Abstract
This paper asks: ‘is ASEAN powerful?’ The argument is made that there is a divide over this question between two broad groups of scholars who are referred to as ‘neo-realists’ (including realists) and ‘constructivists’. Focusing attention on this question is useful because it helps to bring into view three, not always explicit, points of argument between constructivists and neo-realists in their assessments of ASEAN. First, the two groups draw different empirically based conclusions about ASEAN’s efficacy in East Asian affairs. Neo-realists are generally sceptical about the Association’s role in the region because they view it, along with multilateral organizations more generally, as peripheral to great power politicking, what they see as the real stuff and substance of international affairs. A second, conceptual, point of argument is over understandings of power. For neo-realists, power is frequently used interchangeably with force and coercion. Scholars influenced by social constructivist ideas offer a challenge to this equation of power and dominance on the grounds that power is neither necessarily negative-sum nor limited to conflictual situations. Third, we suggest that closely related arguments are marshalled by both sides in debates over ASEAN’s future role and organizational structure. Neo-realists argue that a shift to a more rules-based institutional form is in order, while constructivists place their emphasis on identity building.
PDF