Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"ASEANs Security Enterprise explores the significance of ASEANs cooperative security enterprise the questions of whether and in what sense this enterprise matters\"--Provided by publisher.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been able to lead community building in East Asia by default, against the background of Sino-Japanese rivalries. The present study maintains that this line of argument is insufficient, and offers a complementary account, centred on the statement that ASEAN has actively constructed a social environment which defines itself as the legitimate leader of East Asian community building. More specifically, the leadership of ASEAN can be explained in terms of three parallel developments since the early 1990s that are associated with the Asia-Pacific framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF): the Southeast Asian association has been able to lead community building in East Asia because (1) it has advanced the vision of an \"East Asian community\" by drawing on its cooperative security norm embodied in the ARF; (2) through their participation in the ARF process, the Northeast Asian powers have come to recognize the value of ASEAN's cooperative security norm, and thus to share with the Southeast Asian nations their vision of an East Asian community; and (3) the sharing of a community-building vision by all the East Asian countries has constituted a structure that makes it costly for the Northeast Asian powers to challenge the Southeast Asian association.

No detailed description available for \"Overcoming Isolationism\".

The ASEAN Regional Forum plays an important role in helping create a more predictable and stable pattern of relationships between major powers and South-east Asia. Established in 1994, and now boasting a membership of 27 states, it has the objective of facilitating open dialogue and constructive discussions on political and security issues that were of concern to all member states, as well as a contribution to confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region. But to continue to be relevant the ARF needs to transform itself into a problem-solving institution. It should initiate concrete and practical activities and programmes to strengthen regional co-operative security.

This article aims to add value to discussions about the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI), one of the South Korean government's core diplomatic policies. First, it examines the importance of institutional design for its substantial progress, a relatively unaddressed subject among stakeholders. Second, it explores the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) from a comparative perspective and draws lessons for NAPCI in terms of the impact of institutional design on operations. Similarities and differences between ARF and NAPCI in terms of goals, procedural norms, priority areas of cooperation, and member composition are legitimate reasons for the comparison. Though ARF's past cannot predict NAPCI's future, this article suggests that studying ARF would enlighten NAPCI stakeholders regarding the interaction of institutional features with diverse regional factors (inspired by a European case) and the outcomes that diverged from the reference point. Understanding how the former's institutional features actually work is useful for ensuring that NAPCI is designed wisely.

Of the three Asian subregions — Northeast, Southeast and South — Southeast Asia is the only one that contains no Great Power. Yet Southeast Asian states have originated most Asian regional organizations, and Southeast Asian procedures acquired through ASEAN determine their processes. The \"ASEAN Way\", emphasizing consensus, non-interference in members' internal affairs and voluntary enforcement of regional decisions have characterized these bodies, insuring at bottom that they reinforce sovereignty protection. Nevertheless, ASEAN's expansion in the 1990s to include Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia incorporated states whose harsh domestic politics were seen by several of the Association's original members to be undermining its international stature. Additionally, coping with terrorism in the new century has also led to some erosion of the non-interference norm. Transnational cooperation is now essential to each nation's security because terrorist groups cross national borders, and egregious human rights practices in one country can lead to refugees fleeing into neighbouring countries. ASEAN's new November 2007 Charter constitutes an effort to move beyond sovereignty protection to economic, political-security and socio-cultural communities by 2020. The Charter also commits its signatories to democracy (for the first time) and human rights. Other regional organizations dominated by ASEAN procedures include the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) for security discussions, ASEAN+ 3 (Japan, South Korea and China) for economic matters, and the East Asian Summit (EAS) which added Australia, New Zealand and India to the ASEAN+ 3. Dialogues in these groups cover the gamut of Asian international relations. Perhaps their greatest utility is as venues for national leaders to discuss pressing issues on the sidelines of these gatherings.

North Korea’s unchecked missile and nuclear program is one of the most pressing global security concerns. This article evaluates the multilateral engagement efforts that have been pursued by regional stakeholders, specifically assessing the Six-Party Talks vis-a-vis the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and explaining why these multilateral efforts have failed to resolve the nuclear crisis. Given the poor performances of these two multilateral platforms, this article seeks to assess the feasibility and policy implications of defusing the longstanding nuclear crisis through multilateral engagement. Despite stalling and a myriad of obstacles, the Six-Party Talks has a better chance than the ARF at curbing the nuclear crisis. At best, the ARF can contribute by playing a complementary role by helping deescalate tensions or cultivating better diplomatic ties.

