by Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York:
Routledge, 2001).

Leifer, Michael. ASEAN and the Security of South East Asia
(London: Routledge, 1989).

Miall, Hugh,
Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution.
Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999. at http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/27069970/crcc.rtf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1496170406&Signature=jo7tgfbvUL%2F02ym9zIoVEdLJQCs%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DContemporary_conflict_resolution.rtf.
[Accessed on 01 Jun 2017].

Rules of Procedure of the High Council of the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation in Southeast Asia. at
http://asean.org/?static_post=rules-of-procedure-of-the-high-council-of-the-treaty-of-amity-and-cooperation-in-southeast-asia-2.
[Accessed
on 18 Jun 2017].

Sridharan, Kripa.
“Regional Organizations and Conflict Management: Comparing ASEAN and SAARC”. Crisis States Working Papers 2:33 (March
2008). at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/research/crisisstates/download/wp/wpseries2/wp332.pdf.
[Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

The ASEAN
Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) Bangkok. 08 August 1967. at
http://asean.org/the-asean-declaration-bangkok-declaration-bangkok-8-august-1967/.
[Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

The Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, Indonesia. 24 February 1976. at http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-of-asean-concord-indonesia-24-february-1976.
[Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia. 24 February
1976. at http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/.
[Accessed
on 18 Jun 2017].

Zakaria, Haji Ahmad. “The Structure of Decision-Making”. In
Sharon Siddique and Sree Kumar (eds), The Second ASEAN Reader.
Singapore: ISEAS. (2003). in Kripa Sridharan. “Regional Organizations and
Conflict Management: Comparing ASEAN and SAARC”. Crisis States Working Papers 2:33 (March 2008). at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/research/crisisstates/download/wp/wpseries2/wp332.pdf,
[Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

---

[1] Melly Caballero-Anthony,
“Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement: The ASEAN Experience”. Contemporary
Southeast Asia 20:1 (April 1998), 39.

[2] Ramses Amer, “The Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Conflict Management Approach Revisited;
Will the Charter Reinforce ASEAN’s role?”, Austrian Journal of South-East
Asian Studies 2:2 (2009), at
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-362807. [Accessed
on 01 Jun 2017], 7.

[3] Ibid, 76.

[4] Ibid, 24.

[5] Ibid.

[6] ASEAN Key Documents: The
ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration); The Declaration of ASEAN Concord;
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation; The Rules of Procedure of the High Council of
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia; Declaration of ASEAN Concorde
II (Bali Concorde II); The ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action; and the
Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, (ASEAN Charter), in the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations Website, at http://asean.org/. [Accessed on 18 Jun
2017].

[7] The ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok
Declaration).

[8] History: The Founding of ASEAN, at http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/history/, [Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

[9] The ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok
Declaration).

[10] Ramses Amer, “The Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Conflict Management Approach Revisited; Will
the Charter Reinforce ASEAN’s role?”, 9; The Declaration of ASEAN Concord.

[11] The Declaration of ASEAN Concord.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast
Asia.

[14] Five Founding Member-states: Republic of
Indonesia, Malaysia, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Singapore, and
the Kingdom of Thailand

[15] Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast
Asia.

[16] TAC Fundamental Principles: a. Mutual respect for the independence,
sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations; b. The right of
every State to lead its national existence free from external interference,
subversion or coercion; c.
Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; d. Settlement of
differences or disputes by peaceful means; e. Renunciation of the threat or use
of force; f. Effective co-operation among themselves.

[17] Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

[18] Article 14, Chapter IV: Pacific Settlement
of Disputes, Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February
1976, at http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/, [Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

[19] Article 15, Chapter IV: Pacific Settlement
of Disputes Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24
February 1976, at http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/, [Accessed on 18 Jun 2017].

[20] Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast
Asia.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Rules of Procedure of the High Council of the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Rules of Procedure of the High Council of the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord
II).

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord
II); Jho, Whasun and Soo A Chae.
“Hegemonic Disputes and the Limits of the ASEAN Regional Forum”. Pacific Focus XXIX:2 (August 2014). 237.

[32] Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord
II).

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action.

[36] Ibid.

[37] ASEAN Fundamental Principles: Principles of
non-interference; consensus based decision-making; national and regional
resilience; respect for the national sovereignty; the renunciation of the
threat or the use of force; and peaceful settlement of differences and
disputes.

[38] Six Components ASCPA: Political
Development; Shaping and Sharing Norms; Conflict Prevention; Conflict
Resolution; Post-Conflict Peace Building; and Implementing Mechanisms.

[39] ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action

[40] Ibid.

[41] ASEAN Charter.

[42] Ramses Amer, “The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations’ (ASEAN): Conflict Management Approach Revisited; Will the Charter
Reinforce ASEAN’s role?” 25.

[43] ASEAN Charter.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ramses Amer, op. cit., 19.

[47] Amitav Acharya, “Security
Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, in Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: Politics in Asia Series, edited by
Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 5.

