No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The ASEAN Doctrine of Non-Interference in Light of the Fundamental Principle of Non-Intervention
Abstract
This article examines the ASEAN doctrine of non-interference and whether it aligns with the international law principle of non-intervention. The author also examines why the doctrine of non-interference is so fundamental for ASEAN members, and whether the individual ASEAN State conduct complies with the doctrine of non-interference and the principle of non-intervention. It concludes by discussing the potential effects of ASEAN States’ practice on the international customary law of non-intervention.
Article available at http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/aplpj-volume-17-issue-2/
... Dengan struktur multilateral yang unik, ASEAN memungkinkan lembaga dan negara anggota di dalamnya untuk membangun institusi keamanan regional yang menjamin keselamatan kawasan ditengah tingginya situasi Perang Dingin baik di kawasan Asia Tenggara maupun di tatanan global. (Corthay, 2016). Terminologi 'ASEAN Way' pertama kali muncul pada tahun 1974 dan 1989; penggunaan terminologi ini kemudian berkembang ke ranah media pemberitaan setelah beberapa menteri luar negeri ASEAN mulai menggunakan istilah ini pada tahun 1994 (Yukawa, 2018). ...
... Prinsip non-interference ditetapkan di berbagai dokumen dan perjanjian dasar pembentukan ASEAN sebagai lembaga regional yang mengikat secara hukum. Prinsip tersebut ditegaskan pertama dalam Deklarasi Bangkok pada tahun 1967 (bahwa negara-negara ASEAN berusaha untuk menjamin keamanan dan stabilitas dari gangguan eksternal dalam bentuk apapun); kedua, dalam Pasal 2 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation pada tahun 1976 (bahwa negara anggota ASEAN akan mematuhi prinsip dasar non-interference dalam urusan dalam negeri negara lain); dan ketiga, dalam Pasal 2 Piagam ASEAN pada tahun 2007 yang mengamanatkan bahwa negara anggota ASEAN akan mengatur hubungan sesuai dengan prinsip non-interference dalam urusan domestik negara anggota lainnya (Corthay, 2016). Deklarasi Bangkok tidak menetapkan struktur institusi resmi atau pedoman perilaku khusus untuk negara-negara anggota dalam hubungan antar negara; pada awalnya struktur ASEAN hanya terdiri dari Pertemuan Tahunan Menteri Luar Negeri, Komite Tetap, sekretariat nasional di masingmasing Negara anggota, dan beberapa komite sementara. ...
... Berdirinya ASEAN tidak lepas dari aspek-aspek eksternal dan juga internal masing-masing negara anggotanya. Meskipun lima negara anggota pendiri ASEAN telah memiliki formulasi kebijakan dalam dan luar negeri mereka sendiri, kelima negara tersebut telah mencapai pemahaman bersama: komunisme dianggap sebagai ancaman terhadap stabilitas internal dan regional dan masalah-masalah terkait pembangunan ekonomi dan sosial-politik merupakan hal utama yang menjadi landasan perlunya institusi kawasan seperti ASEAN HISTORIA: Jurnal Pendidik dan Peneliti Sejarah, p-issn:2620-4789 | e-issn:2615-7993 untuk didirikan (Corthay, 2016). Pembentukan ASEAN pada awalnya ditolak oleh Vietnam yang baru saja diambil alih oleh kekuatan Komunis setelah perang saudara antara Vietnam Utara dan Selatan. ...
... The apparent lack of response from ASEAN to human rights abuses in Myanmar was partly due to the organization's strict adherence to the policy of non-interference in the country's domestic affairs (Corthay, 2016;Pratomo, 2009). The concept of non-interference applies to the notion that a country's sovereignty is legitimated by international law. ...
... For example, the United Nations Charter emphasizes that the [principle of non-interference] can be waived to maintain peace. This principle is expressed in the UN Charter's Article 2 provisions (7) (Corthay, 2016). ...
