Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in ASEAN's Security Cooperation through Regionalism.

Abstract

The concepts and functions of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are different from those of other regional and international institutions, organisations, and bodies. This paper aims to analyse the concept of regionalism practiced by using the liberal institutionalism theory approach, which has successfully driven ASEAN to remain strong as an organisation based on mutual relations in every aspect of politics, economy, culture, and society. This analyses the connection between ASEAN regionalism and the liberal institutionalism theory approach, which has driven ASEAN through security cooperation until this day. ASEAN continues to operate as a regional organization that has grown from its regional cooperation through regionalism. This study discusses the various approaches on liberal institutionalism applied in interpreting ASEAN regionalism, especially in the context of economic, political, and social security cooperation. The link between globalisation, the theory of liberal institutionalism, and the process of regionalism have been given significant attention, as many factors are interconnected between the subjects in the context of this study. Most of the data acquired for this study have been extracted from books, journal articles, reports by the ASEAN Secretariat, as well as library sources, in line with the need for suitable methodologies to conduct this research.

Full text

Akademika 92(1), 2022: 73-86
https://doi.org/10.17576/akad-2022-9201-06
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation
through Regionalism
Teori Liberal Institutionalisme dan Pendekatannya dalam Kerjasama Keselamatan
Serantau Asean melalui Regionalisme
MuhaMMad Faiz RaMli & hanizah idRis
ABSTRACT
The concepts and functions of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are different from those of other
regional and international institutions, organizations, and bodies. This paper aims to analyze the concept of regionalism
practiced by using the liberal institutionalism theory approach, which has successfully driven ASEAN to remain strong
as an organization based on mutual relations in every aspect of politics, economy, culture, and society. This analyzes
the connection between ASEAN regionalism and the liberal institutionalism theory approach, which has driven ASEAN
through security cooperation until this day. ASEAN continues to operate as a regional organization that has grown from
its regional cooperation through regionalism. This study discusses the various approaches on liberal institutionalism
applied in interpreting ASEAN regionalism, especially in the context of economic, political, and social security
cooperation. The link between globalization, the theory of liberal institutionalism, and the process of regionalism
have been given signicant attention, as many factors are interconnected between the subjects in the context of this
study. Most of the data acquired for this study have been extracted from books, journal articles, reports by the ASEAN
Secretariat, as well as library sources, in line with the need for suitable methodologies to conduct this research.
Keywords: ASEAN; regionalism; liberal institutionalism; globalization; security
ABSTRAK
Kesatuan Negara-negara Asia Tenggara (ASEAN) berbeza dengan institusi, organisasi, dan badan serantau dan
antarabangsa yang lain dari segi konsep dan fungsi. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis konsep regionalisme dengan
menggunakan pendekatan teori Liberal Institutionalism yang berjaya mendorong ASEAN untuk terus kukuh sebagai
organisasi yang berdasarkan hubungan yang saksama dalam setiap aspek politik, ekonomi, budaya, dan masyarakat.
Objektif utama penyelidikan ini adalah untuk menganalisis kaitan antara konsep regionalisme ASEAN dan pendekatan
teori liberal institusionalisme yang mendorong kejayaan ASEAN melalui kerjasama keselamatan sehingga hari ini.
ASEAN terus berfungsi sebagai organisasi serantau yang telah berkembang dari sudut kerjasama serantau melalui
regionalisme. Oleh yang demikian, kajian ini membincangkan pelbagai pendekatan teori liberal institutionalisme yang
digunakan dalam menafsirkan regionalisme ASEAN, terutama dalam konteks kerjasama keselamatan ekonomi, politik,
dan sosial. Hubungan antara globalisasi, teori liberal institutionalisme, dan proses regionalisme diberi penumpuan
yang signikan kerana banyak faktor saling berkaitan antara subjek dalam konteks kajian ini. Sebilangan besar data
yang digunakan untuk kajian ini diambil dari buku, artikel jurnal, laporan oleh Sekretariat ASEAN, dan pelbagai jenis
sumber perpustakaan sesuai dengan keperluan metodologi yang dilakukan sepanjangkajian ini.
Keywords: ASEAN; regionalisme; liberal institutionalisme; globalisasi; keselamatan
INTRODUCTION
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) was established on 8th August 1967
in Bangkok,Thailand with the signing of the
Bangkok Declaration by the founding fathers
of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines,Thailand, and Singapore.Today, the
ten ASEAN members promote intergovernmental
cooperation and facilitate economic, political,
security, military, educational, and sociocultural
integration between its members,as well as other
countries. The decline of the Cold War and the
concomitant loss of ASEAN’s major political focus
such as its opposition toVietnam’s invasion of
Cambodia raised speculations in many quarters
that ASEAN might not survive in the post-Cold
War world (Narine, 1998). However, the end of the
Cold War did bring several changes within ASEAN,
and this regional organization engaged itself in

