Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The ASEAN Way: What is and what is not?

Year 2025, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 14 - 25, 30.06.2025

Abstract

The ASEAN Way is a conflict prevention strategy that has been relatively effective in steering the member countries through the union. The framework stipulates that member states should not interfere with other internal matters; this has helped reduce some of the conflicts that have been faced in the region over the years. Despite the success or failure-whatever way one may look at it-there are conflicting views on how to evaluate ASEAN performance. Rather than analyzing the nature of ASEAN itself, many scholars tend to view the success or failure of ASEAN, according to its impacts, from the Western point of view. When describing ASEAN's achievements in maintaining regional peace and security, the narrative becomes considerably more positive. The critique against the peace-building efforts by ASEAN has been superficial and devoid of proper reality checks. Whereas ASEAN has indeed been a success, this judgment largely rests in the eye of the beholder since it all depends on the vantage point it is viewed from. This work will attempt to evaluate what ASEAN means as judged by both local and international opinion.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2007, Ağustos 15). ASEAN at 40: Mid-Life Rejuvenation? Ekim 16, 2024 tarihinde Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/ 2007-08-15/asean-40-mid- life-rejuvena tion adresinden alındı
  • Acharya, A. (2009). Arguing about ASEAN: What Do We Disagree About? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 493-499.
  • Ba, A. D. (2016). Institutionalization of Southeast Asian: ASEAN and ASEAN Centrality. A. Ba, C.-C. Kuik, & S. Sudo içinde, Institutionalizing East Asia - Mapping and Reconfiguring Regional Cooperation (s. 11-34). London: Routledge.
  • Bae, K. H. (2018). Seeing ASEAN as a platform for spreading liberalism. International Journal, 73(1), 33-48.
  • Caballero-Anthony, M., & Emmers, R. (2022). Keeping the peace in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the quest for positive peace. The Pacific Review, 35(6), 1079-1104.
  • Devadason, E. S., & Mubarik, S. (2020). ASEAN and the EU: an assessment of interregional trade potentials. International Economics and Economic Policy, 17(3), 705-726.
  • Felker, G. (2001). ASEAN Regionalism and Southeast Asia’s systemic challenges. J. C. Hsiung içinde, Twenty-first century world order and the Asia Pacific: Value change, exigencies, and power realignment (s. 2013-253). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Haacke, J. (2013). ASEAN's diplomatic and security culture: origins, development and prospects. London: Routledge.
  • Herrberg, A. (2008). The Brussels “backstage” of the Aceh peace process. 20, 32-35. (Accord, Dü., Aguswandi, & J. Large, Derleyiciler) London. Temmuz 15, 2024 tarihinde https://rc-services-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs public/Reconfiguring_politics_the_Indonesia_Aceh_peace_process_Accord_Issue_20.pdf adresinden alındı
  • IMF. (2023). World Economic Outlook Update, July 2023. Haziran 16, 2025 tarihinde https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9798400243165/9798400243165.xml adresinden alındı
  • Jetschke, A. (2009). Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 407-426.
  • Katsumata, H. (2003). Reconstruction of Diplomatic Norms in Southeast Asia: The Case of Strict Adherence to the Asean Way. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 25(1), 104-121.
  • Kurlantzick, J. (2022). ASEAN's future and Asian integration. ouncil on Foreign Relations, 1-25. Langlois, A. J. (2021). Human rights in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s rights regime after its first decade. Journal of Human Rights, 20(2), 151-157. Mahbubani, K., & Sng, J. (2017). The ASEAN Miracle: A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: NUS Press.
  • Mahbubani, K., & Tang, K. (2018). ASEAN: An Unexpected Success Story. Cairo Review, 29, 110-116.
  • Mearsheimer, J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
  • Mohamad, M. (1981). Tak Kenal Maka Tak Cinta [Because we do not know one another, we cannot love]. J. Crawford içinde, Pacific economic cooperation: suggestions for action (s. 41-45). Petaling Jaya: Heinemann Asia.
  • Narine, S. (1997). ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the" ASEAN Way". Asian Survey, 37(10), 961-978.
  • Narine, S. (2009). ASEAN in the twenty-first century: a sceptical review. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 369-386.
  • Nischalke, T. I. (2000). Insights from ASEAN's Foreign Policy Co-operation: The" ASEAN Way", a Real Spirit or a Phantom? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 89-112.
  • Rajaratnam, S. (1967, Ağustos 8). Statement by Mr S. Rajaratnam, Minister for Foreign Affairs, in Bangkok. NAS. Ekim 11, 2024 tarihinde https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR19670808.pdf adresinden alındı
  • Temiz, S. (2022). Modern Malezya: Devlet Geleneği ve siyaset. İstanbul: Efe Akademi.
  • Temiz, S. (2024). ASEAN - Güneydoğu Asya Ülkeleri Birliği Siyasi Yapısı ve Gelişimi. Ankara: Berikan.
  • TST. (1967, Mayıs 31). A Bigger ASA: Foreighn Ministers to meet. The Straits Times, s. 18.
  • TST. (1967a, Ağustos 8). Thanat: Full Accord in Bangkok on new regional association. The Straits Times, s. 1.
  • TST. (1967b, Ağustos 9). The Asean Aims: first 7-point Accord signed. The Straits Times, s. 1.
  • Vesa, U. (1999). Prospects of security communities: on the Relevance of Karl W. Deutsch's contribution. Peace Research, 31(1), 18-25.
  • Yukawa, T. (2017). The ASEAN Way as a Symbol: An Analysis of Discourses on the ASEAN Norms. The Pacific Review, 31(3), 298–314.

