Unveiling ASEAN's Neutrality An analysis of ASEAN's Institutional Strategy
Translated title
Unveiling ASEAN's Neutrality: An analysis of ASEAN's Institutional Strategy
Author
Gautam, Darpan Raj
Term
4. term
Publication year
2023
Abstract
Specialet undersøger, hvor effektivt ASEAN forfølger neutralitet for at navigere USA's og Kinas engagement i Sydøstasien, og belyser, hvordan neutralitet forstås, hvilke ASEAN-institutioner der understøtter den, og hvor virksomme strategierne er. Studiet anvender et abduktivt forskningsdesign, der kombinerer induktiv og deduktiv tænkning, samt en multimethodisk blanding af kvalitative og kvantitative analyser. Et inklusivt litteraturreview inddrager klassiske IR-teorier (fx neorealisme og neoliberalisme) og identificerer Institutionel Realisme og Institutionel Hedging som egnede teoretiske rammer. Analysen forløber i tre trin: (1) konceptualisering af neutralitet i den nutidige verdensorden med fokus på ASEANs upartiske, inkluderende tilgang som vej til centralitet; (2) teoretisering af ASEANs strategi via institutionel balancing og hedging; og (3) afprøvning gennem et deduktivt casestudie af Indo-Pacific med fokus på bl.a. USA's Indo-Pacific-strategi (herunder Quad og AUKUS), Kinas Belt and Road Initiative og konflikterne i Det Sydkinesiske Hav, samt relevante ASEAN-fora. Resultaterne peger på, at ASEAN søger neutralitet ved at håndtere trusler gennem institutionel balancing og risici gennem institutionel hedging. Imidlertid har Kinas voksende indflydelse og tætte økonomiske bånd skabt intern inkohærens i ASEAN, mens USA har tilsidesat ASEAN-centralitet ved at etablere hårde balanceringsarrangementer uden for ASEAN. Overordnet konkluderer studiet, at ASEAN er ineffektiv i at opretholde neutralitet i takt med den tiltagende amerikanske og kinesiske involvering i Sydøstasien.
This thesis asks how effectively ASEAN pursues neutrality to navigate the involvement of the United States and China in Southeast Asia, and examines how neutrality is framed, which ASEAN institutions support it, and how well these strategies work. The study uses an abductive research design that combines inductive and deductive reasoning and a multi-method mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis. An inclusive literature review engages mainstream international relations theories (e.g., neorealism and neoliberalism) and identifies Institutional Realism and Institutional Hedging as suitable lenses. The analysis proceeds in three steps: (1) conceptualizing neutrality in the contemporary order, highlighting ASEAN’s impartial, inclusive approach as a route to centrality; (2) theorizing ASEAN’s strategy through institutional balancing and hedging; and (3) testing these insights with a deductive case study of the Indo-Pacific, focusing on developments such as the US Indo-Pacific Strategy (including the Quad and AUKUS), China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and disputes in the South China Sea, as well as relevant ASEAN forums. The findings indicate that ASEAN seeks neutrality by managing threats through institutional balancing and managing risks through institutional hedging. However, China’s growing influence and deep economic ties have fostered internal incoherence within ASEAN, while the United States has sidelined ASEAN centrality by forming hard-balancing arrangements outside ASEAN. Overall, the study concludes that ASEAN has been ineffective in sustaining neutrality amid intensifying US and Chinese involvement in Southeast Asia.
[This summary has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project (PDF)]
Documents