74
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
developing many other institutions in the region
while preserving the idea of ASEAN regionalism
and centrality. The post-Cold War accompanied
by the effects of globalization contributed to the
shift of security patterns from a military threat to
a non-military threat. The process of globalization
has opened up national border spaces towards
regionalism by liberalizing movement services,
goods, and people(Radah, Nor Azizan, and Zarina
2019).
To understand regionalism, it is essential to look
at two types of regionalism, which are oldregionalism
and new regionalism. New regionalism,which
began in the mid-1980s,refers to a phenomenon that
is still in the process of making, and although old
regionalism was said to have started in the 1950s and
somehow faded away in the 1970s, some scholars
stated that old regionalism happened as early as the
1930s. However, it is important to point out that old
regionalism must be understood within a particular
historical context, dominated by the bipolar Cold
War structure, while the current wave of regionalism
needs to be related to the current transformation of
the world (Hettne and Soderbaum 1998). The new
regionalism approach is closer to the identity of
ASEAN cooperation, as it was formed to work as a
team against any security threat after the Cold War.
The formation of ASEAN was the result of
globalization, especially in the political, economic,
and social perspectives. Global security threats
pushed countries in the ASEAN region to form an
association to work in cooperation so that global
threats could be addressed efciently (Singh
2007). In economics, social, and cultural life, the
globalization factor has been a driving force for
ASEAN countries to form ASEAN Regionalism
to balance and preserve the region’s security. In
facing transnational threats such as smuggling,
piracy, and terrorism, the signicance of the
regional association has also increased. As such,
the globalization challenge has led to the need for
a study of key ASEAN motivations in the face of
greater regionalism challenges in the region. The key
challenges, especially security, are the issues that are
increasingly being discussed.(Roberts 2012), in his
book on ASEAN Regionalism, expressed the crucial
importance of integration among member states
in the face of other world economic forces. The
important issues discussed include the geopolitical
aspects of member states, as well as the more
comprehensive social cooperation.
Moreover, globalization for ASEAN is a
process that generates ows and connections, not
simply across nation-states and national territorial
boundaries, but between global regions, continents,as
well as civilizations. This invites a denition of
globalization as: “a historical process that engenders
a signicant shift in the spatial reach of networks
and systems of social relations to transcontinental
or interregional patterns of human organization,
activity, and the exercise of power”(McGrew 2003;
Pitsuwan 2011). The concept of ASEAN regionalism
has led to many positive changes. At the same time,
these changes in the current globalization and power
shifts have somehow opened the region up to new
conict and security issues (Acharya 2012).
Before the formation of ASEAN, several
attempts were made to establish an organization at
the regional level. Figure 1 shows the timeline for
the establishment of ASEAN, which was an indirect
continuation of several previous organizations. In
this context, the establishment of ASEAN began
with the cooperation of SEATO (1954). While there
have been some criticisms of the formation of
SEATO as a non-establishment of regionalism and
more of a military one, the establishment of SEATO
opened the way for several regional co-operatives
in Southeast Asia such as ASA (1961) and
MAPHILINDO (1963). Although several attempts
to establish regional cooperation have failed due
to conict and disagreement of several Southeast
Asia countries, it led to the idea of greater regional
cooperation in the context of the peace region that
exists to this day, which is the establishment of
ASEAN 1967.
FIGURE 1. ASEAN Timeline
Source:Fieldwork (Narine 2002; Acharya 2012).
Notes:The process of establishing regional organizations in Southeast Asia
3
exercise of power”(McGrew 2003; Pitsuwan 2011). The concept of ASEAN regionalism has led
to many positive changes. At the same time, these changes in the current globalization and power
shifts have somehow opened the region up to new conflict and security issues (Acharya 2012).
Before the formation of ASEAN, several attempts were made to establish an organization
at the regional level. Figure 1 shows the timeline for the establishment of ASEAN, which was an
indirect continuation of several previous organizations. In this context, the establishment of
ASEAN began with the cooperation of SEATO (1954). While there have been some criticisms of
the formation of SEATO as a non-establishment of regionalism and more of a military one, the
establishment of SEATO opened the way for several regional co-operatives in Southeast Asia
such as ASA (1961) and MAPHILINDO (1963). Although several attempts to establish regional
cooperation have failed due to conflict and disagreement of several Southeast Asia countries, it
led to the idea of greater regional cooperation in the context of the peace region that exists to this
day, which is the establishment of ASEAN 1967.
FIGURE 1. ASEAN Timeline
Source:Fieldwork (Narine 2002; Acharya 2012).
Notes:The process of establishing regional organizations in Southeast Asia
Intrinsically, the purpose of this study is to analyze ASEAN regionalism in terms of
ASEAN security cooperation by using the liberal institutionalism approach.The liberal theory
rests on a ‘‘bottom-up’’ view of politics, in which the demands of individuals and societal groups
are treated analytically before politics. Political action is embedded in domestic and transnational
civil society and is understood as an aggregation of bounded rational individuals with
differentiated tastes, social commitments, and resource endowments. Socially differentiated
individuals define their material and ideational interests independent of politics and then advance
those interests through political exchange and collective action (Moravcsik 1997). The prevailing
security conflicts in Southeast Asia can be mitigated through ASEAN regionalismbecause the
nature of regionalism is in the form of cooperation and collective action involving several
countries that have political, economic, and sociocultural interests. These conflicts include
internal or external conflictsbetween ASEAN countries.
The concept of regionalism comes from liberal institutionalism (LI) perspectives, in
which states are directly involved with the constitution to achieve peace, cooperation, and
development (Moravcsik 1997). Regionalism itself comes from the word ‘region’, which refersto
a group of countries that have a geographical or sovereign territory close to and dependent on
one another(Hurrell 1995).As an example, one form of regionalism in Southeast Asia is through
the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which is an example of a connection through
Southeast Asian
Treaty Organization
1954 (SEATO)
Assosiation of
Southeast Asia 1961
(ASA)
Malaya-Philippines-
Indonesia 1963
(MAPHILINDO)
Association of
Southeast Asian
Nation 1967 (ASEAN)

75
Akademika 92(1)
Intrinsically, the purpose of this study is
to analyze ASEAN regionalism in terms of
ASEAN security cooperation by using the liberal
institutionalism approach.The liberal theory rests
on a ‘‘bottom-up’’ view of politics, in which the
demands of individuals and societal groups are
treated analytically before politics. Political action is
embedded in domestic and transnational civil society
and is understood as an aggregation of bounded
rational individuals with differentiated tastes, social
commitments, and resource endowments. Socially
differentiated individuals dene their material and
ideational interests independent of politics and then
advance those interests through political exchange
and collective action (Moravcsik 1997). The
prevailing security conicts in Southeast Asia can be
mitigated through ASEAN regionalismbecause the
nature of regionalism is in the form of cooperation
and collective action involving several countries
that have political, economic, and sociocultural
interests. These conicts include internal or external
conictsbetween ASEAN countries.
The concept of regionalism comes from liberal
institutionalism (LI) perspectives, in which states
are directly involved with the constitution to achieve
peace, cooperation, and development (Moravcsik
1997). Regionalism itself comes from the word
‘region’, which refersto a group of countries that
have a geographical or sovereign territory close to
and dependent on one another(Hurrell 1995).As
an example, one form of regionalism in Southeast
Asia is through the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF),
which is an example of a connection through
realism (Garofano 2002). Unlike liberals, realists
are very skeptical of the nature of a country. For
realists, conict is denite and inevitable,as well
asan unbelievable belief in the peace and stability of
the system (wide-war system). Realism focuses on
power and autonomy in international relations. This
group also believes that conict of interest does not
exist between countries and is not so important that
the self-help and self-healing concept is a priority
in international relations. While the military eld
is one of the most widely used elds of power and
autonomy (Morgenthau 2005), LI focuses more on
working together, which later became the identity
of ASEAN, especially with the introduction of the
Community Agenda.
This paper focuses on ASEAN in its process of
developing regionalism in the context of security
cooperation with the approach of the liberal
institutionalism theory. As a regional organization
among Southeast Asia countries, ASEAN is an
interesting case study because its establishment
ASEAN focuses on regionalism and security
cooperation in the context of political, economic,
and sociocultural approaches in responding to the
changing of its environment.
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to understand whether
the liberal institutionalism theory approach
inuences ASEAN regionalism in terms of ASEAN
security cooperation and how it has done so. The
literature review approach was used to understand
if the theory has inuenced ASEAN regionalism in
terms of ASEAN security cooperation, as well as to
identify the aspects that inuence it. In this regard,
journal articles, reports, and research analyses were
reviewed, and this later provided empirical evidence
related to ASEAN, regionalism, and the connections
toward liberal institutionalism theory,which claried
the proper approach of liberal institutionalism in the
context of ASEAN regionalism. Apart from that,
the data were also extracted from books and annual
reports from ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Master
Plan, and ASEAN Blueprint, and a few other sources
of information were gathered chronologically to
give a clear picture of ASEAN, regionalism, and
the ASEAN perspectives, especially toward the
implementation of ASEAN regionalism. Source
materials, ofcial documents, and various statistics
were also collected to justify the proper fact in
solving the puzzling question of ASEAN regionalism.
ASEAN REGIONALISM
Ever since the end of the Cold War, security concerns
have preoccupied national governments globally,
includingSoutheast Asia. This happens when
political and economic shocks are so unexpected
and severe that existing social and political
arrangements appear threatened. Globalization,
economic integration, and regionalism are no
longer just limited to the industrialized countries
but underdeveloped or developing countries
have also beneted from them. In the late 1980s,
regional cooperation like ASEAN was accelerated
as programs of economic liberalization, which was
before it was spread throughout the developing
world. A sharp increase in capital for ASEAN and
many other developing countries in the early 1990s

