Content uploaded by Brice Tseen Fu Lee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brice Tseen Fu Lee on Jun 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
2024 | International Journal of Law and Pu blic Policy | Volume. 6 | Issue. 1 | 8-18
International Journal of Law and Public Policy
p
-
ISSN: 2721
-
6934, e
-
ISSN: 2721
-
6942
Research Paper
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China Rivalry:
The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Secretary-General
Brice Tseen Fu Lee1, Juan Pablo Sims2
1 School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University. Shanghai,
Tiongkok.
2 Faculty of Government, Universidad Del Desarrollo. Chile.
Article History
Received:
13.11.2023
Revised:
15.01.2024
Accepted:
28.02.2024
*Corresponding Author:
Brice Tseen Fu Lee
Email:
briceleetseenfu@gmail.com
This is an open access article,
licensed under: CC–BY-SA
Abstract: This paper examines ASEAN's need for structural reform amidst
the US-China rivalry, highlighting the limitations of its consensus approach
during crises. It proposes majority voting as an emergency measure and
advocates for a Permanent Secretary-General position, ensuring consistent
leadership. The analysis balances the benefits and challenges of these
reforms, emphasizing the necessity for ASEAN to evolve while maintaining
its core values, ensuring relevance and unity in addressing major geopolitical
challenges.
Keywords: ASEAN Consensus Mechanism, Discourse Analysis, Non-
Interference Policy, Policy Reform, Regional Conflicts.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
9
1. Introduction
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) stands at a pivotal juncture in its history. As
the geopolitical landscape of the region undergoes rapid transformation, primarily driven by the
escalating tensions between global superpowers like the United States and China, ASEAN's
traditional mechanisms of decision-making and conflict resolution are being tested like never before.
The South China Sea dispute, while a significant flashpoint, is but one of the myriad challenges that
underscore the need for ASEAN to introspect and reform.
2. Literature Review
The "ASEAN Way," characterized by principles of consultation, consensus, and non-interference, has
long been the bedrock of the organization's approach to regional cooperation and diplomacy.
However, the intensity of today's geopolitical tensions, especially between the United States and
China, has driven major powers to invest more in minilateral coalitions than in ASEAN institutions to
advance their strategic goals [1]. This shift poses a risk of sidelining ASEAN and undermining its
centrality in regional affairs.
Furthermore, the consensus-based approach, while fostering unity in less contentious times, now
runs the risk of causing fragmentation during critical geopolitical events. In scenarios where ASEAN
member states are forced to choose sides in the US-China rivalry, a fragmented response could
weaken the organization's collective stance and diminish its influence on the global stage.
The stakes are high. ASEAN's relevance, unity, and effectiveness in navigating these challenges
will determine its role in shaping the future of the region. This paper aims to explore the pressing need
for ASEAN reforms, emphasizing the importance of a united front in the face of major geopolitical
challenges and proposing measures to ensure the organization's continued significance in the evolving
international order.
3. Methodology
In this study, we employ discourse analysis to critically examine the ASEAN Way, its policies, and
their respective strengths and weaknesses. Our approach involves a thorough examination of
narratives, language, and communication as presented in ASEAN's official documents, member state
communications, and relevant academic literature. Primary sources for this analysis include ASEAN
communiqués, policy documents, official statements, and resolutions, providing direct insights into
the organization's policy approaches and decision-making processes. Additionally, secondary sources
such as academic journal articles, books, and expert analyses offer critical perspectives and contextual
background, essential for a comprehensive understanding.
The methodology centers around an in-depth narrative examination, where we analyze the
narratives constructed in ASEAN documents and literature to understand the framing of policies and
decision-making processes. A critical look at the language used in ASEAN communications helps
uncover underlying assumptions, ideologies, and power dynamics. This analysis extends to
identifying and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of ASEAN policies as portrayed in the
discourse, particularly focusing on how the consensus mechanism is discussed in the context of
regional conflicts and challenges.
A comparative analysis approach is also employed, comparing the discourse across different
sources and over time to understand the evolution of the ASEAN Way and its impact on policy
effectiveness. The analytical framework includes thematic analysis, where themes related to
consensus, non-interference, regional stability, and conflict resolution are identified and analyzed
across different sources. This is complemented by contextualization, placing the findings within the
broader geopolitical and historical context of Southeast Asia, and a critical evaluation, where the
effectiveness of the ASEAN Way and consensus voting in addressing regional challenges is
scrutinized.