Security has undoubtedly been a central and continuous feature of ASEAN since its establishment. While it has modified its basic thinking on security and adapted elements of the attendant principles, aims and ways of operation to meet changed circumstances, the level of consistency is still readily observable. Centrality of a different sort has been evident, too, during the post-Cold War period. ASEAN has consciously sought to position itself at the heart of the developing security architecture in both East Asia and the wider Asia-Pacific. The Association has been largely successful at limiting competition and preventing inter-state conflict among its members and at fostering a stable regional order in Southeast Asia (and an incipient one outside of the boundaries of Southeast Asia). Broadly speaking, this stability has been aided and abetted by the policies of the major external powers in whose interests it has been, up until now. The extent to which a stable regional order remains in the interests of the major powers will be one of the great questions for the next phase of ASEAN’s life.

This article examines the processes behind the evolution of preventive diplomacy in the ASEAN Regional Forum. The Forum's potential to establish meaningful preventive diplomacy mechanisms is likely to remain highly limited unless it departs from the rules of the “ASEAN Way” of institution building. This departure would only be a prerequisite, not a solution.

This book offers the most comprehensive analysis yet of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which remains the foremost dialogue forum for the promotion of cooperative security in the Asia-Pacific. Contributors focus on the perspectives and roles of the key players in the ARF – ASEAN, the United States, China, Japan, and Australia – and discuss to what extent these participants have shaped the Forum's institutional development and affected its achievements and prospects against the backdrop of the evolving regional security architecture. They also examine in depth how participants have used the Forum to respond to a range of important transnational security issues and challenges, including terrorism and maritime security, as well as disaster relief. This work also explores how, despite the difficulties in reaching a new consensus regarding the collective pursuit of preventive diplomacy, some activist participants have succeeded in bringing about a notable, albeit incipient, 'practical turn' in the ARF’s security cooperation. This book will appeal to students of South-East Asian Politics, Asian Security Studies and International Relations in general. Jürgen Haacke is Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects (2003) and Myanmar’s Foreign Policy: Domestic Influences and International Implications (2006). Noel M. Morada is Professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City. His publications and research interests focus on ASEAN, the ARF, the responsibility to protect (R2P), and human development and human security issues in Southeast Asia. 1. The ASEAN Regional Forum and Cooperative Security: Introduction Jürgen Haacke and Noel M. Morada 2. The ASEAN Regional Forum: Origins and Evolution Noel M. Morada 3. The United States and the ASEAN Regional Forum: A Delicate Balancing Act Brad Glosserman 4. China’s Membership of the ARF and the Emergence of an East Asian Diplomatic and Security Culture Christopher R. Hughes 5. Japan and the ASEAN Regional Forum: From Enthusiasm to Disappointment Takeshi Yuzawa 6. Australia-Japan-U.S. Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and the ARF: Extended Bilateralism or A New Minilateral Option? Kuniko Ashizawa 7. The Accidental Driver: ASEAN in the ARF Rizal Sukma 8. The ASEAN Regional Forum and Transnational Challenges: Little Collective Securitization, Some Practical Cooperation Jürgen Haacke 9. The ASEAN Regional Forum and Counter-Terrorism Noel M. Morada 10. Maritime Security and the ARF: Why the Focus on Dialogue Rather than Action? JN Mak 11. Securitisation Practices in Indonesia and the Philippines and their Impact on the Management of Security Challenges in ASEAN and the ARF David A. Boyd and Jörn Dosch 12. The ARF and Cooperative Security: More of the Same? Jürgen Haacke and Noel M. Morada ' It is full of empirical detail and sophisticated analysis of the complex security environment of the Asia-Pacific region. The book’s main strength is its readability: jargon expressions are explained well and the authors make the effort to ensure that their main points are understood. The ordering of the chapters also allows people without a background on the ARF to understand the context around which the discussions in the more complex chapters revolve ... the book is an outstanding addition to the literature on the ARF and security co-operation' - Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies (ASEAS), 3 (2) 2010, 290-291