The English School and ASEAN

This paper argues that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can be credibly and usefully described and explained using an analysis based in the English School (ES) of International Relations (IR). Recent efforts to use constructivist theory to explain ASEAN have focused on changes in Southeast Asian regional identity to explain the durability of ASEAN. However, while ASEAN is the basis of a regional identity, this identity is too weak to explain intra-ASEAN cooperation. Indeed, East Asia remains a region committed to the primacy of state sovereignty, territoriality and nationalism. The ES offers an explanation of ASEAN's durability that focuses on the organization's symbolic importance as a representation of Southeast Asia's commitment to national sovereignty and the norms of the Westphalian system. The ES approach offers insights into the operation of the international system that distinguish it from Wendtian constructivism, and which are more in accordance with the realities of regional relations in the Asia Pacific. Keywords: ASEANEnglish Schoolconstructivismregional identity. Notes 1. For a discussion of Bull's influence within the ES, see (CitationCutler 1991: 42–3); CitationWheeler and Dunne 1996: (91–107); CitationDunne (1998); CitationRoberson 1998: (1–15). 2. Recently, Barry Buzan and others have attempted to revive the ES as a distinct theoretical approach. Their efforts focus on clarifying the concepts and thinking of the founders of the ES who were often unstructured and inconsistent in their use of key concepts. See (CitationBuzan 2002, Citation2004); CitationRoberson (1998); CitationSuganami (2002); CitationHurrell (1998); CitationDevlen et al. (2005). 3. Bull, quoted in (CitationCutler 1991: 54). 4. (CitationCutler 1991: 54–5); CitationWheeler and Dunne 1996: (93–4). Wheeler and Dunne note that a crucial difference between Bull's international society approach and more conventional realism is that Bull believed that states' recognition of their rights and duties to each other meant that they would 'adhere to the rules and norms of the society of states even when these conflict with their non-vital interests' (CitationWheeler and Dunne 1996: 94). 5. In the course of his efforts to define the primary institutions of international society, Buzan notes that '[s]overeignty is a good candidate for a master institution of Westphalian international society' (CitationBuzan 2004: 182). 6. Bull notes, for example, that international law's commitment to the society of states would not matter if such a commitment did not exist among states; international law is effective when it gives form and clarity to international political realities (CitationBull 1977: 143). The preceding discussion of international law was based on (CitationBull 1977: 140–3). 7. Ruggie, cited in (CitationAlderson and Hurrell 2000: 34). 8. Suganami disagrees with this point, arguing that the ES focused almost exclusively on international society, not the other two elements of international politics (CitationSuganami 2002: 2, fn. 1). 9. As noted above, Acharya includes rejection of military alliance and a preference for bilateral security arrangements as a legal-rational norm. I believe that these are ASEAN practices because they are not codified in ASEAN documents. However, if we include this principle as a norm, we may include it as a further assertion of regional autonomy and rejection of war. 10. Alagappa goes on to say that the 'reluctance' of the ASEAN states to create formal, binding institutions does not accord with expectations. However, I argue that this failure is attributable largely to the domestic weaknesses of most ASEAN states. CitationSee Narine (2004b). Additional informationNotes on contributorsShaun Narine Shaun Narine is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. He is the author of Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia (Lynne Rienner, 2002) and has published extensively on questions related to the political economy and regional security of the Asia Pacific.