ASEAN Decision-Making Process: Before and after the ASEAN Charter

Abstract

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has long presented IR theorists with a paradox. This is due to the fact that it survived decades of intra-mural conflicts without having provided member states with any of the benefits that justify regional institutional arrangements in Europe. Current debate over the association's effectiveness centers on ASEAN's informal, strictly intergovernmental decision-making process, generally referred to as the 'ASEAN Way'. Supporters credit it with having prevented intra-regional conflicts from escalating into open war by building confidence among member states; while critics regard endurance of this sovereignty-centered decision-making process as a fundamental obstacle to regional integration and emphasize the significant costs it entails. Notwithstanding widespread recognition of the essential role the ASEAN decision-making process plays in explaining regional cooperation, scholars seldom went beyond presenting the various formal and informal procedures, examining their consequences in relation to specific aspects of cooperation, or acknowledging their role in serving the interests of governments. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth assessment of the evolution of regional decision-making actors and practices and examine the extent of the changes provided for by the ASEAN Charter. It looks at the role these practices play in achieving the objectives member governments set for the association, and finds that the basic policy-making cycle negotiated in late 1960searly 1970s has been reinforced by subsequent institutional changes. The conclusion discusses implications of the continued relevance of this process to fulfilling ASEAN objectives.

ASEAN Consensus and Forming Cybersecurity Regulation in Southeast Asia

“…Since the ratification of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, this function has played a critical role. The Secretary-General is in charge of overseeing the implementation of ASEAN policies that have been ratified by each member country [35]. This function is consistent with the concept of international organizations as confederation-based policymaking.…”

“…Following the 2008 ASEAN Charter, there are differences in the consensus mechanism for reaching an agreement within ASEAN. Following the ratification of the charter in 2008, ASEAN adopted the formulas "ASEAN minus X" and "X+2" [35]. This formula is used by the ASEAN organization to speed up integration among its member countries.…”

“…In the "ASEAN minus X" formula, each country can adopt the agreement's results based on its own readiness and conditions. In the "X+2" formula, ASEAN policies can be implemented if more than two countries agree to them [35]. Following the 2008 ASEAN Charter, the mechanism for achieving ASEAN consensus is more formal than before.…”

“…In contrast to the post-2008 period, ASEAN employs regional sub-organizations as a consensusbuilding mechanism [35]. The ASEAN Summit is an important ASEAN sub-organism for promoting consensus.…”

Same Principles but Different Outcomes of SAARC and ASEAN: Searching Gap

“…For instance, ASEAN Free Trade Area was set up by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, whereas comparatively less developed countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam were granted more time to enforce the reforms which were essential to participate. In case of a deadlock like a diversity of opinions and interests among governing leaders, along with unresolved territorial disputes and political differences, member has option to bilateral negotiations (Feraru, 2015). Thus consensus decisions are reached at through consultations between governments.…”