ASEAN Yolu: Nedir ve ne değildir?

Year 2025, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 14 - 25, 30.06.2025

Abstract

Güneydoğu Asya Ülkeleri Birliği’nin temel kılavuzu olan ASEAN Yolu çatışma önleme stratejisi, bölge ülkeleri açısından birliğe bağlılığın son derece etkili bir koşuludur. Bu sitemde üye devletler birbirlerinin iç işlerine müdahale etmezler ve bu şekilde geçmiş dönemlerde yoğun bir şekilde gerçekleşen bölgedeki çatışmaların da önüne geçmiş olurlar. Ancak esas itibariyle ASEAN’ın nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine dair birbiri ile çelişen çok sayıda fikir ve görüş bulunmaktadır. Esas itibariyle araştırmacılar ASEAN’ın ne olduğu veya ne olmadığı üzerinde durmaktan ziyade, batılı bir perspektifle ASEAN’ın etkilerinden yola çıkarak başarılı veya başarısız kategorisinde değerlendirmektedirler. Ancak ASEAN’ın bölgesel barış ve güvenliği tesis etmekteki başarısına gelindiğinde ivme hızlıca olumlu yöne kaymaktadır. Zira ASEAN’ın bölgede barışı tesisine yönelik eleştiriler genellikle havada kalmakta ve realiteyle uyuşmamaktadır. ASEAN başarılıdır, ancak bu hangi perspektiften baktığınızla da alakalıdır. Bu çalışmada ASEAN’ın genel itibariyle ne olduğu veya ne olmadığı, hem yerel hem de küresel bakış açıları incelenerek bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutulacaktır.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2007, Ağustos 15). ASEAN at 40: Mid-Life Rejuvenation? Ekim 16, 2024 tarihinde Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/ 2007-08-15/asean-40-mid- life-rejuvena tion adresinden alındı
  • Acharya, A. (2009). Arguing about ASEAN: What Do We Disagree About? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 493-499.
  • Ba, A. D. (2016). Institutionalization of Southeast Asian: ASEAN and ASEAN Centrality. A. Ba, C.-C. Kuik, & S. Sudo içinde, Institutionalizing East Asia - Mapping and Reconfiguring Regional Cooperation (s. 11-34). London: Routledge.
  • Bae, K. H. (2018). Seeing ASEAN as a platform for spreading liberalism. International Journal, 73(1), 33-48.
  • Caballero-Anthony, M., & Emmers, R. (2022). Keeping the peace in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the quest for positive peace. The Pacific Review, 35(6), 1079-1104.
  • Devadason, E. S., & Mubarik, S. (2020). ASEAN and the EU: an assessment of interregional trade potentials. International Economics and Economic Policy, 17(3), 705-726.
  • Felker, G. (2001). ASEAN Regionalism and Southeast Asia’s systemic challenges. J. C. Hsiung içinde, Twenty-first century world order and the Asia Pacific: Value change, exigencies, and power realignment (s. 2013-253). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Haacke, J. (2013). ASEAN's diplomatic and security culture: origins, development and prospects. London: Routledge.
  • Herrberg, A. (2008). The Brussels “backstage” of the Aceh peace process. 20, 32-35. (Accord, Dü., Aguswandi, & J. Large, Derleyiciler) London. Temmuz 15, 2024 tarihinde https://rc-services-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs public/Reconfiguring_politics_the_Indonesia_Aceh_peace_process_Accord_Issue_20.pdf adresinden alındı
