Mechanisms of dispute settlement: the ASEAN experience.

• Author: Caballero-Anthony, Mely

Introduction

Since its establishment in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has made its mark in the international community as a successful sub-regional grouping. Its success can be said to lie in its ability to cope reasonably well with the numerous challenges that have confronted the organization as well as its relations with other states and regions. ASEAN not only seems to have weathered both internal and external pressures that may have threatened its very existence as a subregional body but, more importantly, it has earned for itself a significant role as a key player in regional and international affairs. Even against the rapid changes and uncertainties that have occurred in the global arena, ASEAN appears to be cruising along.

Looking back thirty years since its inception, ASEAN's political achievements have been quite remarkable by any standard. If one were to zero-in on what these achievements have been, perhaps what stands out most is ASEAN's maintenance of peace in what was once a trouble-ridden region. Fortuitous circumstances may have helped in achieving this regional peace, but certainly without the conscious and painstaking efforts put into the process by the respective member-states, this peace dividend would not have been reaped at all.

There is, however, the tendency to sometimes overlook the role played by sub-regional bodies in maintaining regional peace and stability when analyses of geopolitical, security and economic affairs are viewed from the framework of the realist concept of international relations. In this framework, it is the diktat of realpolitik that really matters and, more often than not, in international affairs regional actors have to act or at least are constrained to act in accordance with the interests of the major powers. Regional states are more likely to be mere bystanders in the unfolding of international events. Notwithstanding the fact that many of the realist concepts of international affairs may still hold some truth today, the dramatic changes that have occurred after the end of the Cold War necessitate a re-evaluation of the kind of role(s) played by sub-regional bodies in defining regional affairs. It is against this conceptual backdrop that an analysis of ASEAN and its mechanisms of dispute management is placed.

Sub-regional Organizations and Regional Security

Regional and sub-regional organizations have been established with the primary aim of maintaining peace, resolving regional conflicts, and/or containing them to avoid further escalation. The vision was to have regions which were to become "islands of peace", and for regional organizations to become the building blocks of peace.(1) Indeed, after World War II, many regional organizations emerged. Although conceived mainly to address security concerns, these regional and subregional organizations varied in type and were shaped largely by the kind of security framework each had adopted.(2) Whatever form they took, however, the common denominator of these organizations was the need to maintain regional security through the resolution and prevention of regional conflicts. This interest stemmed from the often unexpressed insecurity complexes felt by member-states, highlighting further the importance of settling disputes peacefully.(3) However, since many of these regional organizations were creatures of the Cold War contest - for example, the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) - some soon found themselves irrelevant, especially after the Cold War.(4) Yet, in spite of this ignoble past, some did manage to survive and, as post-Cold War structural changes would have it, paradoxically, these brought about renewed impetus for regional organizations to be more visible, encouraging rethinking on regionalism in the international order. Perhaps, the best indication of the resurgence of regionalism and, more importantly, a recognition of the relevant role of regional organizations in international affairs, is found in the seminal document written by the former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace. That document clearly underscored the need for regional organizations to assume greater responsibility in maintaining international peace, and the necessity for regional powers and organizations to become more actively involved in managing conflicts in their respective regions:

the Security Council has and will continue to have primary responsibility for maintaining regional peace and security, but regional action as a matter of decentralisation, delegation and cooperation with the United Nations could not only lighten the burden of the Council, but also contribute to a deeper sense of participation, consensus and democratization of international affairs.(5)

Assuming greater responsibility in regional affairs seems to be one of ASEAN's missions. This mission is translated in the grouping's chief goal of preventing, managing and resolving conflicts in the Southeast Asian region. A brief review of its history saw a sub-regional body created at the height of the Cold War era, characterized by the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. Since its establishment, ASEAN has gone through important structural changes in the international arena: from the detente of the two superpower axes; the opening up of a major power, China; the disintegration of the Soviet Union; the democratization of Eastern Europe; and, the most salient of which, the end of the Cold War. Throughout all these significant developments, ASEAN has proven its resilience as a sub-regional organization, having lasted for the past three decades. ASEAN has been regarded as a successful group because of its ability to overcome, to a large extent, the intra-regional impediments to the Southeast Asian region's political stability, mutual co-operation and maintenance of regional security. More specifically, ASEAN has set an example of how a regional security organization can, over the years, develop a "tangible set of informal but effective procedures ... in policy behaviour by the leaders of its respective member-states and has built up shared visions and expectations related to regional security".(6)

The main objective of this article is to analyse ASEAN's mechanisms and modus operandi of dispute management. In doing so, the study will attempt to address the following questions: 1) What are the existing mechanisms of dispute settlement adopted by ASEAN and how have these mechanisms evolved? 2) To what extent have these mechanisms defined and characterized the modus operandi of ASEAN's management and settlement of disputes? And 3) to what extent have these mechanisms and modus operandi been successful in managing and, perhaps, settling disputes among member-states in particular, and in the region, in general? Before delving into ASEAN's mechanisms of dispute management, it is useful to define certain terminology.

Defining Mechanisms of Conflict Resolution

In the literature on conflict resolution, mechanisms of resolving and/or managing conflict are defined as the processes, methods, devices, techniques and strategies employed to resolve or manage a conflict.(7) Almost like a blanket definition, mechanisms are anything employed in the whole, often complicated process of resolving or managing a conflict. It should be noted at the outset that this study will concentrate only on the way ASEAN has managed conflicts. Managing conflict usually involves four major processes. These are: conflict avoidance, conflict prevention, conflict settlement and conflict resolution.(8) In general terms, Mitchell defines conflict management as referring to the whole range of techniques to: (a) prevent the development of conflict situations, or once these have developed, to (b) prevent them from resulting in disruptive and widely destructive conflict behaviours; or, once this has arisen, to (c) halt undesired conflict behaviour or remove its source, through some form of settlement agreement or resolution of the conflict.

In theory, there are several mechanisms, techniques or strategies that any regional organization should be able to avail itself of without much difficulty. Some of the examples of the latter would be: assurance, community building, deterrence, non-intervention, isolation, intermediation, intervention and internationalization. The mechanisms can also be either formally based on institutionalized methods, or informal, with co-operation being tacit among member parties. A combination of both formal and informal methods can be used, and the decision on which mechanism to deploy would very much depend on the nature of the conflict itself and the kind of outcome desired. As mentioned earlier, while these mechanisms should be easily available to regional organizations, given the kind of communication and socialization that takes place among them, the more important issues perhaps are: 1) the feasibility of any of these mechanisms in practice, and 2) their relevance for managing conflict at regional and domestic levels. This is particularly so since the former is further divided into intra-mural and extra-mural levels.(9)

For most regional organizations, therefore, the choice as to which mechanisms to use in attempting to manage regional and intra-state conflict would often be dependent on its institutional capacity. While there may be other factors that also influence the choice of mechanisms, a salient one is the very purpose for which the organization is established. This is reflected in the organization's objectives, goals and aspirations. The other factors would include the degree to which member-states abide or comply with regime norms and rules, and, more significantly, the extent to which these norms have been institutionalized.(10) Therefore, putting all these considerations against the particular nature of a conflict, it would...