Comparative analysis reveals varied institutional forms across Korea–ASEAN security partnerships, suggesting middle-power agency acts as bounded facilitation rather than true minilateralism.
Minilateral cooperation has become prominent in Indo-Pacific security governance, yet debate remains centred largely on great-power coalitions and strategic competition. Less attention has been paid to how capable non-hegemonic states organise selective cooperation within ASEAN-centred regionalism or why similar pressures generate different institutional forms across issue domains. This article develops a domain-sensitive framework for assessing the institutional forms and minilateral potential of middle-power-facilitated cooperation. It applies the framework through a structured comparison of Korea–ASEAN cooperation in cybersecurity, supply-chain resilience, and defence-industrial collaboration. The findings identify institutional differentiation and redirection across domains rather than a linear decline in cooperation. Cybersecurity shows the strongest evidence of recurrent multi-actor capacity-building, but these activities remain embedded in inclusive ASEAN-led mechanisms. Supply-chain cooperation combines bilateral industrial ecosystems and ASEAN-wide frameworks with planned plurilateral capacity-building, while defence-industrial cooperation remains dominated by platform diffusion and bilateral production and sustainment relationships. Regionally dispersed bilateral or multi-actor activity therefore does not itself constitute minilateral governance. The analysis identifies a potential pathway to regional order-building through institutional layering, but direct effects on preparedness, vulnerability reduction, dependency management, and institutional diffusion remain unverified. Korea’s middle-power agency is therefore best understood as bounded facilitation rather than established minilateral convening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ohn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: