Search

The first Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) came into force on December 15, 2008. Its proponents and several officials involved in its drafting have described the Charter as 'transformative', and as heralding a 'new era' for ASEAN. However, not everyone agrees with this assessment. The Charter is a distinct disappointment to some observers and analysts, who have described it as 'toothless' and a 'letdown'. Why were their expectations not met? Were they reasonable in the first place? This paper assesses the varied analyses of the Charter, which reflect different visions of ASEAN's future. I focus on the Charter's references to the principles of democracy and human rights and to increased 'institutionalization' of ASEAN, and consider the criticism that has followed the its adoption. The criticism is borne in part of frustrated expectations, which had been raised by early discussions about the Charter and in particular, by the 'bold and visionary' recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG). These expectations were deflated following the 'watering down' of these recommendations in the adopted text. However, this does not necessarily suggest that the Charter should be dismissed as insignificant. It indicates that certain principles, including democracy and human rights, are 'on the agenda' for dialogue and debate. Sovereignty and non-interference undoubtedly remain important to Southeast Asian governments. However, security and humanitarian challenges in recent years - particularly in Myanmar - provoke both instrumental and normative motivations to at least 'open space' for debate about the possibility of institutional and normative change. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the emergence and evolution of norms within regional institutions. There has been increasing attention in recent years to 'socialization': the process through which actors are inducted to the norms and rules of a given community. But what of regional institutional settings in which norms are in flux? The emerging literature does not, thus far, explore the possibility of socialization processes at work in the context of normative change and contestation. I focus on emerging norms of appropriate governance in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Such norms are more readily associated with regional groupings that have a higher proportion of democratic members, and are characterized by higher levels of institutionalization and legalism (such as the European Union). ASEAN may appear to be a 'least likely' case, given its significant political heterogeneity, low levels of institutionalization and legalism, and the apparent incongruity with existing norms (in particular, mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in member states' internal affairs). However, I argue that the processes through which 'new' norms emerge (or through which 'norm entrepreneurs' attempt to precipitate normative change) can also be conceptualized as processes of socialization, broadly conceived. I focus on a specific period leading up to the adoption of the ASEAN Charter. This encompasses the processes through which a norm evolves from an idea to being accepted (or ultimately not accepted) in agreed-upon text. I then discuss the literature on socialization in international institutions, and how it may be somewhat reoriented to provide an analytical framework within which we can explore cases of normative change. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the dynamics of interstate cooperation within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since the 1997 Asian economic crisis, enthusiasm for ASEAN's model of regional cooperation has waned. Critics have questioned its efficacy and legitimacy, arguing it is merely a façade constructed by self-interested states. They refute the notion that it is a 'security community', given member states' apparent lack of compliance with ASEAN norms. However, such criticism is flawed, as it tends to rely on the notion that ASEAN's normative context is static. In contrast, this paper demonstrates the ongoing evolution of ASEAN's norms, focusing on the case study of Burma's membership. ASEAN has grappled with how to encourage political reform in Burma given the norm of non-interference, which requires refraining from public criticism. Recently, however, the founding member states appear increasingly willing to criticise Burma's repressive military regime. Such behaviour is incongruent with non-interference, but does not necessarily demonstrate ASEAN's lack of credibility or effectiveness; rather, it indicates a reinterpretation of its norms. Member states exhibit an enhanced concern with ASEAN's image that may indicate an emerging 'collective identity' and community-building process. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The provisions of the ASEAN Charter, and earlier documents imply that ASEAN is starting to engage in closer scrutiny of the domestic affairs of its member states. This raises the prospect of a fundamental reinterpretation of the core ASEAN principle of ‘ ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the dynamics of interstate cooperation within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since the 1997 Asian economic crisis, enthusiasm for ASEAN's model of regional cooperation has waned. Critics have questioned its efficacy and legitimacy, arguing it is merely a façade constructed by self-interested states. They refute the notion that it is a 'security community', given member states' apparent lack of compliance with ASEAN norms. However, such criticism is flawed, as it tends to rely on the notion that ASEAN's normative context is static. In contrast, this paper demonstrates the ongoing evolution of ASEAN's norms, focusing on the case study of Burma's membership. ASEAN has grappled with how to encourage political reform in Burma given the norm of non-interference, which requires refraining from public criticism. Recently, however, the founding member states appear increasingly willing to criticise Burma's repressive military regime. Such behaviour is incongruent with non-interference, but does not necessarily demonstrate ASEAN's lack of credibility or effectiveness; rather, it indicates a reinterpretation of its norms. Member states exhibit an enhanced concern with ASEAN's image that may indicate an emerging 'collective identity' and community-building process. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]