Southeast asian regionalism and global governance: “multilateral utility” or “hedging utility”?

Contemporary Southeast Asia

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 83-112

  Rüland, Jürgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

ASEAN; Global governance; Multilateralism; Regionalism

Indexed keywords

EID: 85055458779     PISSN: 0129797X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1355/cs33-1d     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the conference “Comprehensive Security in the Asia-Pacific Region” jointly organized by the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation, Keio University, Tokyo, and the Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA) in Tokyo and at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore. The author expresses his gratitude to the organizers and the participants for their useful comments. The manuscript also benefited from discussions with colleagues of the Freiburg Southeast Asia Area Studies Program supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and valuable comments from two anonymous reviewers. The National University of Singapore-Stanford University Distinguished Scholarship for Southeast Asia and the Freiburg Institute of Advanced Studies (FRIAS History) provided the author with the time for writing the article. This opportunity is gratefully acknowledged.
2. See UN Resolution 60/1, “World Summit Outcome 2005”, 16 September 2005, .
3. Anja Jetschke, “Institutionalizing ASEAN: Celebrating Europe through Network Governance”, Cambridge Review of International Relations 22, no. 3 (2009): 407–26.
4. Ian Manners, “Normative Power Europe: A contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 2 (2002): 235–58.
5. Jürgen Rüland, “Balancers, Multilateral Utilities or Regional Identity Builders? International Relations and the Study of Interregionalism”, Journal of European Public Policy 17, no. 8 (December 2010): 1268–80.
6. John Gerard Ruggie, “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution”, International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 571.
7. Christopher M. Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism: Toward a Theory of Multilateral Utility”, Asian Survey 44, no. 2 (2004): 213–36.
8. Christopher M. Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism: Toward a Theory of Multilateral Utility”, Asian Survey 44, no. 2 (2004): pp. 221, 224, 229.
9. Michael I. Barnett and Raymond Duvall, “Power in International Politics”, International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39–77.
10. Barnett and Duvall, “Power in International Politics”, op. cit., p. 40.
11. Robert A. Pape, “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, International Security 30, no. 1 (2005): 46–71; Kai He and Huiyun Feng, “If Not Soft Balancing, Then What? Reconsidering Soft Balancing and U.S. Policy Toward China”, Security Studies 17, no. 2 (2008): 363–95.
12. Kai He, “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies”, European Journal of International Relations 14, no. 3 (2008): 379–404.
13. Evelyn Goh, “Understanding Hedging in Asia-Pacific Security”, PacNet 43, 31 August 2006 ; Kuik Cheng-Chwee, “The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China”, Contemporary Southeast Asia 30, no. 2 (2008): 159–85.
14. He, “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory”, op. cit.
15. Martin Wagener, “Hedging in Südostasien? Außenpolitische Präferenzen der ASEAN-Staaten zwischen China und den USA”, in Ostasien in der Globalisierung, edited by Hanns W. Maull and Martin Wagener (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2009), pp. 249–74.
16. Kuik, “The Essence of Hedging”, op. cit.
17. Goh, “Understanding Hedging”, op. cit.; Kuik, “The Essence of Hedging”, op. cit.
18. Kuik, “The Essence of Hedging”, op. cit.
19. Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism”, op. cit.
20. Kal Raustiala, “Form and Substance in International Agreements”, The American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (2005): 581.
21. Kenneth W. Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal, “The Concept of Legalization”, International Organization 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–19.
22. He, “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory”, op. cit.
23. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, 2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1989).
24. Barnett and Duvall, “Power in International Politics”, op. cit.
25. Pape, “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, op. cit.
26. David A. Lake, “Global Governance: A Relational Contracting Approach”, in Globalization and Governance, edited by Aseem Prakash and Jeffrey A. Hart (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), pp. 31–53.
27. Ruth Zimmerling, Externe Einflüsse auf die Integration von Staaten. Zur politikwissenschaftlichen Theorie regionaler Zusammenschlüsse (Freiburg and Munich: Alber, 1991).