76
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
reinforced positive views of globalization (Kahler
2004). Economic security or economic instruments
have long been part of the toolkit of statecraft, which
is a means to inuence other states and their policies
(Hirchman 1980; Baldwin 1985).
The existence of regionalism in ASEAN arises
from the sense of agreement in terms of place,
position, or geography (Figure 2) through the
prospects of mutual benets and cooperation,
especially from the points of perceptions of
togetherness to internal and external security
threats. However, the concept of regionalism is
more appropriate to be expressed in the form of
a sovereign institution, which allowscooperation
beyond political aspects/power. In the context of
regionalism, there is no natural cooperation, but
instead, cooperation through the rules administered
by policymakers in achieving regional interests
from an economic, political, and sociocultural
point of view (Leifer 1975; Yukawa 2018). ASEAN
regionalism was formed from the prospect of mutual
advantages in the form of cooperation and to deal
with security threats. Hence, regional cooperation is
the best initiative that is perceived to be appropriate
in maintaining the sovereignty of each member
country. However, at the same time, cooperation
from all member countries on all points would not
be possible without addressing the security issues
of all members(Menon, Todd, and Arujunan 2018).
FIGURE 2. Southeast Asian Nations
Source: https://aseanup.com/free-maps-asean-countries/
Scholars like (Milner 2003; Tamaki 2006;
Acharya 1999)have discussed ASEAN regionalism
through security and international relations. They
criticized ASEAN itself to seek improvement in
ASEAN countries. Among all the regionalcooperation
in the world, ASEAN is one of the future prosperous
integrated regions. There are several reasons to
support this statement, mainly that ASEAN is a
representative regionalism. It has been called “a
success story second only to the EU”,as well as “the
most successful regionalism among developing
countries”(Yukawa 2018).This can be seen through
the policy undertaken by ASEAN through the Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which is used as a
major source of reference for conicts or issues that
could threaten ASEAN security.
ASEAN scholars hold two interpretations
regarding the establishment of ASEAN as a regional
organization. The rst interpretation is that ASEAN
is based on the geographical position of a regional
community among Southeast Asian nations.
According to this argument, ASEAN encompasses
the norms, values, and practices that have been
socialized to ASEAN countries to adopt regional
identity. The second interpretation is that ASEAN is
the instrument of its members, which means that the
ASEAN organization was formed and designed to
pursue the interests of its members. From the second
perspective, it appears that any form of community
cooperation in Southeast Asia is considered to be
difcult or is simply an illusion (Acharya 2001,
2009; Narine 2002).

77
Akademika 92(1)
ASEAN also represents the best example of
modern regional cooperation, which works in any
way when it comes to politics, economy, and social
security. After decades of establishment, ASEAN
has emerged as the fulcrum of geopolitical stability
in Asia and is perhaps the most successful regional
organization involving developing countries in
the world. In the context of security cooperation
through regionalism, ASEAN is among the models
that can be identied as a successful one. The rapid
development of ASEAN and its economic relations
with China have opened up opportunities to improve
regional relation norms, including the ASEAN-China
Free Trade Area (ACFTA), investment, management
services, cooperation in the form of the workforce,
political dimensions,as well as other interests that
could bring benets to ASEAN-China(Fawcett 2016;
Swee-Hock 2007).
Besides the competition from a major power,
ASEAN has limitations to reachingan agreement on
key issues and resolving them within the member
states, which is reected through Vietnam’s invasion
of Cambodia.However, ASEAN has made additional
progress toward different security objectives, as
demonstrated in the Bali Concord. The Bali Concord
is an impressive achievement, given the level of
conict that exists amongthe ASEAN countries
less than a decade earlier.Even though ASEAN
did not succeed as an economic regime during the
Cold War (Arnnn 1982; Narine 2002), it began
to step in as a unit of regional priority in balancing
regional securityafter the Cold War ended. The
implementation of the ASEAN Community Agenda
Blueprint has accounted for the growth in intra-
ASEAN trade over the years, and it has also called
for the transformation of ASEAN into a single market
and production base (Hanizah and Hana 2018).
According to the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), regionalism is
not merely aimed at balancing the security and
prosperity of a region, but also an approach to
cooperation with a higher chance of success
compared to a standalone-state approach. This
collaboration does not necessarily have to be supra-
national, but rather a variant of a sovereign state
organization that encompasses ten Southeast Asian
countries (Leifer 1975). The number of regional
arrangements grew signicantly in the mid-1980s,
and regional organizations have become more
diverse and dynamic after the end of the Cold War
(New Regionalism). After the Cold War ended,
ASEAN received many security threats. Thus,
regional cooperation was formed to avoid internal
or external security threats.Apart from that, the
differences in opinions could be settled peacefully
so that decisions can be formed collectively without
any conicts. ASEAN may face uncertainties and
challenges, but through regionalism, it always has
guidelines to implementits economic, social, and
cultural cooperation. Challenges in the shape of
security and rapid globalization will always threaten
the position of ASEAN as a regional organization,
but close cooperation among its members will
ensure the stability of the association, especially
from the viewpoint of safety and security (Acharya
2012; Leifer 1975).
However, any discussion on regional dimensions
or global security needs to be rst examined
from a regional dimension point of view. This is
because there are different regional dimensions
to global security issues or problems. Hence,
any security issues do not necessarily have to be
considered a global problem that requires a global
solution(Fawcett 2016).This situation emerged after
World War I and World War II. As an example,
security could be understood through global or
universal institutions such as the League of Nations
or the United Nations, where they would provide
the best security assurance.However, it is important
to understand that the regional security use of
regionalism is the better approach. This approach
creates certain issues that need to be addressed in a
certain way but has gained widespread acceptance
in the post-Cold War era due to the inuence of the
competitiveness of the powers of the major nations.
At that time, global security had beendeclining
because of the competition in pursuing power by
stronger countries. Regional powers and actors
also have more autonomy in their affairs. Through
regional cooperation,however, especially after the
Cold War era,most specic problems and solutions
within the regionswere identied and balanced. It
also minimized the chances of the occurrence of
new conicts (Fawcett 2016; Hurrell 1995).
Political and ideological foundations supporting
and strengthening ties between countries in
Southeast Asia began to experience signicant
changes at the end of the Cold War. Through
these political and ideological changes, security
became the most dominant factor in pushing
ASEAN toward producing and implementing the
organization’s development policy. After the Cold
War, many ASEAN actions and policies in the late
‘90s were implemented through intra- and extra-