The expected outcomes of this methodology are a nuanced understanding of the ASEAN Way and
its decision-making processes, insights into the strengths and limitations of ASEAN policies in
managing regional disputes and challenges, and recommendations for policy reform or enhancement
within ASEAN based on the analysis.
4. Finding and Discussion
4.1. The Evolving Landscape of ASEAN Challenges
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
10
The South China Sea has emerged as a significant flashpoint in the geopolitical landscape, particularly
in the context of the escalating rivalry between the United States and China. China's newfound
assertiveness in this maritime region has been attributed to various factors, including the growth of its
military power, heightened nationalism, and its perception of triumphalism following the Western
financial crisis [2]. This assertiveness has been met with concern by other littoral states of the South
China Sea, who are troubled by the opacity of Chinese politics and the seemingly fragmented control
over its maritime forces.
The South China Sea is not just a matter of territorial disputes; it represents a convergence of
sovereignty concerns and economic interests, particularly in the realm of oil and natural gas [3]. The
situation creates a flashpoint with significant policy implications for the U.S., Japan, and other Asian
nations. The U.S.-China rivalry in this region has been further complicated by a delicate power
balance, giving each side a sense of conviction to prevail, despite the challenges of building alliance
systems and navigating ideological differences [4].
Furthermore, the South China Sea dispute underscores the need for ASEAN to adapt and evolve.
The organization's traditional mechanisms, while facilitating peaceful interactions and cooperation
among member states, are now facing scrutiny in the face of these contemporary challenges [5]. The
increasing competition between the US and China places ASEAN in a delicate position. A united
stance on the South China Sea issue is crucial for ASEAN to maintain its centrality and relevance in
the evolving regional order [6].
In addition to the geopolitical tensions, ASEAN faces other challenges, including economic
disparities and integration hurdles within its community [6]. Environmental concerns, such as climate
change and natural disasters, further compound the regional impact, necessitating a coordinated
response [7]. Regional health crises, like pandemics, underscore the need for a unified and effective
strategy to safeguard the well-being of the ASEAN populace.
4.2. The "ASEAN Way": Its Strengths and Limitations
The "ASEAN Way" stands as a distinctive approach to regional cooperation, characterized by its
unwavering commitment to consultation, consensus, and non-interference. This approach fosters a
sense of harmony and unity among the member states, ensuring that decisions are made collectively
and with the consent of all parties involved [8]. However, while this method has been instrumental in
maintaining stability and cooperation within the region, it is not without its limitations.
In situations of emergency or during major geopolitical events, such as the US-China rivalry, the
consensus-based system of the "ASEAN Way" can pose significant risks. The requirement for
unanimous agreement among all member states can lead to indecision or inaction, particularly when
swift and decisive action is needed [9]. This potential for fragmentation in critical moments highlights
a vulnerability in the ASEAN decision-making process, underscoring the need for a more agile and
responsive mechanism to address urgent issues.
Furthermore, the "ASEAN Way" often prioritizes international issues over domestic ones,
respecting the sovereignty of each member state and ensuring that their internal affairs remain under
their control. This approach fosters trust and cooperation among the member states, as they can be
assured that their domestic policies and decisions will not be interfered with [10]. However, this focus
on international affairs can sometimes lead to a neglect of pressing local issues and challenges, as the
organization may be too preoccupied with regional and global concerns to address domestic matters
effectively [11].
The evolving landscape of regional and global politics necessitates an urgent evolution of the
"ASEAN Way." The experiences of other regional organizations, such as the European Union,
demonstrate the potential benefits of institutional evolution and adaptation in response to changing
circumstances [12]. Regional organizations play a crucial role in promoting governance standards and
fostering regional order, and ASEAN must be prepared to evolve and adapt to continue playing this
pivotal role effectively [13].
Therefore, while the "ASEAN Way" has served the organization well in fostering unity and
cooperation, the changing geopolitical context and the emergence of new challenges highlight the
need for evolution and adaptation. The organization must find a balance between maintaining its
foundational principles and adopting more agile and responsive decision-making processes to ensure
its continued relevance and effectiveness in the region.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
11
4.3. Proposed ASEAN Reforms
Majority Voting as Stop-Gap Measures in ASEAN
Since its inception, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has steadfastly adhered to a
consensus-based decision-making process, necessitating unanimous agreement among all member
states for any decision to be finalized. This approach has cultivated a strong sense of unity and
cooperation across the member states, fostering a collaborative environment that is unique to ASEAN
[5]. However, this method of decision-making is not without its challenges, particularly in times of
crisis or when quick, decisive action is imperative.
