ABSTRACT
This chapter examines bilateral tensions between ASEAN member states.1 It may appear odd at the outset that bilateralism is examined in the context of or in relation to multilateralism. However, it may be noted that bilateral relations between ASEAN member countries have often predated multilateralism. In fact, it remains true up until now that bilateralism is the avenue of choice among ASEAN countries, especially in dealing with sensitive issues or those that have the potential to lead to the significant deterioration of ties. Such relations are not only historically embedded but form the core component of the foreign policy output of regional states. In fact, multilateralism exists in relation to bilateralism albeit both relations have an interactive effect on each other. Multilateralism is also often practiced by many ASEAN countries within the framework of what has come to be called “forum shopping” in the international relations literature.2 In many ways, the dynamics between both relations are inseparable since the state of one impinges on the other and vice versa. Additionally, states tend to utilize a number of fora for critical policy output. This layered approach also results in a natural dynamic between bilateral and multilateral institutions. Organizationally, this chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section
examines four sets of bilateral relationships that are representative of Southeast Asia. All four sets of relations are dense and often prone to hiccups. Historically, other bilateral relationships like those between Vietnam and Thailand and Thailand and Cambodia have been much more prone to hiccups. However, after the conclusion of the Third Indochina War in 1989, tensions between Vietnam and Thailand have abated significantly. And notwithstanding the Thai-Cambodian spat over the Preah Vihear Temple Complex in 2008, relations are generally kept on an even keel. Both countries were undergoing important transitions in domestic politics and therefore the situation became significantly exaggerated. The second section offers some insights into bilateralism in general in the region and its implications in turn for dispute resolution and regional organizations. The third and final section concludes the chapter.
