ASEAN's ways: A study on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the regional idea in the politics of Southeast Asia

Despite recent troubles, the stability and strength of political relations among the member-states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continue to contrast against the conflict, fragmentation, and instability that characterized pre-ASEAN Southeast Asia. Since its formation in 1967, ASEAN and its activities have defined and given substance to a region that was barely visible 40 years ago, yet it continues to be neglected by theorists of international relations. I argue that ASEAN's neglect stems from a theoretical focus on hegemony and formal constraints that has limited applicability for a group characterized by little formal institution and an emphasis on collective process over centralized coordinated action. In the absence of common threat perception and formal institutional mechanisms, ASEAN's ability to stabilize and define the politics of Southeast Asia for over 30 years presents an important theoretical puzzle for both neorealist and neo-institutionalist scholars of international relations.; In its examination of regionalism in Southeast Asia, this study investigates ASEAN's efforts in both security and trade realms, as well its historical interest in creating a more representative Southeast Asian organization. From interviews and qualitative analysis, I demonstrate how global flux, especially hegemonic recession, creates both grounds for reflection and windows of opportunity for regional initiative, but that such extra-regional factors provide only limited explanations for regionalism in Southeast Asia. I argue that ASEAN regionalism, both its form and substance, can only be explained by considering the role played by the idea of region as a mechanism of both coordination and constraint, and the historical circumstances that have given that idea its meaning and political/social significance. In both security and economic realms, ASEAN illustrates how the regional idea has shaped behavior, expanded and limited realms of action, and also defined regional relationships as part of a collective response to Southeast Asia's insecurity at all levels of its politics.