Myanmar highlights the international community's worry over ASEAN's failure to protect the human rights of the country's citizens. Numerous stakeholders, including scholars and observers, consider the non-interference principle as the bedrock for interstate relations in the region to be the greatest barrier to ASEAN's intervention in Myanmar. Using the method of doctrinal research, this article investigates the junction of the concept of non-interference as the spirit of state sovereignty and the principle of human rights in the context of Myanmar. This article claims that the reason why human rights cannot be enforced in ASEAN, as in the case of Myanmar, is because ASEAN adheres to the principle of non-interference in the traditional expression of state sovereignty, thereby making the state the dominant actor and denying the existence of people. This article proposes that ASEAN shift its understanding of state sovereignty from the traditional to the human rights perspective, which has become a universal view that places humans as the ultimate sovereigns of a country.
... Selanjut nya sejak 1967, prinsip ini mampu menyelesaikan banyak permasalahan antar negara yang menyangkut politik, sosial, dan ekonomi dan semua pemimpin ASEAN percaya bahwa jika mereka meninggalkan prinsip ini, akan menjadi salah satu penyebab ASEAN terpecah belah. Sebagaimana di katakana oleh EricCorthay (2015) prinsip nonintervensi ini focus untuk membangun keeratan regional dan mengembangkan saling memahami di antara negara ASEAN.Bagaimanapun, prinsip ini bukan tanpa kritik. Sebagai contoh, dalam praktik nya, dengan di implementasikan nya prinsip non-intervensi, Arendshorts(2009)mengklaim bahwa salah satu implikasi dari di terapkan nya prinsip non-intervensi yaitu negara-negara ASEAN berhenti nya mengkritisi persoalan yang menyangkut hak asasi manusia yang terjadi hampir di semua negara ASEAN. ...
... Southeast Asia region tends to be the source of national security threats due to the diversity of the race, religion, and culture which integrated with the weak state structures; and lack of strong government legitimacy. As a consequence, the goal of non-interference policy is to prevent domestic issues driven by foreign matters (Corthay, 2016). ...
... Much has been written on this principle and its supposed role in the security cooperation of member states in the region, especially on issues pertaining to territorial disputes (Amer, 2012;Heng, 2014;Corthay;Hernandez, 2016;and Terada, 2017). This principle has faced several challenges since 1997. ...
This commentary deliberates on the role and actions of the Philippine Government over the possible threat to the stability of the Southeast Asian region potentially brought about by long-running territorial disputes between ASEAN member states and China, among others. The ASEAN principle of non-interference is being questioned for being a hindrance to the resolution of these disputes. In addition, ground accounts from citizens of Southeast Asian countries present dissatisfaction over relations of their governments with China, whereby joint ventures and partnerships in development projects with the latter are continuously criticized, with several South Asian and Pacific Island nations having already fallen into the so-called "Chinese debt-trap". Filipinos have raised the argument for these disputes to be collectively resolved under the United Nations and ASEAN dispute settlement mechanisms as China seems to have neither complied, nor respected the decision made by the Permanent Court of Arbitration over the West Philippine Sea claims in July 2016, which favoured the Philippines.
... states of the Association of Southeast Asia (ASEAN) including Malaysia and the Philippines, that limits the number of peace mediation brokered by countries located in Southeast Asia. The context of non-interference principle is similar to the doctrine of nonintervention in the realm of international law (6); there ought to be no intervention in the domestic affairs. Moreover, Acharya (2001: 58) points out the operational terms of non-interference principle exercised by ASEAN include "denying recognition, sanctuary, or other forms of support to any rebel group seeking to destabilise or overthrow the government of a neighbouring state" and "providing political support and material assistance to member states in their campaign against subversive and destabilising activities". ...
Since its involvement as the third country facilitator of peace building process in Southern Philippines in 2001, Malaysia has often been criticized on the grounds of sympathizing the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, stake of national interest concerning the Sabah issues and inefficient conduct of facilitator. This suggests the controversial role of Malaysia as a third country facilitator of peace building process in the form of biased peace facilitator. The paper, therefore, aims to examine whether Malaysia is an honest peace broker when facilitating the peace process building in Southern Philippines by examining its exercise of impartiality and equidistance. It further argues that two integral factors of foreign policy contribute to the honest role of Malaysia as a peace broker in Southern Philippines; peaceful coexistence and non-interference. The findings show that Malaysia is an honest broker by exercising impartiality and equidistance when facilitating the peacebuilding process in the Southern Philippines.