The geopolitical landscape in which ASEAN operates is constantly shifting, with issues such as
the US-China rivalry in the South China Sea highlighting the complex and urgent nature of the
challenges faced by the organization. In such situations, the consensus-based model can lead to
indecision or inaction, as the need for unanimous agreement among all member states can be a
significant hindrance to swift decision-making [5]. This is especially concerning when the stability of
the region is at risk, underscoring the need for a more agile and responsive decision-making process.
Recognizing these challenges, there is a growing call for reform within ASEAN, specifically the
introduction of majority voting as a stop-gap measure during crises. This proposed reform aims to
enable ASEAN to make decisions based on a majority vote, ensuring quicker responses in emergency
situations [14]. The advantages of this approach are manifold. It facilitates swift decision-making,
crucial in times of crisis when delays can have significant repercussions. It also helps to prevent
deadlocks in the decision-making process, ensuring that a single member state or a small group of
member states cannot stall progress or block decisions, even when there is wide support across the
organization [15]. Furthermore, by setting the threshold for majority voting at 70%, decisions made
under this system would still reflect a broad consensus among member states, preserving the spirit of
unity that is central to ASEAN [16].
However, this proposed reform is not without its disadvantages. Introducing majority voting, even
as a temporary measure, could potentially undermine the consensus principle that has been a
foundational element of ASEAN since its establishment. There is also a risk of alienating member
states whose positions do not align with the majority, which could lead to divisions within the
organization (Guan, 2014). Additionally, determining the appropriate threshold for majority voting is
a contentious issue, with the need to strike a balance between ensuring broad agreement and
preventing decision-making paralysis [17].
Therefore, while the consensus-based approach has served ASEAN well in fostering unity and
cooperation, the changing geopolitical context and the need for timely and effective decision-making
in crises necessitate a reevaluation of this approach. The introduction of majority voting as a stop-gap
measure presents a potential solution, balancing the need for swift action in emergencies with the
preservation of ASEAN’s foundational principles. However, careful consideration must be given to
the potential disadvantages and challenges associated with this reform to ensure that it strengthens,
rather than undermines, the organization’s effectiveness and cohesion.
Why Stop-Gap and Not Permanent?
While the challenges posed by the consensus model are evident, it's also essential to respect the
"ASEAN Way," which emphasizes non-interference, consensus, and unity. Making majority voting a
permanent feature might be seen as a departure from these principles. By introducing it as a stop-gap
measure, ASEAN can strike a balance between being responsive in emergencies and staying true to its
foundational principles. Furthermore, by limiting its use to international issues (especially those
involving non-ASEAN members), the organization ensures that this measure is not used to interfere in
the domestic affairs of member states, respecting their sovereignty [18].
Overall, while the majority voting stop-gap measure presents a departure from the traditional
consensus model, it might be a necessary evolution for ASEAN in the face of contemporary
challenges. By carefully delineating the circumstances under which it can be invoked and setting a
high threshold, ASEAN can ensure that this reform enhances its effectiveness without compromising
its core values.
Permanent Secretariat General Position in ASEAN
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), since its establishment, has played a pivotal
role in fostering a sense of cooperation and unity among its member states, contributing significantly
to regional stability and development. However, the organization's structural framework and decision-
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
12
making processes have faced criticism for their informal nature and lack of sustained continuity. The
ASEAN Secretariat, situated in Jakarta since 1976, serves as the central coordinating body for the
organization's various activities. Despite its central role, the Secretariat's functions are primarily
administrative, and it does not possess the executive powers that are characteristic of other regional
organizations, limiting its ability to effectively implement policies and respond to challenges [19].
In light of the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape and the myriad of challenges that the region
is confronted with, there is a pressing need for ASEAN to reassess and strengthen its leadership
structure. The establishment of a permanent Secretariat General position stands out as a viable
solution to address these challenges. Such a position would ensure a consistent and authoritative
leadership voice within the organization, enhancing ASEAN's capacity to effectively implement its
policies and initiatives, and enabling a more agile response to emerging regional challenges [20].
To further bolster the effectiveness of this proposed reform, the consideration of a co-Secretariat
General model, encompassing both a permanent and a rotating Secretariat General, could be explored.