[48] Amitav Acharya, “Security
Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, 5.

[49] Paris Peace Agreement on Cambodia in 1991, Amitav
Acharya, “Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, 5.

[50] Ibid.

[51] John Hertz, “Idealist Internationalism and
the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, vol. 2 (January 1950), 157–180,
in Amitav Acharya, “Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”,
in Constructing a Security Community in
Southeast Asia: Politics in Asia
Series, edited by Michael Leifer, 1-14. (London and New York: Routledge,
2001), 1.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Robert Keohane, “International
Institutions: Two Approaches”, International Studies Quarterly 32:4
(December 1988); Robert Keohane, International Institutions and State Power:
Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1989), in Amitav Acharya, “Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical
Perspective”, 2.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Robert Keohane, “International Institutions:
Two Approaches”; Robert Keohane, International Institutions and State Power:
Essays in International Relations Theory, in Amitav Acharya, “Security
Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective, 2.

[56] Amitav Acharya, “Security Communities and
ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, 3.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid, 2.

[59] Philip E.Jacob and Henry Teune, “The
Integrative Process: Guidelines for Analysis”, in Philip E.Jacob and James
V.Toscano (eds), The Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1964), 4, cited in Joseph S. Nye, ‘Comparative Regional Integration:
Concept and Measurement’, International Organization 22:4 (Autumn 1968),
863, in Amitav Acharya, “Security Communities and ASEAN in Theoretical
Perspective”, 2.

[60] Amitav Acharya, “Security Communities and
ASEAN in Theoretical Perspective”, 4.

[61] Mely Caballero-Anthony, “Mechanisms for
Dispute Settlement: The ASEAN Experience”, 38.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Michael Leifer, ASEAN and the Security
of South East Asia (London: Routledge. 1989).

[64] Ralf Emmers, “Enduring Mistrust and Conflict Management
in Southeast Asia: An Assessment of ASEAN as a Security Community”, TRaNS:
Trans-Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia 5:1 (2017), at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/trans-trans-regional-and-national-studies-of-southeast-asia/article/enduring-mistrust-and-conflict-management-in-southeast-asia-an-assessment-of-asean-as-a-security-community/.
[Accessed on 01 Jun 2017], 75.

[65] Muthiah Alagappa, “Regionalism and Conflict
Management: A Framework for Analysis”, Review of International Studies 21:4
(1995): 369, in Kripa Sridharan, “Regional Organizations and Conflict Management:
Comparing ASEAN and SAARC”, Crisis States
Working Papers 2:33 (March 2008), at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/research/crisisstates/download/wp/wpseries2/wp332.pdf,
[Accessed on 18 Jun 2017], 3.

[66] Muthiah Alagappa, “Regionalism and Conflict
Management: A Framework for Analysis”, 3.

[67] Ramses Amer, “Expanding ASEAN’s Conflict
Management Framework in Southeast Asia: The Border Dispute Dimension”, Asian Journal of Political Science 6:2, 41.

[68] Ramses Amer, “Expanding ASEAN’s Conflict
Management Framework in Southeast Asia: The Border Dispute Dimension”, 35-56; Ramses
Amer, “Managing Border disputes in Southeast Asia”, Kaijan Malaysia, Journal of Malaysian Studies: Special Issue on
Conflict Management in Southeast Asia, XVIII:1-2, 30-60.

[69] Ramses Amer, “Expanding ASEAN’s Conflict Management
Framework in Southeast Asia: The Border Dispute Dimension”, 35-56; Ramses Amer,
“Managing Border disputes in Southeast Asia”, 30-60.

[70] Ibid, 41.

[71] Ramses Amer, “The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations’ (ASEAN): Conflict Management Approach Revisited; Will the
Charter Reinforce ASEAN’s role?”, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian
Studies 2:2 (2009), at
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-362807. [Accessed on 01 Jun 2017], 19.

[72] Haji Ahmad
Zakaria, “The Structure of Decision-Making”, in Sharon Siddique and Sree Kumar
(eds), The Second ASEAN Reader. Singapore: ISEAS (2003); in Kripa Sridharan,
“Regional Organizations and Conflict Management: Comparing ASEAN and SAARC”, Crisis States Working Papers, 2:33
(March 2008), at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/research/crisisstates/download/wp/wpseries2/wp332.pdf,
[Accessed
on 18 Jun 2017].

[73] Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, “ASEAN’s limits
in conflict resolution in the region”, Presented at the International Security
in the Asia-Pacific: Beyond ASEAN-centred Security? Nanyang Technological
University, 9–10 October 2014.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid, 76.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ralf Emmers, “Enduring Mistrust and Conflict Management
in Southeast Asia: An Assessment of ASEAN as a Security Community”, 94.

[79] Ramses Amer, “The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations’ (ASEAN): Conflict Management Approach Revisited; Will the
Charter Reinforce ASEAN’s role?”, 24.