Habits of peace: Long-term regional cooperation in Southeast Asia

Abstract

The nation-states that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are widely described to be peaceful in their relations with each other, so much so that scholars have referred to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ “long peace.” While it is true that war eludes the region, interstate militarized disputes remain a persistent feature. How can we account for the absence of war between Association of Southeast Asian Nations members in light of persistent militarized disputes? To address this question, this article builds on the emerging International Relations literature on habits and practice in interstate relations. I develop a framework centred on the habitual dispositions of communities of practitioners that focuses on the unreflexive cognitive and behavioural qualities of regional relations. These “habits of peace” circumscribe thinking and behaviour among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ state practitioners. Specifically, they have led to a toleration of limited violence among Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states. After tracing the existence of these habitual qualities of relations, I demonstrate their effects on regional crisis response, which makes possible community building and maintenance alongside considerable levels of interstate violence. I explore this through an in-depth analysis of the regional response to the 2011 Preah Vihear crisis between Cambodia and Thailand.

Intervention and state strength: Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Economic Community of West African States compared

“…First of all, intrusiveness or interventionism of ROs is evaluated from a comparative point of view. Hence, I am more interested in comparing the relative intrusiveness of the ASEAN and the ECOWAS at a given moment than in tracing changes in the ASEAN over time (Glas, 2017; Martel, 2020).…”

“…It suggests that “radical change can only occur in moments of extreme social dislocation when external shocks reveal the limitation of old ways of doing things” (Davies, 2016: 227). Presenting ASEAN habits as informal dialogue, face-saving, and consensus, Glas also points out that “habits and practices are more robust, more resilient and more consequential for stability in social relations than are consciously referenced norms of appropriate behavior” (Glas, 2017: 836). A shared belief about SS shapes such a character of habits and practices, resists changes, unless strong structural changes or a crisis trigger its fundamental shifts.…”

W(h)ither the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)? W(h)ither constructivism? Fixity of norms and the ASEAN Way

“…The ASEAN Way is therefore a process explaining how ASEAN members interact and this process comes to inform the practice of member states' diplomats and the staff in the ASEAN Secretariat. 54 It has become so deeply embedded that its component parts are constitutive norms for ASEAN. 55 In essence, a modus operandi that enables states that, for the most part, freed themselves from a controlling colonial power to create an institution that does not replace that colonial power with a supranational organisation that could also impinge on their independence.…”

Toward Active Reflexivity: Positionality and Practice in the Production of Knowledge

“…How should scholars recognize and respond to the complexities of positionality during the research process? We approach this question through our experiences as qualitative researchers conducting interviews for very different projects: Jessica investigating conflict involving very small groups (Soedirgo 2018) and Aarie exploring governance practices within regional organizations (Glas 2017;. Despite our academic appreciation of positionality, we both found it difficult to incorporate its dynamism into our research.…”