  • IMF. (2023). World Economic Outlook Update, July 2023. Haziran 16, 2025 tarihinde https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9798400243165/9798400243165.xml adresinden alındı
  • Jetschke, A. (2009). Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 407-426.
  • Katsumata, H. (2003). Reconstruction of Diplomatic Norms in Southeast Asia: The Case of Strict Adherence to the Asean Way. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 25(1), 104-121.
  • Kurlantzick, J. (2022). ASEAN's future and Asian integration. ouncil on Foreign Relations, 1-25. Langlois, A. J. (2021). Human rights in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s rights regime after its first decade. Journal of Human Rights, 20(2), 151-157. Mahbubani, K., & Sng, J. (2017). The ASEAN Miracle: A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: NUS Press.
  • Mahbubani, K., & Tang, K. (2018). ASEAN: An Unexpected Success Story. Cairo Review, 29, 110-116.
  • Mearsheimer, J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
  • Mohamad, M. (1981). Tak Kenal Maka Tak Cinta [Because we do not know one another, we cannot love]. J. Crawford içinde, Pacific economic cooperation: suggestions for action (s. 41-45). Petaling Jaya: Heinemann Asia.
  • Narine, S. (1997). ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the" ASEAN Way". Asian Survey, 37(10), 961-978.
  • Narine, S. (2009). ASEAN in the twenty-first century: a sceptical review. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 369-386.
  • Nischalke, T. I. (2000). Insights from ASEAN's Foreign Policy Co-operation: The" ASEAN Way", a Real Spirit or a Phantom? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 89-112.
  • Rajaratnam, S. (1967, Ağustos 8). Statement by Mr S. Rajaratnam, Minister for Foreign Affairs, in Bangkok. NAS. Ekim 11, 2024 tarihinde https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR19670808.pdf adresinden alındı
  • Temiz, S. (2022). Modern Malezya: Devlet Geleneği ve siyaset. İstanbul: Efe Akademi.
  • Temiz, S. (2024). ASEAN - Güneydoğu Asya Ülkeleri Birliği Siyasi Yapısı ve Gelişimi. Ankara: Berikan.
  • TST. (1967, Mayıs 31). A Bigger ASA: Foreighn Ministers to meet. The Straits Times, s. 18.
  • TST. (1967a, Ağustos 8). Thanat: Full Accord in Bangkok on new regional association. The Straits Times, s. 1.
  • TST. (1967b, Ağustos 9). The Asean Aims: first 7-point Accord signed. The Straits Times, s. 1.
  • Vesa, U. (1999). Prospects of security communities: on the Relevance of Karl W. Deutsch's contribution. Peace Research, 31(1), 18-25.
  • Yukawa, T. (2017). The ASEAN Way as a Symbol: An Analysis of Discourses on the ASEAN Norms. The Pacific Review, 31(3), 298–314.
There are 27 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies of Asian Society
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Süleyman Temiz 0000-0002-4439-4035

Publication Date June 30, 2025
Submission Date October 17, 2024
Acceptance Date June 27, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 18 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Temiz, S. (2025). ASEAN Yolu: Nedir ve ne değildir?. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.29217/usaksosbil.1569306

Address: Uşak University Graduate Education Institute
Telephone: 0276 221 21 60 Fax: 0276 221 21 61
E-mail: sosyaldergi@usak.edu.tr