Chapter tulisan saya berkaitan tentang Prinsip non intervensi merupakan salah satu prinsip dasar
didalam The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Prinsip ini di implemetasikan untuk memastikan keamanan dan
stabilitas nasional negara ASEAN dengan menghormati
kedaulatan dan menumbuhkan saling faham di antara anggota
nya. Sejak prinsip ini pertama kali di abadikan di Deklarasi
Bangkok pada tahun1967, prinsip ini membuktikan
keberhasilannya. Selain dari cerita keberhasilan, banyak debat
yang bermunculan berkaitan tentang apakah prinsip ini mampu
menyelesaikan persoalan hak asasi manusia di antara negara
anggota ASEAN, terutama apa yang sedang terjadi di Myanmar,
dan juga ketidak kosisten nya penerapan prinsip ini. Tulisan ini
akan mengevaluasi argumentasi di atas kemudian menjelaskan
kenapa prinsip non intervensi masih penting untuk ASEAN
sebagai sebuah institusi.
Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam (HmI) berdiri pada 5 Februari 1947. Ketika itu Belanda mulai mengancam kembali kedaulatan Republik. Bersama Kartono Zarkasy (Ambarawa), Dahlan Husein (Palembang), Siti Zainah (Palembang), Maisaroh Hilal (cucu pendiri Muhammadiyah KH.Ahmad Dahlan, Singapura), Soewali (Jember), Yusdi Gozali (Semarang, juga pendiri PII), M. Anwar (Malang), Hasan Basri (Surakarta), Marwan (Bengkulu), Tayeb Razak (Jakarta), Toha Mashudi (Malang), Bidron Hadi (Kauman-
Yogyakarta), Sulkarnaen (Bengkulu) dan Mansyur, Lafran Pane mendirikan organisasi mahasiswa Islam ini di ibukota perjuangan Republik Indonesia di Yogyakarta. Mereka mendirikan HMI karena organisasi Perserikatan Mahasiswa Yogyakarta (PMY) mereka anggap tidak menyalurkan aspirasi keagamaan. Ketika itu Soetan Sjahrir masih memimpin kabinet sehingga tidak heran jika PMY dipengaruhi semangat sosialisme. Perdana Menteri Syahrir adalah tokoh Partai Sosialis Indonesia (PSI). Saat ini HMI memiliki 156 Cabang dan 14 Badko seluruh Indonesia, dengan jumlah anggota yang tak bisa lagi terhitung jumlah. Ada yang beranggapan bahwa jumlah anggotanya sebanyak 1/3 (sepetiga) populasi jumlah penduduk Indonesia saat ini. Bukan tanpa dasar jumlah anggota sebanyak itu karena dirasiokan dengan jumlah Cabang seluruh Indonesia yang
berjumlah 156 Cabang dari 134 jumlah Provinsi se-Indonesia. HMI yang sudah berusia 73 Tahun telah banyak berkonstribusi terhadap pembangunan bangsa, mulai dari jenjang
pemerintahan terkecil (desa), hingga pada jenjang pemerintahan tingkatan pusat. HMI telah berkonstribusi dalam memberikan gagasan dan tindakan pada peningkatan gerak pembangunan bangsa dalam mendorong kualitas sumber daya manusia. Selain semua itu, HMI juga telah mampu memberikan corak tersendiri bagi seluruh organisasi ekstra kampus yang selalu beradaptasi pada situasi secara kontemporer. Insan Cita Community merupakan wadah pada semua kader HMI yang pernah berproses pada HMI Cabang Makassar, Gowa Raya dan Makassar Timur. Berawal dari ketiga HMI Cabang ini, banyak idea concept yang sudah mulai berjalan di Kawasan Timur Indonesia. Hal paling nyata adalah peningkatan kualitas SDM melalui lembaga institusi perguruan tinggi. Dimana para
anggota wadah Insan Cita Community menjalankan aktivitas sebagai implementasi wujud dari kualitas insan cita HMI pada aspek Pengabdian.
