Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article engages with the contested debate on ASEAN's role in the formation of the RCEP, where scholars diverge between viewing ASEAN as a substantive leader and as merely a procedural facilitator or proxy for great power influence. It asks: to what extent can ASEAN's role in RCEP (2011–2020) be understood as an exercise of middle power diplomacy rather than China‐led regionalism? Using a qualitative case study approach, this study conceptualizes ASEAN as a collective actor and draws on primary and secondary data to examine its diplomatic practices. The findings argue that ASEAN exercised strategic agency through liberal institutionalism, multilateral coalition‐building, and niche diplomacy. These strategies enabled ASEAN to shape negotiation processes, manage power asymmetries, and maintain an inclusive regional framework. The article challenges dominant narratives by demonstrating that ASEAN's centrality reflects strategic diplomatic leadership rather than symbolic or procedural positioning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vajrin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: