ASEANs Centrality in The South China Sea Dispute:

The Role of ASEAN Way

Submitted by

Alleya Hanifa Thariane

2017840106

International Conflict and Cooperation

Spring 2017

Yonsei University

Prof. Choi Ajin

1. Chapter 1
1.1. Background
South East Asia is known to possess significant geopolitics and geo-economics values. The region links the
two most important oceansthe Indian and the Pacific, making it the geopolitical epicenter of our
time.1 Locating in the tropics, the region produced resources that were unique to the region such as
cloves, nutmeg, and mace. This quality of the region made it vulnerable to the meddling of foreign powers.
Historically, nations in the region had experienced colonization by various European nations, except for
Thailand. After the end of World War II, South East Asian states were not completely free from
international big power politics. During the Cold War, the world witnessed Vietnam War which lasted for
almost two decades as a result of two big powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, fought for
influence in the region.
In addition to external-caused conflicts, the region is also prone to interstate and intrastate conflicts.
In the 1960s, Indonesia and Malaysia were involved in an armed conflict known as Konfrontasi. Cambodia
and Vietnam were also involved in a two-decade war. Internally, the South East Asian nations were
struggling with rebellions and religious-ethnic conflicts.
Considering their vulnerability to conflict and potentials at the same time, the countries in South East
Asia agreed to establish a regional institutions. In 1961, Association of South East Asia (ASA) was formed
by Malaya, Thailand, and the Philippines. Yet, ASA failed to thrive due its inability to obtain endorsement
by other countries in the region and the deteriorating relationship between Malaya and the Philippines
over the formation of the Federation of Malaya in 1963.2 ASA then proceeded by MAPHILINDO (Malaya-
Philippines-Indonesia), SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organizations), and ASPAC (Asia and Pacific
Council).3 All were short-lived organizations.
After series of failures to form a regional organization, foreign ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand held consultative meetings which resulted Joint Declaration. The
declaration was the start of the regional institution that we know today. The establishment of ASEAN
(Association of South East Asian Nations) in 1967 was an important milestone in the history of South East
Asia. As a region consisted of newly-independent countries, ASEAN was an important arena for the
members to interact and cooperate with each other. ASEAN was formed to speed-up economic growth,
nurturing cooperation in various aspects, and promoting peace and regional stability.4
Recently, the region is shaken up by South China Sea dispute. South China Sea is one of the most
important seas in the world. Robert Kaplan in his Foreign Policy article mentioned that it is the "throat of
global sea routes", as it connects South East Asia with the Western Pacific.5 It is also known that the South
China Sea hosts huge amount of natural resources, especially oil. Then it was not a surprise when China's
move to claim most of the sea as its territory was protested by South East Asian countries are Brunei,
Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. As illustrated by below map, four of ASEAN members are involved
in the dispute as claimant states. Yet, until now, ASEAN has been unable to create a stance that unites the

1
Ernest Z. Bower, et al, South East Asias Geopolitical Centrality, Center for Strategic and International Studies
(2015): 18, accessed on 10 May 2017, https://spfusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150609_Bower_South
EastAsiaCentrality_Web.pdf.
2
Formation of ASEAN, History SG, accessed on 10 May 2017,
http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/65bc5474-afba-4fcc-afc1-345457fa41a9.
3
Sekretariat ASEAN, ASEAN Selayang Pandang (Jakarta: Sekretariat ASEAN, 2010, 2.
4
Ibid., 3.
5
The South China Sea is the Future of Conflict, Robert D. Kaplan, Foreign Policy, accessed on 10 May 2017,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/08/15/the-south-china-sea-is-the-future-of-conflict.
voice of its members. As a result, the South China Sea dispute has caused insecurity in the South East Asia
region.

In recent years, due to aggressive moves by China, ASEAN claimant states in the dispute have increased
their defense budget. Responding to Chinese aggression done in the disputed areas near James Shoal,
Malaysia has increased its defense budget by 10 percent in October 2014. Manila has also prepared to
spend $885 million to upgrade its military and reasserting its commitment to military cooperation with
the United States. Vietnam is noticed to have the most significant defense budget increase. Vietnam
increased its defense spending to 113 percent in the 2004-2013 period. In 2013 alone, Vietnam spent $3.4
billion to upgrade its military. Vietnam has also been actively engaged in strategic arms trade with India,
Russia, and the U.S. since 2014.6
The arm race that is happening in South East Asia could turn into security dilemma, and eventually
creating instability in the region. ASEAN effort to deal with the problem could be tracked back to the 1990s.
But still, ASEAN has not proven its capability to resolve the issue. I argue that ASEANs inability to show
significant action regarding the South China Sea is constrained by its ASEAN Way of handling issues.
Based on neoliberal institutionalist argument, formation of institution is a way to create peace and
maintaining stability in the international or regional level. Yet, ASEAN has not succeeded to do so in South
East Asia.

1.2. Research Question

What makes ASEAN has yet to respond to South China Sea issue effectively?