This hybrid model aims to strike a balance between ensuring leadership continuity and maintaining
equitable representation of all member states. The permanent Secretariat General would provide
stability and consistency in leadership, while the rotating Secretariat General would ensure that all
member states have an opportunity to contribute to and influence the organization's direction and
policies. This dual approach would not only enhance the effectiveness of ASEAN's decision-making
processes but also uphold the principles of inclusivity and equal representation that are central to the
organization's ethos.
Therefore, the introduction of a permanent Secretariat General position, potentially complemented
by a co-Secretariat General model, represents a strategic evolution in ASEAN's organizational
structure. This reform is crucial for ensuring that ASEAN remains well-equipped to navigate the
complexities of the contemporary geopolitical environment, uphold its commitment to regional
cooperation and development, and continue to play a vital role in shaping the future of Southeast
Asia.
It is also worth noting that the introduction of a permanent Secretariat General within ASEAN
brings with it a myriad of advantages and disadvantages that warrant careful consideration. On the
one hand, the stability and continuity provided by a permanent Secretariat General are invaluable,
ensuring a consistent leadership presence and oversight of ASEAN’s activities. This continuity is
crucial for maintaining the momentum of ongoing initiatives and for providing a steady hand during
times of uncertainty or crisis [21]. Furthermore, the permanency of the position allows for the
accumulation and retention of institutional memory, ensuring that valuable lessons from the past are
not lost and that the organization can continue to build upon its previous successes.
In addition to these benefits, a permanent Secretariat General has the potential to enhance the
overall efficiency of ASEAN’s decision-making processes. With a dedicated individual or team at the
helm, there is a greater opportunity for streamlined and coherent policy development and
implementation, ensuring that the organization is well-positioned to respond swiftly and effectively to
emerging regional challenges [20].
Despite these advantages, there are also notable disadvantages associated with the establishment of
a permanent Secretariat General. One such concern is the potential for increased bureaucracy, which
could inadvertently slow down decision-making processes and hinder the organization’s ability to
respond to urgent matters in a timely manner [20]. Additionally, the neutrality of the Secretariat
General could come into question, particularly if the position wields significant power. There is a risk
that certain member states or external powers could unduly influence the Secretariat General,
potentially compromising the impartiality and effectiveness of ASEAN’s decision-making processes
[22].
The question of resource allocation also presents a challenge, as the establishment and
maintenance of a permanent Secretariat General position would undoubtedly require substantial
financial and human resources. Member states would need to reach a consensus on how to fund this
position, and disagreements over resource allocation could potentially lead to tensions within the
organization.
In summary, while the introduction of a permanent Secretariat General in ASEAN offers numerous
benefits in terms of stability, institutional memory, and efficiency, it is not without its challenges.
Concerns regarding potential bureaucracy, neutrality issues, and resource allocation need to be
carefully addressed to ensure that the advantages of this reform are fully realized and that ASEAN
continues to thrive as a regional organization.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
13
Why a Permanent Secretariat General Position?
ASEAN is at a critical juncture. The challenges it faces, from geopolitical tensions to economic
disparities and environmental concerns, require a more robust organizational structure. A permanent
Secretariat General position can provide the leadership continuity that ASEAN needs to navigate
these challenges effectively. While the "ASEAN Way" emphasizes non-interference and consensus,
the organization also needs to evolve to address the contemporary challenges it faces. A permanent
Secretariat General, while respecting the principles of the "ASEAN Way," can ensure that the
organization remains relevant and effective in the changing geopolitical landscape [23].
In conclusion, introducing a permanent Secretariat General position in ASEAN can enhance the
organization's efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness. While there are challenges associated
with this reform, they can be managed with careful planning and by ensuring that the Secretariat
General remains neutral and is accountable to all member states.
Permanent Representatives in ASEAN Linked to the Permanent Secretariat General
Position
The current structure of ASEAN, with its reliance on rotating chairmanship and representation, has
served the organization well in ensuring equitable participation from all member states. However, the
changing geopolitical dynamics and the complexity of regional challenges necessitate a reevaluation
of this representation mechanism [20]. The rotating system, while democratic, may not provide the
continuity and consistency required to effectively address long-term and complex regional issues.
Furthermore, the increasing prominence of ASEAN on the global stage demands representatives who
possess a deep understanding of multilateral negotiations and can articulate the collective positions of
the member states with clarity and conviction [24].