Are the sovereign states of Southeast Asia responsible actors that care and provide for their own as well as their neighbours? Do they act hospitably towards each other? This book examines an embryonic ‘ethos’ of intraregional responsibility among Southeast Asian countries. Unevenly distributed and more apparent in some states than others, the ethic has been expressed as acts of hospitality shown to victims of earthquakes, typhoons and other natural disasters, and increasingly in conflict situations. This sovereign responsibility to provide, or the ‘R2Provide’ as this book calls it, has manifested as forms of assistance – mediated through ASEAN but also bilaterally – given to neighbours coping with economic difficulties, problems of militancy and terrorism and the like. But unlike the global norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P), the R2Provide is noninterventionist in practice. More indirectly, it has also materialised as a mutual reliance by regional states on pacific and increasingly rules-based approaches to manage and, where feasible, resolve their disputes with one another. The contention is not that Southeast Asians have never, whether by commission or omission, behaved irresponsibly or unethically – the region’s belated and deficient response to the Rohingya refugee crisis is but one of many tragic examples – but that they are misrepresented as void of responsible conduct. By way of Emmanuel Levinas’ concept of ‘responsibility for the other’, the book provides an ethical-theoretical explanation for the R2Provide and sovereign responsibility in Southeast Asia.
This article will argue that there are three related issues of concern regarding the Rohingya crisis: (1) a singular focus on persecution and nationality in Myanmar; (2) statelessness and displacement in the region; and (3) grave human rights violations amounting to international crimes including genocide and crimes against humanity. This article will discuss active steps that ASEAN should take. To ensure that Myanmar will willingly accept the responsibility to address the source of the problem, the international community, particularly ASEAN, has to stand firm against Myanmar's gross violation of human rights. At the same time, ASEAN must deal with the refugee crisis by formulating a workable regional framework. This article will deal with the underlying conflict paradigm in all refugee issues: how to reconcile state sovereignty vis-á-vis responsibility and how to ensure protection of both human rights and state security.
For writings on 'humanitarian intervention' see the bibliography in the footnotes of the book of CORTEN, supra note 77, at 495 ff. The concept also includes sometimes the rescue of nationals abroad, see, e.g., NATALINO RONZITTI
- Kohen
Kohen, supra note 48, at 162. For writings on 'humanitarian intervention' see
the bibliography in the footnotes of the book of CORTEN, supra note 77, at 495 ff. The
concept also includes sometimes the rescue of nationals abroad, see, e.g., NATALINO
RONZITTI, RESCUING NATIONALS ABROAD T HROUGH MILITARY COERCION AND
INTERVENTION ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY (1985).
The 2005 World Summit Outcome has been reaffirmed by the Security Council in S.C. Res. 1674, U
- G A Res
G.A. Res. 60/1, ¶ 139, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct. 24, 2005) (adopted
without vote). The 2005 World Summit Outcome has been reaffirmed by the Security
Council in S.C. Res. 1674, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1674 (Apr. 28, 2006).
- U N Gaor
U.N. GAOR, 54 th Sess., 27 th plen. Mtg. at 14 (Singapore),
U.N. Doc. A/54/PV.27 (Oct. 6, 1999).
55 th Sess., 30 th plen. Mtg
- U N Gaor
U.N. GAOR, 55 th Sess., 30 th plen. Mtg. at 3 (the
Philippines), U.N. Doc. A/55/PV.30, (Sept. 27, 2000).
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, 1985 I.C
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, 1985 I.C.J. ¶
27 (Jun. 3).
Colombian-Peruvian asylum case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, 1950 I.C
Colombian-Peruvian asylum case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, 1950 I.C.J.
276 (Nov. 20) [hereinafter Asylum].
Darussalam joined the United Nations Organisation in 1977 and 1984 resp
- Brunei Vietnam
Vietnam and Brunei Darussalam joined the United Nations Organisation in
1977 and 1984 resp. See Member States of the United Nations, available at
http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml (last visited on Mar. 4, 2016).
at ¶ 188. See also Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996, I.C.J. ¶ 70
- Nicaragua
Nicaragua, supra note 42, at ¶ 188. See also Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996, I.C.J. ¶ 70. (Jul. 8).