Remembering Peace in a Time of War: Why International Law Matters More Than Ever | Brokering Peace
The ASEAN Way of Peace-Making
Introduction
Since ASEAN’s establishment in 1967 by the five founding nations Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, ASEAN has moved incisively towards cooperation and integration to stabilise a region once marked by geopolitical instability due to the tensions among the neighbouring states in the post-Second World War independence and nation-building struggles. These conflicts included the Dutch military aggressions, the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, the Indochina wars, and the Vietnam War, during which the region faced political instability, limited trade, and low foreign investment, hindering regional economic growth. To advance peace, ASEAN member states adopted constituent instruments such as the Bangkok Declaration and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) that outline the organisation’s objectives of regional stability and fostering harmonious relationships through cooperation.
Over time, the “ASEAN Way,” norms arose. Encompassing diplomacy, consensus, and non-interference, promoting solidarity while respecting national sovereignty, this approach also emphasised peaceful dispute resolution to prevent future conflicts. Since the Cold War, regional relations have improved such that ASEAN has grown from five to ten members with the inclusion of Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Cambodia (with Timor Leste soon to be the eleventh member). ASEAN also has also adopted the ASEAN Charter and established an ASEAN Community comprising the Political-Security, Economic, and Socio-Cultural pillars that undergird regional cooperation. It is notable that ASEAN has consistently focused on peacebuilding initiatives through its evolution to arguably become one of Asia’s leading intergovernmental organisations in fostering and promoting peace.
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms
In ASEAN, dispute settlement mechanisms are outlined in legal instruments signed and recognised by all member states, including the TAC, Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ), ASEAN Charter, Protocol to the ASEAN Charter on Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (Protocol DSM), and ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (Protocol EDSM). These instruments emphasise a peaceful approach, with consultation and negotiation at their core. Reflecting these principles, ASEAN’s mechanisms employ discussion, promoting adaptability and gradual progress while avoiding confrontation to maintain stability among its members. Additionally, ASEAN recognises structured processes such as mediation, conciliation, good offices, arbitration, and submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if needed.
Peace Making in ASEAN and its Limit
ASEAN member states have experienced various bilateral territorial disputes, often involving sovereignty over land or maritime features, such as the Sipadan-Ligitan, Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh), Preah Vihear, Thai-Malaysian border, and South China Sea cases. Despite these challenges, ASEAN has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peaceful and legal resolution, as seen in member states seeking the intervention of the ICJ in cases such as Preah Vihear, Sipadan-Ligitan, and Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh). This commitment is further supplemented by dialogue and negotiation, as exemplified by efforts to resolve disagreements like Preah Vihear. In 2011, Indonesia, while holding the ASEAN Chairmanship, actively mediated between the disputing parties, highlighting the importance of diplomatic efforts in maintaining regional stability.
Specifically, regarding the South China Sea, ASEAN centrality has been instrumental in fostering dialogue among the disputing parties, providing a multilateral platform for discussion and negotiation. The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (2002), agreed upon by ASEAN and China, promotes peace and stability through peaceful resolution and mutual respect. ASEAN is currently engaged in developing a, potentially binding, Code of Conduct (CoC) to prevent conflicts and ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
Although the South China Sea issue remains unresolved, ASEAN’s non-confrontational approach—characterised by continuous consultation and negotiation of the CoC—deserves particular recognition as an effective means of delaying and preventing escalation to conflict that could threaten regional peace. All disputing parties have shown a willingness to engage in this process. It is important to recognise that peace-making in ASEAN is not merely the absence of disagreements but also involves ongoing dialogue to reduce tensions and prevent actions that might jeopardise regional stability. This approach helps to contain deviance within tolerable limits while ensuring the continuation of international cooperation. Indeed, ASEAN has succeeded in delaying or preventing war among the disputing parties; and despite ongoing issues between some ASEAN member states and China over the South China Sea, cooperation in other areas continues. China remains ASEAN’s leading trading partner, the ASEAN-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is still running, and, as recently as last year, the 14th China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference was held in Singapore.
The ASEAN approach to peace-making may contribute positively to the prevention of war among its member states and with external parties. However, it is less effective in addressing internal disagreements within member states. This limitation arises from the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, which prevent ASEAN from intervening in internal conflicts unless requested by the member state concerned. A recent example is ASEAN’s inability to prevent the ongoing crisis in Myanmar following the 2021 coup, which has resulted in significant loss of life. The only measure proposed by ASEAN has been the introduction of the Five-Point Consensus which, to date, has failed to contain or alter Myanmar’s approach to its domestic conflict. Any attempt by ASEAN to intervene beyond this could be regarded as a violation of the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, which are considered sacrosanct within the organisation. Nevertheless, the organisation may seek to influence Myanmar’s behaviour, such as ASEAN’s decision to exclude Myanmar from the chairmanship in 2026 and awarding it to the Philippines, a measure previously used in 2006. While there is no guarantee that this measure will directly change Myanmar’s behaviour, it can serve as a symbolic expression of ASEAN’s efforts to address the situation.
Conclusion
As a leading intergovernmental organisation in Asia, ASEAN is committed to advancing peace and stability within the region by emphasising harmonious relationships, justice, and cooperation among its member states. By fostering cooperation and preventing interstate war, the ASEAN Way reinforces a strong Southeast Asian identity, contributing to robust economic development and enhanced regional governance. Ultimately, ASEAN centrality is strengthened, enabling the organisation to engage confidently with external powers and uphold its position as the driving force in Southeast Asian relations. However, it should be recognised that the system has limitation, particularly in addressing internal disagreements within member states, due to the inviolable principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This suggests that the current ASEAN Way of peace-making is well suited to governing interstate relations, but its principles are not designed to resolve internal disputes without an invitation from the member state concerned.