78
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
regional security, economic, and political aspects/
perspectives. More recently, however, ASEAN’s
regionalism agenda is manifested through joint
implementation of policy, especially in offsetting
regional security threats (Richard, Evan, and Vicente
2017).
The increased importance of interregional
relations is also a characteristic of the current
wave of regionalism and security. While dealing
with a World Order phenomenon, the behavior
of one region bearsan impact on the behavior of
others. The most obvious example is the European
regionalism (European Union), which had provoked
and promoted regionalism in other parts of the
world, including Southeast Asia (ASEAN) (Hettne
and Soderbaum 1998). ASEAN regionalism is
more extroverted than introverted, and this reects
the deeper interdependence in today’s global
political economy. From this skeptical perspective,
ASEAN regionalism can also be identied as one
way of coping with global transformation,as an
increasing number of members have realized that
they lacked the capability and means to manage
such a task,especially the security threats at the
international level. If globalization focuses on global
activities, regionalism focuses on regional activities
and the region into a separate analysis unit(Fawcett
2016; Pugh and Sidhu 2003).
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM THEORY
APPROACH TOWARD ASEAN
The emergence of liberal institutionalism (LI) as an
alternative to realism in international relations theory
has led to the debate among scholars since the 1970s,
particularly on the legitimacy of liberal institutions
as a real alternative to realism. According to the
LI approach, emphasis should be placed on global
governance and international organizations as a way
of explaining the relationship between countries at
the international level. Institutionalism and realism
differ in several aspects, one of which concerns how
they approach social sciences. States in a realist
world must be motivated primarily by relative
gains when considering cooperation. However, in
some cases, this proposition may be false when the
threat of aggressive war is low, for instance, when
defensive technologies are prevalent.
Institutionalism, on the contrary, seeks to state in
advance the conditions under which its propositions
apply to. When state elites do not foresee self-
interested benets from the cooperation, we do not
expect it to occur, nor the institution that facilitates
the cooperation to develop (R.O. Keohane and Martin
1995). If states can benet from the cooperation,
each government is therefore expected to attempt to
construct such institutions. In the context of ASEAN,
the LI theory approach is more accurate compared
tothe realism theory. This is because the institutions
or organizations can provide information, reduce
transaction costs, make commitments more
credible, establish focal points for coordination,
and in general, facilitate the operation of reciprocity
(R.O. Keohane and Martin 1995). As seen in the
context of the organization, ASEAN focuses more on
global governance by establishing relations with the
world’s major economies and discussion mediums
on any issues that arise among ASEAN countries, as
well as ASEAN with other countries.
Institutionalism emphasizesthe importance of
the role played by the international system, as well
as the ability of international organizations to seek
cooperation amongthe members. It also rejects the
opinions and assumptions that international politics
is a power struggle, in which military security issues
are the priority (Devitt 2011).The approach used
through LI is more about peace and cooperation in
the implementation of any policies, decisions, and
reactions to issues arising. Accordingly, this theory
is best known in the context of addressing the
security conicts that exist in Southeast Asia. The
institutionalist theory is based on ‘the assumption
that international politics can be divided into two
realms, which are security and political economy,
and that liberal institutionalism mainly applies to
the latter’ (R.O. Keohane and Martin 1995). Based
onthe traditional or non-traditionalsecurity issues
within the region, the theoryis safelyobserved and
collectively managed in the context of the ASEAN
organization. LI is an alternative theory when
it comes to interpreting international relations,
whereby some scholars have regardedit as a
correction to the conventional international relations
theory, which states that powerful powers dominate
world politics, and international institutions are not
important (Johnson and Heiss 2018).
To fully understand the concept of LI,
it is important to understand that itwas rst
introducedparallel with historical events and that
it competes with the views of theoretical scholars.
Therefore, before dening LI, it must be explained
how this theoretical approach has been developed in
response to both the world of concept and the real
world. To do so, we need to track the major criticism

79
Akademika 92(1)
of LI, which has spread from realists, Marxists,
constructivists, non-liberal governments, feminists,
and developing countries to the general public,
especially in ASEAN organizations. Meanwhile, in
the 1990s, Southeast Asia generated more theoretical
interest as the realist orthodoxy was confronted
with a twofold challenge: liberal institutionalism
and institutional constructivism. Both reject realist
analysis on several grounds. In the post-Cold War,
one argument goes the danger of wars has markedly
declined. Condence-building measures, preventive
diplomacy, and other institutionalist strategies have
now entered the security agenda (Ruland 2000)ʀB.
LI denies other international relation theories
that are based on the denition of regionalism. In
this regard, this concept cannot be fully understood
without rst understanding its conceptual
foundations from the points of view of realism,
classical liberalism, and Marxism (Johnson
and Heiss 2018; R. Keohane and Nye 1977).
Realism eventually developed a particular set of
assumptions, which include: (1) nation-states are
the primary actors; (2) states interact in an anarchic
system lacking any higher authority or enforcement;
(3) states are rational actors, and these select
actions and are expected to achieve their goals; (4)
for survival and thriving, states must accumulate
power; and (5) the accumulation of power is a
zero-sum game for one state and necessitates losses
for another (Johnson and Heiss 2018). The debate
leading to the premise used by realist scholars, and
the possibility of reshaping the behavior of actors
through organizational rules and norms, continues
to be the main deliberations in classifying regional
security conicts(Rashila and Azizan 2012).
LI ourished after the end of the Second World
War, particularly with the emergence of international
institutions. It involves the actor becoming a
member of an established organization. The actors
rst join the organization, which in turn brings
them closer to the relationship. This stage involves
the interaction of actors within an organization.
Through the organization, the members engage in
interactions (actors and non-actors) that consist
of various economic and social activities. This
collaboration then leads to ‘interdependence’, where
potential conicts and crises are minimized because
each member has mutual interests.Actors/members
within the organization eventually begin to see
themselves and other members as ‘WE’, rather than
‘YOU’&‘I’ (individuals). In this context, though
problems or crises may still exist, the differences
in opinions and views do not lead to conicts that
may affect the relationship amongthe members
of the organization,as all issues are resolved
through discussions, forums, and dialogues. This,
therefore,creates a close relationship among the
members of the organization.
By the 20th Century, following the growth
of global security threats, especially through
inevitable warfare, realist supporters sought to
bring these institutions to align with their paradigm.
Figures such as(Morgenthau 2005), in his writing
titled: ‘Politics Among Nations’, explained
the marginalized international institutions as
epiphenomenal,whereby, if the institution merely
reects the balance of power among nations, it is
still benecial for the theory to ignore the institution
and look to the countries (actors) specically.After
World War II ended, the United States began to see
its capabilities in forming international cooperation
to fulll its role and importance as a nation that
monopolizes power. In this regard, countries like
the USA began to build a network of international
institutions to help them shape and provide economic
stability, especially in terms of public goods with
other countries. For them,the encounter with liberal
values is unnecessary because peace can be achieved
by a hegemonic power that will strengthen itself to
enforce international cooperation.
There was an assertion from (Mearsheimer
1995) that institutionalism employs a ‘neat
dividing line’ to separate political economy from
security issues in the context of institutional
cooperation. This assertion refers to the view of
‘Cooperation Under Anarchy’ by Kenneth Oye. A
major argument of Cooperation Under Anarchy is
that institutionalist theory can be applied to both
security and political economy issues (Oye 1986).
This statement was then explained by (Axelrod
and Keohane 1985) that military-security issues
display more of the characteristic associated with
anarchy than a political-economic one. For instance,
a political-economic relationship is typically more
institutionalized than a military-security one.
According to LI, organizational or institutional
governance is a set of functions that can and
should be implemented across national borders
with a combination of actors and non-actors who
specialize in specic tasks based on their respective
expertise. Thus, the organization will produce
resilience among member states as an entity in
developing power and expertise (Slaughter 2004).
LI should be highly signicant to security issues

80
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
because its argument revolves around the role of
institutions/organizations in providing information.
According to Richard Stubbs, there are three key
elements of the performance of regional institutions
that are evaluated including effectiveness, which
refers to the ability of a regional organization to
produce the desired results and therefore, move
towards state goals. The second factor is legitimacy
which examines an organization’s right to expect
conformity with philosophically derived ethical
standards such as democracy and consultation,
respect for human rights, and fairness. The third
factor is efciency, which refers to the ratio between
output and the resources used or in other words, the
extent to which a regional organization can produce
as much as possible at the least expense (Stubbs
2019).
The organization can thus produce resilience
among its member states as an entity in developing
power and expertise (Slaughter 2004). LI should
be highly signicant to security issues because its
argument revolves around the role of institutions/
organizations in providing information. In the
context of ASEAN, member states give full consent
to ASEAN in planning any programs among the
member states, especially on issues related to
security. This is in line with the approach of LI,
which does not touch on violence toward any
security issues, and instead, forms a safer solution
for the region.(Lindberg 1963) and (Haas 1964)
debated about LI’s relationship with regional
integration and viewed that, through the theory of
LI, actors develop regional relations by strategically
forming organizationsfor cooperation in economic
matters. This way, they also form cooperation in
other areas, including politics, society, culture,
and economy, which is currently happening in the
context of ASEAN.
FIGURE 3. Connection between ASEAN Regionalism, Security Cooperation, and Liberal Institutionalism
11
FIGURE 3. Connection between ASEAN Regionalism, Security Cooperation, and Liberal
Institutionalism
Based on Figure 3, there is an interrelated relationship between the three main points of
this study, namely ASEAN Regionalism, security cooperation, and liberal institutionalism. These
three aspects show interdependence in terms of function and implementation of policies under
ASEAN institutions. The approach of LI theory through ASEAN regionalism can be seen in a
few aspects. As an organization that functions through cooperation, the implementation of the
ASEAN Community, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and ASEAN Plus are among few of the
dominating efforts in realizing regional security cooperation. This kind of implementation suits
the definition of institutions, which refers to a set of rules that stipulate how states should
cooperate and compete with each other. They prescribe acceptable forms of state behavior, as
well as unacceptable behaviors. These rules are negotiated by states, and according to many
prominent theorists, they entail the mutual acceptance of higher norms, which are ‘standard of
behavior’ defined as rights and obligations through international agreement (Mearsheimer 1995).
These sets of international agreements are later embodied in organizations/institutions with their
personnel and budgets.
In terms of security, member states take a neutral stance in any form of violent threat.
ASEAN depends on the commitment of its members and vice versa.Conflicts can also be
avoided with the existence of the ASEAN Charter that each member needs to adhere to. Any
conflicts, security threats, and problems that arise are resolved through collective negotiations.
The conflict must be settled jointly with minimum risk of violence or dispute that could lead to
further conflict. The ARF, ZOPFAN,ASEAN Plus, and other initiatives contained in the ASEAN
Charter accord a clear picture of the cooperation of its members. For LI scholars, regional
economic hub sharing has become a big prospect for ASEAN, whereby states or actors in
institutions can share economic resources and are open to greater opportunities for cooperation in
other areas (Kant 2010; R. Keohane and Nye 1977).
Security cooperation among ASEAN countries is formed through many organizations,
including the Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). ZOPFAN is one of the
security cooperation taken seriously by ASEAN in stabilizing regional security. Several factors
ASEAN Regionalism
Security
Cooperation
Liberal
Institutionalism
Based on Figure 3, there is an interrelated
relationship between the three main points of
this study, namely ASEAN Regionalism, security
cooperation, and liberal institutionalism. These
three aspects show interdependence in terms of
function and implementation of policies under
ASEAN institutions. The approach of LI theory
through ASEAN regionalism can be seen in a few
aspects. As an organization that functions through
cooperation, the implementation of the ASEAN
Community, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and
ASEAN Plus are among few of the dominating
efforts in realizing regional security cooperation.
This kind of implementation suits the denition
of institutions, which refers to a set of rules that
stipulate how states should cooperate and compete
with each other. They prescribe acceptable forms of
state behavior, as well as unacceptable behaviors.
These rules are negotiated by states, and according
to many prominent theorists, they entail the mutual
acceptance of higher norms, which are ‘standard of
behavior’ dened as rights and obligations through
international agreement (Mearsheimer 1995). These
sets of international agreements are later embodied
in organizations/institutions with their personnel
and budgets.
In terms of security, member states take a neutral
stance in any form of violent threat. ASEAN depends
on the commitment of its members and vice versa.
Conicts can also be avoided with the existence of
the ASEAN Charter that each member needs to adhere
to. Any conicts, security threats, and problems that

81
Akademika 92(1)
arise are resolved through collective negotiations.
The conict must be settled jointly with minimum
risk of violence or dispute that could lead to further
conict. The ARF, ZOPFAN,ASEAN Plus, and other
initiatives contained in the ASEAN Charter accord
a clear picture of the cooperation of its members.
For LI scholars, regional economic hub sharing
has become a big prospect for ASEAN, whereby
states or actors in institutions can share economic
resources and are open to greater opportunities for
cooperation in other areas (Kant 2010; R. Keohane
and Nye 1977).
Security cooperation among ASEAN countries
is formed through many organizations, including the
Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN).
ZOPFAN is one of the security cooperation taken
seriously by ASEAN in stabilizing regional security.
Several factors contribute to the formation of
ZOPFAN, including Southeast Asia’s strategic
position in the conict and tension between the
East-West powers. ZOPFAN is one of the outcomes
of regionalism that will maintain peace and security
stability amongthe members by avoiding major
interferences (Haacke 2005).
Besides that, the ASEAN Regional Forum
(ARF-1994), Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM-1996),
ASEAN Plus Three (APT-2003), East Asia Summit
(EAS-2005), ASEAN Defense Minister’s Meeting
(ADMM-2006), and ASEAN Defense Ministers
Meeting Plus (ADMM Plus 2010) were formed to
maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the member states and to sustain peace and stability
within the region. In all these forums, ASEAN plays
a pivotal role, especially through the approach of
LI, or at least theoretically shaping secure regional
cooperation,specically in the process of shaping
three communities, including ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC), ASEAN Political-Security
Community (APSC), and ASEAN Sociocultural
Community (ASCC). At the end of the Cold War
era, security issues were no longer just focusing
on military dimensions, but a more comprehensive
dimension. As stated by (R.O. Keohane 1989),
‘institutions change as a result of human action,
and the changes in expectations and processes that
result can exert profound effects on state behavior’.
For example, the issues are merely about internal
security through nation-building, food systems,
and food security, health, nance, and trade (Barry
Buzan, Waever, and Wilde. 1998).After the Cold
War, cooperation through ASEAN regionalism was
most likely the best way to avoid any conicts
and simplify the process of forming security
cooperationamong the member states (Collins
2007).Security through regionalism creates a new
concern of governments in each member state.
Extensive sectors such as economic, political, and
social have long been part of the toolkit of statecraft,
which is a means to inuence other states and their
policies in the region.
In addition, ARF has continued to progress as
an important multilateral platform for a dialogue
on political security and cooperation. It has also
taken condence-building measures (CBM) and
preventive diplomacy in the implementation of the
ARF Vision Statement and Hanoi Plan of Action to
Implement the ARF Vision Statement. After the 26th
ARF meeting in Bangkok in August 2019, ASEAN’s
Ministers tasked the ARF Senior Ofcials to develop
a new Plan of Action to Implement the ARF Vision
Statement for consideration and adoption by the
27th ARF in Vietnam in 2020. ARF has played a
constructive role in enhancing mutual understanding
and trust, as well as in promoting transparency in
the region. The number of ARF activities focused
on preventive diplomacy has continued to increase,
while condence-building measures continued to be
strengthened (Secretariat 2019).
Meanwhile, the sixth principle in the ASEAN
Charter:‘effective cooperation among themselves,
illustrates the advantages seen in the collaborative
efforts amongthe member states and throughout the
region to fulll the socioeconomic needs at home.
The strong emphasis placed on diplomacy over
military strength, a core tenant of liberalism, has
served to make ASEAN an intermediary among many
of the larger actors in the region, giving the group
considerably more clout. Within ASEAN, the pursuit
of economic gains has remained the core principle
for the members. Through cooperative efforts such
as the Asia-Pacic Economic Community, ARF,
AFTA, and ASEAN Plus Three/Six, the organization
has made contentious efforts to expand economic
integration throughout the region, and with it,
enhance stability and prosperity for all. This type of
effective cooperation leads to solutions,especially in
resolving security threatsstemming intra-ASEAN or
ASEAN with another major power.

82
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
FIGURE 4. ASEAN and Its Immediate and Extended Family
Source: East Asia Research Program (Kundu 2017)
Figure 4 shows how ASEAN works with its
immediate and extended family under the ARF.
Each member state in ASEAN has ethnic and cultural
diversity. Hence, the ARF serves as a space for
discussion and dialogue to increase the condence
of member states in addressing regional security
issues. This is in line with the approach of LI, which
emphasizes the importance of cooperation within
institutions and between states. ARF has also been
successful in promoting peace and stability within
the region through enhanced cooperation in areas
of disaster relief, counterterrorism and transnational
crime, maritime security, non-proliferation and
disarmament, as well as the security of and in the
use of information and communication technologies
(ICTs). Besides that, the ARF has been successful
in making and enhancing its relevance and
effectiveness in addressing the increasingly complex
challenges amidst the continuously evolving
regional landscape. However, it must function at
a pace comfortable to all and based on consensus,
while also recognizing the importance of continuing
to make the ARF relevant in addressing the shared
challenges in the area under the ARF’s geographical
footprint.
The concept of regionalism discussed by
(Acharya 2012) emphasizes that the localization
process among and within ASEAN countries
is crucial in establishing a stronger ASEAN
Community and security cooperation through
ASEAN norms. Emphasized localization aspects
include social cooperation and community based
on ASEAN values and identities. Efforts to change
the identity and value of localization will result in
difculties to implement and continue with ASEAN
regionalization and cooperation and instead increase
security threats to the existing collaboration (Richard,
Evan, and Vicente 2017).Besides,over the last thirty
years, Southeast Asia has experienced considerable
regionalization, integration, and deepening of
political, social, and economic ties, especially
among ASEAN member states. The acceleration
of globalization and multilateralism after the end
of the Cold War also signaled the need to further
augment the integration of economic and security
activities across the national border that could ease
many restrictions ranging from reduction of tariffs
barriers, free trade, and good movements and the
deepening of economic bilateral ties (Hashim and
Julay 2021).
The addition of ASEAN’s efforts to regional
security is its commitment to transform itself as
a security community. This is a vision that was
adopted through the Bali Concord in 2003. Bali
Concord II charts out the guidelines of the ASEAN
Political and Security Community (APSC), which
has three key characteristics: the rst is to establish
a “rules-based community of shared values and
norms”; the second is to work toward a “cohesive,
peaceful, stable and resilient region with shared
responsibility for comprehensive security”; and
the third is to create a “dynamic and outward-
looking region in an increasingly integrated and
interdependent world”(Kundu 2017). Aside from
that, preventive diplomacy and condence-building
measures are the two important pillars of ASEAN’s
idea of comprehensive security, as articulated in the
APSC Blueprint. There are some measures taken
toward APSC, namely ASEAN Security Dialogue,
ASEAN Defense Minister’s Dialogue, ARF, ADMM,
and ADMM Plus.
However, a few scholars such as (Milner 2003)
have criticized the existence, functions, and process
of regionalism, especially under the approach of

83
Akademika 92(1)
LI, particularly regarding ASEAN’s reaction toward
China’s actions. The importance and function of
regionalism as an indicator and medium for ASEAN’s
progress toward China cannot be denied (Milner
2003; Kapur 2003; Acharya 2009, 2012). In 2017,
China began to exercise its power and inuence to
master the total water zones without thinking ots
impact on developing countries and the Third World
countriesin ASEAN. The Chinese’s actionsare seen
as a major threat, especially from the viewpoint
of economic security to the ASEAN countries that
use the South China Sea to carry out most of their
economic activities. Hence, AFTA has remained as
a policy that safeguards the socioeconomic interests
of the ASEAN region. China’s actions have caused
trade activities to go unnoticed and may lead to the
collapse of economies in ASEAN countries(Swee-
Hock 2007).On the one hand, while the ASEAN
countries have all demonstrated a growing desire
to develop closer ties with the neighboring giant
via bilateral diplomacy and multilateral forums
since the 1990s, none of them have shown a clear
sign of jumping on China’s bandwagon in the
strict sense of the term. This is because the weaker
states’ efforts to forge closer economic cooperation
and diplomatic engagement with China are chiey
driven by a pragmatic calculation to reap as much
commercial and diplomatic payoffs as possible from
the Gulliver; by themselves, they do not signify that
the smaller actors have come to accept a subordinate
role to Beijing (Kuik 2016). In addition, China’s
actions on the South China Sea have resulted in
multiple reactions by ASEAN. For ASEAN, it is
a new challenge to identify solutions through
engagement and dialogue with China, especially
with the adaptation of the Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI). During the ASEAN Summit held in Bandar
Seri Begawan on 24 and 25 April 2013, ASEAN
stated its stance on the issue of the South China
Sea dispute which needs to be addressed through
consultation and reconciliation. ASEAN’s position
is in line with the principles of international law
including the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Rahman 2018).
Besides China, ASEAN is also exposed to more
security threats from many other powers at play
in the region such as North Korea and the USA.
(Acharya 2013) referred to this as a multipolar
regional international system, whereby China,
Japan, India, Australia, and the USA each havea role
to play. At the same time, ASEAN regionalism opens
up opportunities for greater economic, political, and
social cooperation for its member states. In terms
ofthe multipolar regional international system,
it is difcult for ASEAN’s member states to work
individually. ASEAN regionalism is just one way
to engage with all the great powers individually
and collectively on different issues, while the
liberal institutionalism approach shapes the types
of cooperation that need to be fullled by ASEAN.
The means of handling the security issues facing
Southeast Asia can be divided into four sub-groups,
namely interstate trust, peaceful change, regime
stability, and conict resolution. However, as far
as ASEAN is concerned, its achievements are more
visible when building interstate trust and peaceful
change rather than in actual conict resolution and
regime stability. ASEAN’s Blueprint 2025, ASEAN’s
Community, and a few other implementations could
be the answer to achieving the four sub-groups in
handling security issues globally.
If each state can benet from cooperation,
each government is thus expected to attempt to
construct such institutions.In this case, ASEAN
as an institution through regionalism is seen as a
medium to the validity of this process. As stated
by Keohane and Martin, through the approach
of LI, institutions or organizations can provide
information (ARF and ADMM), reduce transaction
costs (ZOPFAN and AFTA), make commitments
more credible (Community Agenda-AEC, APSC,
and ASCC), establish focal points for coordination,
and in general, facilitate the operation of reciprocity.
As an example, the ASCC Blueprint 2025 presents
ve characteristics to be reached before 2025. They
are indicators used to measure the progress of the
ASEAN Community in meeting the economic needs
of member states. These ve aspects are: ASEAN
Community ‘engages and benets the people’,
‘inclusive’, ‘sustainable’, ‘resilient’, and ‘dynamic’.
Blueprint 2025 is one of the serious efforts taken
by member countries to face greater challenges,
especially from the perspective of economic
security. The guidelines contained in the Blueprint
will ensure the stability of ASEAN regionalism as a
solid unity and remain relevant until the year 2025
and the following years.
CONCLUSION
ASEAN is a regional collaborative organization
that has worked to bring improvements in the
eld of economics, politics, and cultural cohesion.
However, globalization has affected ASEAN’s
regional cooperation and security structures in many

84
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
ways. It needs to be ready for any kinds of security
threats, and it also needs to revisit its main objectives
in line with the roadmap carved by the Liberalist.
However, ASEAN must travel some distance to
establish an effective regional conict-management
regime, as all the dimensions of security regionalism
are not equally relevant to all the regions. In some
cases, there is regionalization of conict but no
regionalization of conict management. In other
cases, institutions can deal with conicts within their
regions, but not outside. Regionalism, security, and
the liberal institutionalism approach are multifaceted
phenomena that are related to each other, especially
in the context of ASEAN. A basic distinction can be
made between the classic and neo-functional thesis
of regional integration as a peace promoter (ASEAN
model) and the more recent perspective associated
with the new regionalism of the regionalization of
conict as reason-building.
So how is ASEAN related to regionalism or
how should security cooperation be placed in the
framework of LI? From the context of ASEAN, we
have found a clear direction toward the approach
of LI theory. LI can be the right approach for the
complex and problematic situation regarding
security cooperation that has emerged from the
complicated process of regionalism. It can also
be the concrete answer, as long as the actors in
ASEAN can keep the balance among the factual
conditions of each member state, which can be in
the form of what we call ‘ASEAN Integration’. The
approach of LI, marked by the end of the Cold War,
is an interesting case study, as ASEAN has combined
political, economic, and social approaches in order
to respond to the changing environment. ASEAN has
been through a lot of conicts and security threats in
the process of forming and bringing stability to the
Southeast Asian region. However, with the approach
of LI values, ASEAN seems like it should be able to
survive as a strong organizationin the days to come
with a clear vision of becoming an integrated region,
as well as high potential in economic, political, and
sociocultural development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial
support provided by the University of Malaya and
the Ministry of Higher Education under ‘Skim
Latihan Akademik Bumiputra’ (SLAB).
REFERENCES
Acharya, Amitav. 1999. Realism, institutionalism, and
the Asian economic crisis’. Contemporary Southeast
Asia 21. 1: 1-29.
---. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in
Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problems of Regional
Order. . London.: Routledge.
---. 2009. Contructing A Security Community In Southeast
Asia: ASEAN and The Problem of Regional Order.
New York.: Routledge.
---. 2012. The Making of Southeast Asia, International
Relations of A Region. Institute of Southeast Asia
Studies, Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. cornell
university press, london.
---. 2013. ASEAN 2030: Challenges of building a mature
political and security community. ADBI Working
Paper Series (441).
Arnnn, Jorgenson-Dahl. 1982. Regional Organization
and Order in Southeast Asia. London: Macmillan.
Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O Keohane. 1985. Achieving
cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions.
World Politics 38 (1): 226-254. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/2010357.
Baldwin, David A. 1985. Economic Statecraft. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap De Wilde. 1998.
Security: A New Framework For Analysis. Boulder,
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Collins, Alan. 2007. Forming a security community:
Lessons from ASEAN. International Relations of The
Asia-Pacic 7 (2): 203-225.
Devitt, Rebecca. 2011. Liberal institutionalism: An
alternative IR theory or just maintaining the status
quo? J-STOR: 4.
Fawcett, Louise. 2016. The regional dimension of
global security. Global Security and International
Political Economy 1: 25. http://www.eolss.net/Eolss-
sampleAllChapter.aspx.
Garofano, J. 2002. Power, institution, and the ASEAN
regional forum: A security community for ASIA?
ASIAN Survey 42 (3): 503-521.
Haacke, Jurgen. 2005. ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security
Culture; Origins, Development and Prospects.
London and New York.: Routledged, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Haas, Ernst B. 1964. Beyond the Nation-State:
Functionalism and International Organization. Palo
Alto, California: Stanford University Press.
Hanizah, Idris, and Hussin Hana. 2018. Improving intra-
ASEAN connectivity and inland waterways network
for further integration of the coastal shipping and
tourism sector developments. Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies (JATI) 23(1): 75-101.
Hashim, Haizh, and Abdul Hai Julay. 2021. Development
of sub-regional institutions in Southeast Asia: The
case of Bimp-Eaga. Akademika 91(3): 12. https://
ejournal.ukm.my/akademika/article/view/50520.

85
Akademika 92(1)
Hettne, Bjorn, and Fredrick Soderbaum. 1998. The new
regionalism approach. Politeia 17 (3): 18.
Hirchman, A.O. 1980. National Power and the Structure
of Foreign Trade. Edited by CA Berkeley. California:
University of California Press.
Hurrell, Louise Fawcett and Andrew. 1995. Regionalism
in World Politics: Regional Organization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Tana, and Andrew Heiss. 2018. Liberal
institutionalism. In International Organization and
Global Governance, edited by Thomas G. Weiss and
Rorden Wilkinson, 123-134. London: Routledge.
Kahler, Miles. 2004. Economic security in an era of
globalization: Denition and provision. The Pacic
Review 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/095127404200
0326032.
Kant, Immanuel. 2010. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical
Sketch. Philadelphia: Syracuse University
Humannities Center. Reprint, 2010. 1795.
Kapur, Ashok. 2003. Regional Security Structures in
Asia. United States of America.: Routledged Curzon.
Keohane, Robert, and Joseph Nye. 1977. Power And
Interdependence: World Politics in Transition Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Keohane, Robert O. 1989. International Institutions and
State Power: Essay in International Relations Theory.
1 ed.: Westview Press.
Keohane, Robert O, and Lisa L Martin. 1995. The promise
of institutionalist theory. The MIT Press 20 (1): 39-51.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539214.
Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2016. How do weaker states hedge?
Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment behavior towards
China. Journal of Contemporary China: 16. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2015.1132714.
Kundu, S. 2017. Regional security in Southeast Asia:
Prospect and challenges for ASEAN. East Asia
Research Programme: 6.
Leifer, M. 1975. Regionalism, the global balance and
Southeast Asia. In Regionalism in Southeast Asia,
55-70. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International
Studies Jakarta.
Lindberg, L. 1963. The political Dynamics of European
Economic Integration. Palo Alto, California: Stanford
University Press.
McGrew, Anthony G. 2003. Global Legal Interaction and
Present-Day Patterns of Globalization, as cited in V. S.
A. Kumar, “ A Critical Methodology of Globalization:
Politics of the 21st Century?”. Indiana Journal of
Global Legal Studies 10 (Summer 2003).
Mearsheimer, J. J. 1995. The false promise of international
institutions. International Security 19(3): 5-49. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/2539078.
Menon, J., Laurence, T. and Darmashakthini Arujunan.
December 2018 2018. ASEAN Integration Report.
Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs
(Malaysia: IDEAS). http://www.ideas.org.my/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/Asean_Integration_V8.pdf.
Milner, A. C. 2003. Region, Security and the Return
of History: The Rafes Lecture Series. Singapore.:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking preferences seriously:
A liberal theory of international politics. International
Organization 51 (4): 513-553. https://www.princeton.
edu/~amoravcs/library/preferences.pdf.
Morgenthau, Hans Joachim. 2005. Politics Among
Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace. Revised
by Kenneth W. Thompson and W. David Clinton. 7th
edition. New York: New York Press.
Narine, Shaun. 2002. Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism
in Southeast Asia. United States of America: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Oye, Kenneth A. 1986. Cooperation Under Anarchy.
Princeton University, United Kingdom: Princeton
University Press.
Pitsuwan, Surin. 2011. The ASEAN Heart of Asia,
Jakarta Post. Accessed on: 15 June. https://www.
project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-asean-heart-
of-asia?barrier=accesspaylog.
Pugh, M. and W.P.S Sidhu. 2003. The United Nations and
Regional Security. Edited by Lynne Reinner. Oxford,
UK: University of Oxford.
Radah, Dahari, Idris Nor Azizan, and Othman Zarina.
2019. Small arms and light weapon smuggling at
Malaysia-Thailand border and its threats towards
human security. Malaysian Journal of History,
Politics & Strategic Studies (JEBAT) 46(2): 39. http://
journalarticle.ukm.my/14255/.
Rahman, Azrul Azlan Abdul. 2018. Sino-Asean relations:
Between Asia order or dilemma “China’s Rise”.
Akademika 88 (3): 14. https://ejournal.ukm.my/
akademika/article/view/15984.
Rashila, Ramli and Idris Nor Azizan. 2012. Keselamatan
insan dalam konteks keselamatan nasional: Isu dan
cabaran dalam membina indeks keselamatan insan di
Malaysia. . In Keselamatan Nasional Malaysia, edited
by Kamarulnizam Abdullah. Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia: UKM Press.
Richard, Kozul-Wright, P.Garcia Evan, and Paolo B. Yu
III Vicente. 2017. ASEAN at 50: Achievements and
Challenges in Regional Integration. United Nations
(New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development). https://unctad.org/en/
PublicationsLibrary/gdsecidc2017d2_en.pdf.
Roberts, Christopher B. 2012. ASEAN Regionalism :
Cooperation, values and institutionalization. USA and
CANADA: Routledge.
Ruland, J. 2000. ASEAN and the Asian crisis: Theoretical
implications and practical consequences for Southeast
Asian regionalism. The Pacic Review 13 (3):
421-451.
Secretariat, ASEAN. 2019. Chairman’s Statement of
The 26th ASEAN Regional Forum. ASEAN Regional
Forum Secretariat. Accessed 25 August. https://asean.
org/chairmans-statement-26th-asean-regional-forum/.

86
Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism
Singh, Harjeet. 2007. South Asia Defense and Strategic
Year Book. National Security.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stubbs, Richard. 2019. ASEAN sceptics versus ASEAN
proponents: evaluating regional institutions. The
Pacic Review 32 (6): 923-950. https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09512748.2019.16
11627.
Swee-Hock, S. 2007. ASEAN-China Economic Relations.
Singapore: Institute Of Southeast Asian Studies.
Tamaki, Taku. 2006. Making Sense of ASEAN Way: A
Constructivist Approach. Presented at the Annual
Conference of the International Political Science
Association, Fukuoka Japan.
Yukawa, T. 2018. European integration through
the eyes of ASEAN: Rethinking Eurocentrism
in comparative regionalism. International Area
Studies Review (IASR) 21(4): 323-339. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2233865918808035.
Muhammad Faiz Ramli ( corresponding author)
Department of Southeast Asian Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Malaya
Malaysia
Email: fareastramly@gmail.com
Hanizah Idris
Department of Southeast Asian Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Malaya
Malaysia
Email: wafa@um.edu.my
Received: 8 January 2020
Accepted: 27 January 2022