28. Vinod K. Aggarwal, “Analyzing Institutional Transformation in the Asia-Pacific”, in Asia-Pacific Crossroads: Regime Creation and the Future of APEC, edited by Vinod K. Aggarwal and Charles E. Morrison (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1998); see also Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism”, op. cit., pp. 221, 227.
29. See also International Relations in Southeast Asia: Between Bilateralism and Multilateralism, edited by N. Ganesan and Ramses Amer (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010).
30. Sorpong Peou, “The Subsidiarity Model of Global Governance in the UN-ASEAN Context”, Global Governance 4, no. 4 (1998): 440.
31. Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism”, op. cit.
32. Alan Dupont, “ASEAN’s Response to the East Timor Crisis”, Australian Journal of International Affairs 54, no. 2 (2004): 166.
33. Gerald Segal, “Thinking Strategically about ASEM: The Subsidiarity Question”, The Pacific Review 10, no. 1 (1997): 124–34.
34. Jürgen Rüland, “Interregionalism: An Unfinished Agenda”, in Interregionalism and International Relations, edited by Heiner Hänggi, Ralf Roloff, and Jürgen Rüland (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 295–313.
35. Shepard Forman and Derk Segaar, “New Coalitions for Global Governance: The Changing Dynamics of Multilateralism”, Global Governance 12, no. 2 (2006): 213.
36. Barnett and Duvall, “Power in International Politics”, op. cit., p. 55.
37. Barnett and Duvall, “Power in International Politics”, op. cit., p. 51.
38. John M. Cohen and Norman T. Uphoff, “Participation’s Place in Rural Development: Seeking Clarity through Specificity”, World Development 8, no. 2 (1980): 213–35.
39. Thomas Risse, “‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics”, International Organization 54, no. 1 (2000): 1–39.
40. Frank Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 194–228.
41. Frank Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 211; Risse, “Let’s Argue!”, op. cit., p. 9.
42. The exception is “competitive argumentation” a sub-type of “rhetorical action” in which the actors accept the warrant, that is, “the kinds of grounds that are admissible and suitable to accept a claim” [or a norm], whereby “the grounds themselves [….] are disputed”. Consensus about the validity of norms opens up opportunities for mutual persuasion which in some instances may trigger a wholesale normative transformation, but more frequently only leads to limited concessions by the norm recipients in the form of fusing the new norms with the normative orthodoxy. See Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, op. cit., p. 211.
43. The exception is “competitive argumentation” a sub-type of “rhetorical action” in which the actors accept the warrant, that is, “the kinds of grounds that are admissible and suitable to accept a claim” [or a norm], whereby “the grounds themselves [….] are disputed”. Consensus about the validity of norms opens up opportunities for mutual persuasion which in some instances may trigger a wholesale normative transformation, but more frequently only leads to limited concessions by the norm recipients in the form of fusing the new norms with the normative orthodoxy. See Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, op. cit., p. 211.
44. Kavi Chongkittavorn, “ASEAN’s Future: Top-Down, Bottom-Up or Something in Between”, The Nation, 23 August 2007 .
45. Alan Collins, “A People-Oriented ASEAN: A Door Ajar or Closed for Civil Society Organizations?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 30, no. 2 (2008): 319.
46. “Binding ASEAN”, Jakarta Post, 22 November 2007.
47. David Martin Jones and M.L.R. Smith, “Making Process, Not Progress: ASEAN and the Evolving East Asian Regional Order”, International Security 32, no. 1 (2007): 148–84; Anja Jetschke and Jürgen Rüland, “Decoupling Rhetoric and Practice: The Cultural Limits of ASEAN Cooperation”, The Pacific Review 22, no. 2 (2008): 179–203.
48. See ASEAN Charter, Article 21(2) .
49. Personal interview, 1 March 2010.
50. See, for instance, opinioned newspaper articles of Rizal Sukma and Jusuf Wanandi in the Jakarta Post during the ratification process of the ASEAN Charter in the Indonesian legislature.
51. For a nuanced assessment of ASEAN’s dispute settlement mechanism see Eugene K.B. Tan, “The ASEAN Charter as ‘Legs to Go Places’: Ideational Norms and Pragmatic Legalism in Community Building in Southeast Asia”, Singapore Yearbook of International Law 12 (2008): 171–98.
52. “AICHR: ASEAN’s Journey to Human Rights”, Jakarta Post, 11 January 2010.
53. See also Deepak Nair, “Do Stated Goals Matter? Regional Institutions in East Asia and the Dynamic of Unstated Goals”, Working Paper No. 199, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, 7 June 2010 .
54. Jürgen Rüland, “ASEAN and the Asian Crisis: Theoretical and Practical Consequences for Southeast Asian Regionalism”, The Pacific Review 13, no. 3 (2000): 421–51.
55. Markus Hund, “ASEAN Plus Three: Towards a New Age of Pan-East Asian Regionalism? A Skeptic‘s Appraisal”, The Pacific Review 16, no. 3 (2003): 383–417; Rizal Sukma, “Indonesia’s Response to China’s Rise: Growing Comfort amid Uncertainties”, in The Rise of China: Responses from Southeast Asia and Japan, edited by Jun Tsunekawa (Tokyo: The National Institute for Defense Studies, 2009), p. 153.