In light of these considerations, the introduction of permanent representatives, in conjunction with
a Permanent Secretariat General, emerges as a viable reform. This structural adjustment would ensure
continuous representation of each member state within ASEAN, providing a stable and consistent
voice in the organization's deliberations and decision-making processes. These permanent
representatives would play a crucial role in the governance of ASEAN, participating actively in policy
formulation and also in the election of key positions, such as the Permanent Secretariat General [25].
The benefits of this reform are manifold. Permanent representatives would enhance ASEAN's
capacity to present a unified and coherent stance in various international forums, ensuring that the
interests and perspectives of all member states are adequately represented [24]. These representatives
typically possess specialized skills that are particularly valuable in multilateral settings, further
contributing to ASEAN's effectiveness on the global stage. Moreover, the consistency provided by
permanent representation ensures that the interests of member states remain a central focus in
ASEAN's activities, regardless of changes in the regional or global context [20].
However, this reform is not without its challenges. The enhanced rights and privileges of
permanent representatives could potentially pose a threat to the organization, particularly if their
actions diverge from the collective interests of ASEAN. Additionally, there is a risk that these
representatives may become overly detached from their home countries over time, leading to
decisions that do not align with the national interests of the member states they represent [26].
With this in mind, the potential of the introduction of permanent representatives in ASEAN, linked
to a Permanent Secretariat General, presents a strategic opportunity to enhance the organization's
representation and governance mechanisms. While careful consideration must be given to the
potential challenges and risks associated with this reform, the benefits in terms of enhanced
representation, skill specialization, and consistency make it a promising avenue for strengthening
ASEAN's role and effectiveness in the regional and global arena.
Link to the Permanent Secretariat General: The introduction of permanent representatives is
intrinsically linked to the establishment of a Permanent Secretariat General position. Their consistent
presence and deep understanding of ASEAN's workings would ensure that the election process for the
Permanent Secretariat General is informed, transparent, and in line with the collective interests of the
member states [25].
In conclusion, the introduction of permanent representatives, in tandem with the Permanent
Secretariat General, can provide ASEAN with the consistency and expertise it needs to navigate the
complex geopolitical landscape. While there are challenges associated with this reform, with careful
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
14
planning and clear guidelines, it can significantly enhance ASEAN's representation and decision-
making capabilities.
Representatives Elected by Election Cycle of Their Representative Country
The traditional mechanism of rotating chairmanship and representation in ASEAN has ensured that all
member states have an equal opportunity to lead and voice their concerns within the organization.
However, the evolving geopolitical landscape and increasing complexities of regional challenges
necessitate a more consistent and democratically legitimate representation mechanism [20].
The current situation, where representatives are not necessarily aligned with their home country's
political cycle, can lead to a misalignment between the representative's position and the prevailing
political climate in their country. This misalignment can hinder the effectiveness of ASEAN's
decision-making processes and its ability to respond to regional challenges.
To address this issue, it is proposed that ASEAN aligns the election of its representatives with the
election cycles of their respective home countries. This alignment would ensure that the
representatives are in tune with the current political sentiments and policies of their countries,
enhancing their effectiveness in representing their nation's interests within ASEAN. This approach
would also increase the democratic legitimacy of the representation, as the representatives would be
more closely aligned with the electoral mandates of their home countries [27].
The benefits of this approach are numerous. It would enhance the democratic legitimacy of
ASEAN's representation, ensuring that the representatives are truly representative of their home
countries' political climates. It would also ensure that the representatives are in sync with the current
policies and priorities of their home countries, making their representation more effective and
relevant. Additionally, this approach could lead to increased voter turnout in regional elections, as the
electorate may feel a stronger connection to the regional representative if they are elected in line with
their home country's political cycle [28].
However, this approach is not without its challenges. Aligning the election of representatives with
national election cycles could lead to fragmented election schedules, potentially causing logistical
challenges [29]. There is also a risk of increased political interference in the representative's decisions,
especially if their home country's government changes during their term [29]. Additionally, in regions
with complex territorial structures, the pattern of subordination of regional elections could be
disrupted by territorially specific influences [30].
Therefore, aligning the election of ASEAN representatives with their home country's election
cycle presents a promising approach to enhancing the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of
ASEAN's representation. While there are challenges associated with this approach, careful planning
and clear guidelines can mitigate these challenges, leading to a more representative and effective
ASEAN.
