Why are ASEAN institutions weak and informal? Is this likely to change?

Résumé du document

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is generally viewed as the most successful inter-governmental organization in the developing world. This association has grown over the year to include all the countries in Southeast Asia, except the newly independent East Timor. Today, the ASEAN region has a population of about 500 million, a combined gross domestic product of almost 700 billion dollars and a total trade of about 850 billion dollars. The fact remains, however, that multilateral projects have progressed slowly. According to many commentators and analysts, despite ASEAN's undeniable success in international forums, regionalism appears to have fossilized at the initial stages and some hopeful beginnings have even decayed.

Extraits

[...] Indorf, Hans H., Impediment To Regionalism In Southeast Asia, ASEAN Economic Research Unit (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1984). Funston, John, “Challenges Facing ASEAN in a More Complex Contemporary Southeast Asia, vil.21 no.2. (August 1999). Pg Funston, John, “ASEAN: Out of Its Contemporary Southeast Asia, vil.20 no.1. (April 1998). Pg Khoman, Thanat, “ASEAN: Conception and Evolution”, ASEAN Official Website. www.aseansec.org/1814.htm Michael, E. Jones, “Forging an ASEAN identity: The Challenge to Construct a Shared Destiny”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol.26 no.1. (2004) Pp. 140-154. Milne, R.S., “Technocrats and Politics in the ASEAN countries”, Pacific Affairs, vol.55. no.3. (Fall 1982). [...]

[...] Michael Wesley, Asian Crisis and the Adequacy of Regional Institutions”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol no (April 1999). pp. 54-74. Narine Shaune, Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia, (Boulder, Colorado and London: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2002). 237pp. Pierre Gramegna, “European and ASEAN Integration Processes: Similar Models?” Presentations Made at a UNU Public Forum on 8 May 1997 at the United Nations University Tokyo, Japan. Quoted at www.unu.edu/unupress/lecture18.html [vii] Ibid. [viii] Ibid. Ibid. Shaune, “State Sovereignty, Political Legitimacy and Regional Institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific”. [...]

[...] The ASEAN fundamental principles adopted in 1976 are even more conspicuous to explain the institutional weakness of the organization. They assert a right of “mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of all nations”, right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion”, and a commitment of “non-interference in the internal affairs of one another”. This vision of regional order strongly emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty and suggests a focus on consensus-building, non-confrontational and non-binding structures. [...]

[...] And as the founding fathers had wished and anticipated, bringing the economies of the countries together fostered political cooperation[ix]. The creation of ASEAN was of a completely different nature. The external threat of expanding communism seems to have been one of the major reasons cementing the need of cooperation for the five founding members of ASEAN[x]. The motivation came from external factors and they were of a political nature whereas the European integration was generated by the wish to overcome lasting contention amongst the founding members. [...]

[...] 195-220. Shaune, Narine. “State Sovereignty, Political Legitimacy and Regional Institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific”. The Pacific Review, vol no (2004). Pp. 423-450. Wesley, Michael. Asian Crisis and the Adequacy of Regional Institutions”. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol no (April 1999). Pp. 54-74. ASEAN Official Website. [...]