56. “ASEAN to bring in US as counterbalance to China”, Jakarta Post, 29 October 2010 .
57. John Ravenhill, APEC and the Construction of Pacific Regionalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
58. He, “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory”, op. cit.
59. Rodolfo C. Severino, Southeast Asia in Search of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary-General (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006).
60. Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi bin Abdul Razak, “Facing Unfair Criticisms”, in The Making of the ASEAN Charter, edited by Tommy Koh, Rosario G. Manalo, and Walter Woon (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2009), p. 22. Interview information, 1 March 2010.
61. See “European Union provides US$9.7m for ASEAN integration process”, Jakarta Post, 7 June 2007 and Joint Communiqué of the 42nd ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, “Acting Together to Cope with Global Challenges”, Phuket, Thailand, 20 July 2009, Point 50 . See also Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Indonesia in ASEAN: Foreign Policy and Regionalism (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1994), p. 105.
62. John Ravenhill, “Fighting Irrelevance: An Economic Community ‘with ASEAN Characteristics’”, The Pacific Review 21, no. 4 (2008): 469–88.
63. “The 4th UN-ASEAN Conference”, 24–25 February 2004 ; “UN, ASEAN sign cooperation agreement”, Jakarta Post, 29 September 2009 .
64. See “Asean apathy: Indonesia proposes a regional peacekeeping force, but neighbors show little interest”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 6 May 2004, p. 19.
65. This assessment should not obscure that on an individual basis, ASEAN countries have regularly contributed troops to UN peacekeeping missions. Indonesia alone has contributed to over thirty missions.
66. “RI tells neighbors not to internationalize haze issue”, Jakarta Post, 25 August 2009 .
67. “UN council to take up Thai-Cambodian dispute over territory surrounding ancient temple”, Jakarta Post, 24 July 2008 .
68. Dent, “The Asia-Europe Meeting and Interregionalism”, op. cit.
69. Jürgen Haacke, “The War on Terror: Implications for the ASEAN Region”, in Asia-Pacific Economic and Security Cooperation: New Regional Agendas, edited by Christopher M. Dent (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2003), pp. 113–35.
70. Shaun Narine, Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002).
71. Shaun Narine, Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002).; Jürgen Haacke, ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects (London: Routledge-Curzon, 2003).
72. Michael Leifer, “The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake”, The Pacific Review 12, no. 1 (1999): 25–38.
73. See in particular the Singapore Declaration on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment, 21 November 2007 .
74. Hiro Katsumata, “Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing a ‘Talk Shop’ or a ‘Norm Brewery?’”, The Pacific Review 19, no. 2 (2006): 181–98; Alice Ba, (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), p. 5.
75. A point made by a participant at the presentation of an earlier version of the article at the Institute of Southeast Asian Affairs (ISEAS), Singapore, 1 March 2010.
76. Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2009).
77. Timo Kivimäki, “Power, Interest or Culture: Is there a Paradigm that Explains ASEAN’s Political Role Best?”, The Pacific Review 21, no. 4 (2008): 431–50.
78. Richard Stubbs, “The ASEAN Alternative? Ideas, Institutions and the Challenge to ‘Global Governance’”, The Pacific Review 21, no. 4 (2008): 451–68.
79. See, for instance, the Indonesian “Ganyang Malaysia” campaigns surrounding the Ambalat conflict. “Bertaruh di Ambalat”, Tempo Interaktif, 14 March 2005 and “Pemuda Bojonegoro Dirikan Posko Ganyang Malaysia”, 3 September 2010.
80. Based on Freedom House, Freedom in the World, Survey Release .
81. Mely Caballero-Anthony, “Non-State Regional Governance Mechanisms for Economic Security”, in Globalization and Economic Security in East Asia: Governance and Institutions, edited by Helen E.S. Nesadurai (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), pp. 218–34; A. Collins, “A People-Oriented ASEAN”, op. cit.
82. The Arthasastra is an ancient Indian political treatise which preaches realpolitik and how a ruler may become a great conqueror.
83. Benedict R.O.G. Anderson, “The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture”, in Culture and Politics in Indonesia, edited by Claire Holt (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1972), pp. 1–69; for a critique, see among others, Anthony Reid, “Political ‘Tradition’ in Indonesia: The One and the Many”, Asian Studies Review 22, no. 1 (1998): 23–38.
84. Kuik, “The Essence of Hedging”, op. cit., p. 171.
85. Anderson, “The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture”, op. cit.
86. Anderson, “The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture”, op. cit. p. 15.
87. Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, op. cit.