Implications of the Proposed Reforms
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has long been a cornerstone of regional
cooperation and stability in Southeast Asia. Its foundational mechanisms, deeply rooted in the
"ASEAN Way," have prioritized consultation, consensus, and non-interference [20]. However, the
contemporary geopolitical milieu, characterized by rapid shifts and emergent regional challenges,
necessitates a critical reevaluation of these time-honored mechanisms.
The exigencies of the present regional context, marked by heightened geopolitical tensions,
pronounced economic disparities, and pressing environmental concerns, underscore the imperative for
ASEAN to recalibrate its operational modalities to be nimbler and more responsive. The suite of
reforms proposed herein seeks to augment ASEAN's decision-making acumen while concurrently
preserving its foundational ethos [31].
Central to these reforms is the enhancement of ASEAN's decision-making capabilities. By
introducing mechanisms such as majority voting as a stop-gap measure, instituting a permanent
Secretariat General, and endorsing the role of permanent representatives, the decision-making
processes within ASEAN are poised to become more streamlined and agile, thereby enabling a more
prompt and efficacious response to regional challenges [20].
Yet, it is imperative to note that these reforms are not a departure from the "ASEAN Way" but
rather an evolution. The emphasis on international challenges and the circumscribed use of the
majority voting mechanism as a stop-gap measure are reflective of a conscious effort to respect and
uphold the foundational principles of ASEAN. This delicate balance ensures that while ASEAN is
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
15
poised to evolve and adapt to the exigencies of the contemporary world, it remains firmly anchored in
its traditions [32].
Furthermore, the unity and cohesiveness of ASEAN are paramount, especially in the face of
potential fragmentation during geopolitical crises, such as the ongoing US-China rivalry. A united
front not only amplifies ASEAN's voice on the global stage but also fortifies its position to safeguard
the collective interests of its member states [19]. With these reforms, ASEAN is not only poised to
enhance its decision-making capabilities but also to bolster its global influence, ensuring that the
region's interests are robustly represented in global geopolitics [33].
In summation, the reforms proposed are not merely reactionary measures but a proactive strategy
designed to equip ASEAN with the requisite tools to adeptly navigate the multifaceted challenges of
the 21st century. While the path of change is invariably fraught with challenges, these reforms
endeavor to harmonize evolution with tradition, ensuring that ASEAN continues to thrive as a
formidable and influential regional organization.
Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a pivotal role in fostering
cooperation and unity among its member states. However, the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape
and the increasing complexity of regional challenges necessitate a reevaluation and strengthening of
ASEAN’s institutional framework. This paper outlines key recommendations and implementation
strategies aimed at enhancing ASEAN’s effectiveness, responsiveness, and influence in the regional
and global arena.
Firstly, there is a pressing need for clear guidelines regarding the activation of emergency
measures within ASEAN. A comprehensive document should be developed, detailing the
circumstances under which emergency measures can be activated, the procedures to be followed, and
the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. The criteria for what constitutes an "emergency"
should be clearly defined, taking into account potential geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, and
pandemics [34]. A designated committee or role, potentially the Permanent Secretary-General, should
be responsible for declaring an emergency based on these predefined criteria [35]. Additionally, the
guidelines should specify the duration of the emergency measures, include provisions for periodic
reviews to assess the necessity of continuing these measures, and outline a communication strategy to
ensure all member states are promptly and adequately informed.
Secondly, regular reviews and assessments of the Permanent Secretary-General and
Representatives are crucial to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. A periodic review
process, conducted biennially by a committee comprising representatives from each member state,
should be established. Clear performance metrics should be developed, and a feedback mechanism
should be put in place to allow member states to provide input on the performance of the Permanent
Secretary-General and Representatives. This process will ensure accountability, transparency, and the
continuous improvement of ASEAN’s leadership.
Thirdly, ASEAN’s diplomatic channels need to be strengthened to enhance its negotiation and
conflict resolution capabilities. Regular training sessions for diplomats and representatives should be
organized to equip them with the latest negotiation techniques and conflict resolution strategies [36].
A dedicated mediation mechanism should be established within ASEAN to address disputes between
member states or with external entities [37]. Efforts should also be made to foster stronger diplomatic
ties with major global players and regional organizations through regular diplomatic engagements,
joint exercises, and collaborative projects. Additionally, a centralized platform for information sharing
should be created to ensure a coordinated response to potential threats, disputes, or conflicts, and to
prevent isolated decision-making [38].
