ABSTRACT
Many scholars have showcased ASEAN as an example of a regional body that has not only succeeded in mitigating intra-regional tensions in Southeast Asia, but has brought about a ‘long peace’ in the region.1 Kivimäki and other scholars writing in the constructivist tradition, including Amitav Acharya and Nikolas Busse, have argued that, in spite of potential conflict over a number of territorial and other inter-state disputes, the development of the key ASEAN norms of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another state and the emphasis on respecting the independence and sovereignty of each member are fundamental to the Association’s success in establishing peace, security and stability in Southeast Asia.2 These norms are embodied in ASEAN’s 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC). Besides the emphasis on sovereignty and non-intervention, the TAC, in Article 2, also calls on states to settle disputes peacefully. Not only does the TAC emphasise the non-use of force to settle disputes, it also calls on the ASEAN members to renounce the threat to use force. Although Nischalke sees ASEAN more as a ‘rule-based community rather than a community based on the existence of a collective identity’ (as Acharya, Kivimäki and Busse suggest), he nevertheless also regards the TAC as the central pillar of ASEAN and the source of the norms and principles that have guided its behaviour since its establishment.3
These scholars also regard the ‘ASEAN way’ approach to intra-regional interactions based on non-confrontational dialogue and consensus building as key to ASEAN’s success in maintaining peace, stability and order in Southeast Asia.4
