Assessing ASEAN’S Relevance: Have the Right Questions Been Asked?

IF 0.8 Q3 ECONOMICS
C. K. Cheok, Yongxi Chen
{"title":"Assessing ASEAN’S Relevance: Have the Right Questions Been Asked?","authors":"C. K. Cheok, Yongxi Chen","doi":"10.1355/AE36-1C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:When ASEAN celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, it was asked if an organization founded on principles appropriate for the 1960s remains relevant today. Its critics point to the organization’s recent failures to indicate that continued reliance on the “ASEAN Way” puts it on the road to irrelevance. Its defenders argue that the peace and stability that ensued since the Association’s formation are testimony that the ASEAN formula works. Both conclusions are based on what commentators on either side of the debate believe ASEAN’s role should be. This paper argues that an assessment should, instead, be based on what its members want it to do, expressed through policy announcements and documents like the ASEAN Charter. It should also consider the totality of its mandate from diplomacy to economics. Viewed in this way, the grouping has accomplishments to be proud of, but also some failures to regret. The “ASEAN Way”, upheld steadfastly by its member countries’ leadership, has been instrumental to both its successes and failures. Overall, while ASEAN may not live up to the expectations of its critics, its achievements in some areas do suggest its continued relevance even under vastly changed circumstances, both domestic and external.","PeriodicalId":43712,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies","volume":"36 1","pages":"11 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1355/AE36-1C","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:When ASEAN celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, it was asked if an organization founded on principles appropriate for the 1960s remains relevant today. Its critics point to the organization’s recent failures to indicate that continued reliance on the “ASEAN Way” puts it on the road to irrelevance. Its defenders argue that the peace and stability that ensued since the Association’s formation are testimony that the ASEAN formula works. Both conclusions are based on what commentators on either side of the debate believe ASEAN’s role should be. This paper argues that an assessment should, instead, be based on what its members want it to do, expressed through policy announcements and documents like the ASEAN Charter. It should also consider the totality of its mandate from diplomacy to economics. Viewed in this way, the grouping has accomplishments to be proud of, but also some failures to regret. The “ASEAN Way”, upheld steadfastly by its member countries’ leadership, has been instrumental to both its successes and failures. Overall, while ASEAN may not live up to the expectations of its critics, its achievements in some areas do suggest its continued relevance even under vastly changed circumstances, both domestic and external.
评估东盟的相关性:是否提出了正确的问题?
摘要:当东盟庆祝成立五十周年时,有人问它,一个建立在适合1960年代的原则基础上的组织今天是否仍然具有现实意义。其批评者指出,该组织最近的失败表明,继续依赖“东盟之路”使其走上了无关紧要的道路。其捍卫者认为,自东盟成立以来,随之而来的和平与稳定证明了东盟模式的有效性。这两个结论都是基于辩论双方的评论员认为东盟的作用。本文认为,评估应该基于其成员国希望它做什么,通过政策公告和《东盟宪章》等文件来表达。它还应该考虑从外交到经济的全部任务。从这个角度来看,该集团取得了值得骄傲的成就,但也有一些失败值得遗憾。“东盟之路”在其成员国领导人的坚定支持下,对其成功和失败都起到了重要作用。总的来说,尽管东盟可能没有达到批评者的期望,但它在某些领域取得的成就确实表明,即使在国内外发生巨大变化的情况下,它仍然具有相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Southeast Asian Economies (JSEAE) is a peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary journal focusing on economic issues in Southeast Asia. JSEAE features articles based on original research, research notes, policy notes, review articles and book reviews, and welcomes submissions of conceptual, theoretical and empirical articles preferably with substantive policy discussions. Original research articles and research notes can be country studies or cross-country comparative studies. For quantitative-oriented articles, authors should strive to ensure that their work is accessible to non-specialists. Submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process – two reviewers for original research articles and one reviewer for research notes and policy notes. The journal is published three times a year: April, August and December.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信