In conclusion, by adopting these recommendations and associated implementation strategies,
ASEAN can fortify its institutional framework, ensuring that it remains agile, responsive, and
influential in addressing the multifaceted challenges of the contemporary regional landscape. These
reforms will not only enhance ASEAN’s internal cohesion and effectiveness but also strengthen its
position as a key player in the global arena. By adopting these recommendations and associated
implementation strategies, ASEAN can fortify its institutional framework, ensuring it remains agile,
responsive, and influential in addressing the multifaceted challenges of the contemporary regional
landscape.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
16
5. Conclusion
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) finds itself at a critical crossroads, facing the
imperative to evolve in response to the rapidly changing global landscape. The organization's
longstanding traditions and practices, encapsulated in the "ASEAN Way," are being rigorously tested
in the face of new challenges and the shifting dynamics of international relations [19]. The increasing
assertiveness of major global powers, particularly evident in the South China Sea disputes, highlights
the urgent need for ASEAN to reassess and strengthen its institutional mechanisms [7].
While ASEAN has achieved notable success in fostering economic integration among its member
states, this progress has also exposed underlying disparities and challenges that require urgent
attention [6]. Furthermore, the organization's normative practices, which have been a source of
strength in the developing world, are now under scrutiny as they grapple with contemporary
challenges [39]. The "ASEAN Way," with its emphasis on consultation, consensus, and non-
interference, has facilitated peaceful cooperation among member states, but it has also faced criticism
for its perceived inflexibility and slow response to crises [5].
In this context, the proposed reforms are crucial for ensuring that ASEAN remains relevant, united,
and effective, particularly during critical geopolitical events. The introduction of a majority voting
mechanism as a stop-gap measure, the establishment of a Permanent Secretary-General position, and
the alignment of representative elections with their home country's election cycle are all aimed at
enhancing ASEAN's decision-making capabilities and responsiveness.
Importantly, these reforms also address the need for ASEAN to present a united front in the face of
the US-China rivalry, ensuring that the organization is not sidelined or fragmented by external
pressures. By bolstering its internal cohesion and decision-making processes, ASEAN can better
navigate the complexities of this rivalry, safeguarding the interests of its member states and
maintaining regional stability.
As ASEAN considers these reforms, it is crucial to find a balance between embracing necessary
changes and preserving the core principles that have defined the organization for decades. The
challenge lies in modernizing ASEAN's institutions while remaining true to the spirit of the "ASEAN
Way" [40]. The future of ASEAN depends on its ability to adapt, stay united, and effectively address
both intra-regional and global challenges.
In conclusion, the path forward for ASEAN requires a collective commitment to reform and
adaptability, ensuring that the organization remains a pivotal force in shaping the future of Southeast
Asia. Through unity, foresight, and a willingness to evolve, ASEAN can continue to play a central
role in navigating the complexities of the 21st century and upholding the prosperity and stability of
the region.
References
[1] H. T. Ha, “Understanding the institutional challenge of indo-pacific minilaterals to ASEAN,”
Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2022.
[2] M. Yahuda, “China’s new assertiveness in the South China Sea,” Journal of Contemporary
China, vol. 22, no. 81, pp. 446–459, 2013.
[3] J. P. Rowan, “The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance, ASEAN, and the South China Sea dispute,”
Asian Survey, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 414–436, 2005.
[4] S. Zhao, “The US–China rivalry in the emerging bipolar world: Hostility, alignment, and power
balance,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 31, no. 134, pp. 169–185, 2021.
[5] D. M. Jones, and M. L. R Smith, “Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the Evolving
East Asian Regional Order,” International Security, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 148–184, 2007.
[6] K. Ishikawa, “The ASEAN Economic Community and Asean Economic Integration,” Journal
of Contemporary East Asia Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 24–41, 2021.
[7] D. M. Loh, “The disturbance and endurance of norms in ASEAN: Peaceful but stressful,”
Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 385–402, 2018.
[8] A. Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, Routledge: London, 2014.
[9] A. D. Ba, (re)negotiating east and Southeast Asia region, regionalism, and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, Stanford University Press: London, 2019.
[10] G. Qian, L. Li, J. Li, and Z. Qian, “Regional diversification and firm performance,” Journal of
International Business Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 197–214, 2008.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
17
[11] S. Fink, “‘when I find myself in times of trouble …’ : The conditional effect of international
organisations on Policy Convergence,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 52, no. 5,
pp. 630–659, 2012.
[12] T. Lenz, and A. Burilkov, “Institutional Pioneers in World Politics: Regional Institution
Building and the influence of the European Union,” European Journal of International
Relations, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 654–680, 2016.
