Focusing on ASEAN’s relevance as a regional security organisation, this study aims to expound the prevailing driving forces, interests and obstacles to an effective crisis management.
Drawing on the theoretical background of neo-realist and constructivist approaches, the paper argues that neither the neo-realist nor the constructivist approach is able to fully conceptualise ASEAN’s role in regional security.
While only an eclectic, multi-dimensional approach grasps the variety of its multiple facets, the latter seems to be highly contingent on the interplay of external structural and internal sociological dynamics. While the organisation appears in this out sketched context as a relatively important player in times of political and economic stability, having its merits in conflict-preventive measures through the building of trust and the construction of a common identity, the regime shows strong enervations in times of crisis.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction: Conceptualising ASEAN
II. ASEAN in theoretical perspective
2.1 ASEAN as a powerless imitation community: The Neo-realist perspective
2.2 ASEAN as an “emergent security community”: The Social Constructivist Perspective
III. ASEAN’s role in regional conflicts
3.1 ASEAN’s emerging role in intra-regional security in the Cold War Context: The lessons from Konfrontasi
3.2 ASEAN’s role in extra-regional conflict management in the Cold War context: The Cambodian conflict
3.3 ASEAN’s intra-regional security role in the Post-Cold War context: The South China Sea disputes
IV. Concluding Remarks
V. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This study investigates the relevance of ASEAN as a regional security organization by examining whether neo-realist or constructivist theories are better suited to conceptualize its role, ultimately arguing for an eclectic, multi-dimensional approach to understand its performance in various geopolitical contexts.
- Theoretical debate between neo-realism and social constructivism in international relations.
- ASEAN's organizational structure and its effectiveness in conflict management.
- Case study analysis of the Konfrontasi period, the Cambodian conflict, and the South China Sea disputes.
- The influence of internal sociological dynamics versus external structural power patterns.
- The challenges of maintaining regional stability during crises compared to periods of political stability.
Excerpt from the Book
I. Introduction: Conceptualising ASEAN
One of the most salient facets of the Third great debate between positivist and post-positivist scholars in International Relations has been the conspicuous rise of social constructivism in the study of international security, ousting institutional liberalism as the most serious defier to balance-of-power realism since the end of the Cold War. Due to their often diametrically divergent theoretical apprehensions of principal agencies, constitutive structures and basic modes of the international security system, these approaches provide highly differing accounts of the decisive determinants for regional stability. Touching thereby the core issue of order in International Relations, this controversy has found its particular expression in the highly divergent conceptualisations of the character and role of institutions in general and multilateral regional security regimes in particular.
While constructivists emphasise their role as crucial platforms for inter subjective interactions, able to change the self-perception of threats, interests and norms, neo-realists dismiss the power of multilateral security regimes, emphasising instead the need for strong balance-of-power alliances as best guarantors for peace within a persistently anarchic international “Self-Help” system.
Witnessing a long period of relative regional stability within a dual security framework, which combines an (implicit) regional security arrangement - the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - with bilateral great power alliances, Southeast Asia provides in this context a very fruitful case study for the empirical validation of both theoretical strands.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Conceptualising ASEAN: This chapter introduces the theoretical controversy between neo-realism and constructivism regarding the role of regional security institutions and outlines the study's goal to analyze ASEAN within this framework.
II. ASEAN in theoretical perspective: This section details the conflicting interpretations of ASEAN, contrasting the neo-realist view of a "powerless imitation community" with the constructivist perspective of an "emergent security community."
III. ASEAN’s role in regional conflicts: This chapter provides three distinct case studies—Konfrontasi, the Cambodian conflict, and the South China Sea disputes—to evaluate ASEAN's practical capabilities and limitations in conflict management.
IV. Concluding Remarks: The final chapter argues that neither theory alone is sufficient, proposing that an eclectic approach is necessary to understand ASEAN's role in shifting regional security dynamics.
V. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources and literature used to support the theoretical arguments and case study analyses.
Keywords
ASEAN, Neo-realism, Social Constructivism, Regional Security, Southeast Asia, International Relations, Conflict Management, Konfrontasi, Cambodian Conflict, South China Sea, Regional Identity, Security Community, Balance of Power, Multilateralism, Non-interference.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of ASEAN as a regional security organization and determining which theoretical framework—neo-realism or constructivism—better explains its behavior and influence.
What are the primary theoretical approaches analyzed?
The study specifically analyzes neo-realist perspectives, which emphasize structural power and material interests, and constructivist perspectives, which focus on normative convergence, identity building, and social interactions.
What is the central research question?
The research seeks to answer two questions: Does ASEAN actually matter as a regional security organization, and which of the two dominant theories is more appropriate for conceptualizing its role and power?
What research methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative case study methodology, evaluating ASEAN's actions across three specific historical periods: the post-Konfrontasi era, the Cambodian conflict, and the South China Sea disputes.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body examines the theoretical debate, presents the three historical case studies to test these theories, and assesses the association's successes and failures in crisis management.
Which keywords best describe this work?
Key terms include ASEAN, neo-realism, constructivism, regional security, identity building, conflict management, and the "ASEAN Way."
How does the author interpret the Mischief Reef incident?
The author views the Mischief Reef incident as a demonstration of ASEAN’s weakness in crises, noting that the organization was unable to form a collective response to China due to internal divisions and conflicting national interests.
What does the author conclude about the "ASEAN Way"?
The author argues that the "ASEAN Way," based on non-interference and consensus, is an effective instrument for building trust in stable times but serves as an obstacle to rapid, efficient action during acute security crises.
Is the author arguing for one theory over the other?
No, the author concludes that neither theory is sufficient on its own and suggests that an eclectic, multi-dimensional approach is required to account for ASEAN's complex role as a "moving target" in international relations.
- Quote paper
- Peter Goldschagg (Author), 2007, Does ASEAN matter? Reconciling realist and constructivist approaches to regional security in Southeast Asia , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/73838