[13] T. A. Börzel, Governance transfer by regional organizations: Patching together a global
script. Palgrave: Macmillan, 2015.
[14] T. Lim, and S. E. Kim, “Buying influence? rotating leadership in ASEAN and allocation of
Chinese foreign aid,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 351–377,
2022.
[15] E. Goh, “Institutions and the Great Power Bargain in East Asia: ASEAN’s limited “brokerage”
role,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 373–401, 2011.
[16] C. Ehlermann, and L. Ehring, “Decision-making in the World Trade Organization,” Journal of
International Economic Law, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 51–75, 2005.
[17] T. Yukawa, “The ASEAN way as a symbol: An analysis of discourses on the ASEAN norms,”
The Pacific Review, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 298–314, 2017.
[18] A. Acharya, Whose ideas matter: Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Cornell University
Press: New York, 2011.
[19] M. Beeson, “Living with giants: ASEAN and the evolution of Asian regionalism,” TRaNS:
Trans-Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 303–322, 2013.
[20] A. Jetschke, and P. Murray, “Diffusing regional integration: The EU and Southeast Asia,” West
European Politics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 174-191, 2012.
[21] L. M. Goodrich, “The secretariat of the United Nations,” Un Administration of Economic and
Social Programs, pp. 1–36, 1966.
[22] N. Morada, “The ASEAN charter and the Promotion of R2P in Southeast Asia: Challenges and
constraints.” Global Responsibility to Protect, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 185–207. 2007.
[23] J. Haacke, “The concept of flexible engagement and the practice of Enhanced Interaction:
Intramural challenges to the ‘Asean Way.’” The Pacific Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 581–611,
1999.
[24] V. Pouliot, “Diplomats as Permanent Representatives,” International Journal: Canada’s
Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 543–561, 2011.
[25] K. Scott, “Institutional Developments within the Antarctic Treaty System,” International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 473–487, 2003.
[26] E. Brewer, “The participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations:
Evolving to reflect the new realities of regional organizations,” International Organizations
Law Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 181–225, 2012.
[27] T. Yuzawa, “The evolution of preventive diplomacy in the ASEAN Regional Forum: Problems
and Prospects,” Asian Survey, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 785–804, 2006.
[28] A. H. Schakel, and R. Dandoy, “Electoral cycles and turnout in Multilevel Electoral Systems,”
West European Politics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 605–623, 2014.
[29] E. Fabre, “Multi-level election timing—a comparative overview,” Regional & Federal Studies,
vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 175–199, 2010.
[30] C. Jeffery, and D. Hough, “Regional elections in Multi-Level Systems,” European Urban and
Regional Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 199–212, 2003.
[31] N. M. Morada, “ASEAN at 40: Prospects for Community Building in Southeast Asia,” Asia-
Pacific Review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 36–55, 2008.
[32] M. Oba, “ASEAN and the creation of a regional community,” Asia-Pacific Review, vol. 21,
no.1, pp. 63–78. 2014.
[33] R. Wong, “Model power or reference point? the EU and the ASEAN charter,” Cambridge
Review of International Affairs, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 669–682, 2012.
[34] W. E. Scheuerman, “Emergency powers,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 2, no.
1, pp. 257–277, 2006.
[35] M. O’Flaherty, and C. O’Brien, “Reform of UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies: A
critique of the concept paper on the high commissioner’s proposal for a Unified Standing
Treaty Body,” Human Rights Law Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 141–172, 2007.
Brice Tseen Fu Lee, Juan Pablo Sims.
ASEAN at the Crossroads of US-China R ivalry: The Role of Majority Voting and the Introduction of a Permanent Sec retary-General.
International Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8-18, March 2024. DOI: 10.36079/lamintang.ijlapp-0601.586
18
[36] S. Duke, “Diplomatic training and the challenges facing the EEAS,” The Hague Journal of
Diplomacy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 95–114, 2012.
[37] K. Papagianni, “Mediation, political engagement, and peacebuilding,” Global Governance: A
Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 243–263, 2010.
[38] D. B. Drake, N. A. Steckler, and M. J. Koch, “Information sharing in and across government
agencies,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 67–84. 2004.
[39] J. He, “Normative power in the EU and ASEAN: Why they diverge,” International Studies
Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 92–105. 2016.
[40] Q. M. Pham, “ASEAN’s indispensable role in regional construction,” Asia-Pacific Review, vol.
22, no. 2, pp. 82–101, 2015.