1.3. Argument
ASEAN Way hinders the organization to act effectively towards the South China Sea issue.

6
Linh Tong, "The ASEAN Crisis, Part 1: Why the South China Sea Is a Critical Test," The Diplomat, December 24,
2016, , accessed May 10, 2017, http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/the-asean-crisis-part-1-why-the-south-china-sea-
is-a-critical-test/.
1.4. Framework
To answer the research question, frameworks from liberalism realm, especially neoliberal institutionalism,
will be used. Among three primary school of thoughts in International Relations (realism, liberalism, and
constructivism), liberalism sees non-state actors such as institutions in a positive light. Institutions is one
of the major topics of liberalism research, as liberalism believes institutions can reduce the negative effect
of anarchy and nurture international cooperation.
Neoliberal institutionalism have some similar basic assumptions with neorealism. It regards states as
rational actors and agrees that international system is anarchic. 7 Yet unlike neorealism which regards
anarchy as barrier to cooperation, it argues that establishment of institution could create peace as
institutions could promote cooperation and minimize adverse effects of international anarchy.
A prominent neoliberal institutionalism scholar, Robert O. Keohane, defines institution as persistent
and connected sets of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and
shape expectations. 8 Keohane stated that international institutions have some benefits which could
avert states from only pushing forward their interests and comply to rules even in an anarchic
international system. International institutions could reduce uncertainty. In an anarchic international
system, institutions make states more predictable as they are bound by norms and rules. Also,
international institutions could reduce conflict potentials that may have emerged due to distrust between
states.9 These three benefits, according to Shaun Narine, enable states to cooperate despite the possibility
of incompliance done by other parties.10
Keohane, through his several writings, also mentioned certain conditions that determine
effectiveness of an international institution. To function effectively, a strong authoritative power or
influence is needed in an institution to ensure its members compliance.11 Members composition of an
institution would also affect its effectiveness.12 Cooperation is more effortless to be built within institution
with members whose social and political background are similar.

7
Shaun Narine, Institutional Theory and Southeast Asia: The Case of ASEAN, in World Affairs, Vol. 161, No. 1,
1998, pg. 37.
8
Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions: Two Approaches, in International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No.
4, 1988, 383.
9
Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?, in Power and Governances in
Partially Globalized World (London: Routledge, 2002), 30
10
Narine, ibid.
11
Keohane, International Institutions: Two Approaches, 387.
12
Keohane, International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?, 34.
2. Chapter 2
2.1. About ASEAN
Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) was established on August 1967 by five founding nations
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand after the signing of Bangkok Declaration.
The purpose of its establishment is to speed-up economic growth, nurturing cooperation in various
aspects, and promoting peace and regional stability. ASEAN was also founded as an effort to avoid
intrastate and interstate conflicts, and avoid foreign powers meddling in the region. Conceived during
the Cold War, strategic purpose of ASEAN is to
Today, ASEAN is composed of ten members. After its establishment in 1967, other states in the
region gradually became member of ASEAN. Brunei officially became ASEANs sixth member in 1984,
followed by Vietnam in 1997. In 1995, during 28th ASEAN High Ministerial Meeting in Brunei, Lao PDR and
Myanmar were officially accepted as the eighth and ninth member of ASEAN. Finally, in 1999 Cambodia
became the tenth member of ASEAN.

ASEAN Member States

One word that would perfectly describe ASEAN member composition is diversity. South East Asia is a very
diverse region in terms of social, economic, and political background. The region is home to 628.9 million
people living in area of 4.5 million square kilometer.13 All member countries are affected by the regions
rich history, diverse customs and traditions, religious beliefs, economic development, and political
systems.
Long before colonization arrived in South East Asia, the region was made out of kingdoms. They
interacted, trade, went into war and eventually influenced each other. The political, economic, and
cultural ties among the South East Asian people then were cut by colonialism.14 After the nations in South
East Asia gained their independence, they took different paths in the transition from colonialism to
independent nationhood. Quoting the 10th Secretary General of ASEAN, Rodolfo C. Severino, the

13
The ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Statistical Leaflet 2016, accessed on 11 May 2017,
http://asean.org/storage/2012/05/ASEAN_Stats_Leaflet2016_web.pdf
14
Rodolfo C. Severino, Diversity and Convergence in Southeast Asia (Keynote address, Harvard Project for Asian
and International Relations, Beijing 28 August 2000), http://asean.org/?static_post=diversity-and-convergence-in-
southeast-asia-28-august-2000.
historical relationship during colonialism era, the personal experience and ideological leanings of the new
ruling elite, and the economic and political circumstances in which the new nations found themselves
influenced their choice of paths.15 That way, today we still could see the differences in political system,
ideological preference, and allies of each nations.
While looking at the longest-established regional organization in the world, European Union, we
could tell through its mechanism that the organization is very highly institutionalized. Yet, if we compare
ASEAN and EU, we will see that ASEAN is less institutionalized, even low institutionalized. This is a result
of ASEANs main principles which put forward its members sovereignty. With their history of
colonialization, the resilient sense of independence has become underlying guide of the members foreign
policy moves.
Compared to the leading regional institution European Union (EU) which is very high-institutionalized,
ASEAN is a low-institutionalized organization which put forward members sovereignty. It is demonstrated
through the main principles of ASEAN: non-intervention, peaceful conflict resolutions, and consensus-
based decision making. Using the principles to unite its diverse, heterogenous members, ASEANs ability
to function well in the region is often being doubted.
In 1976, ASEAN founding states agreed on the Treaty of Amity (TAC) which contains the
fundamental principles which ASEAN members states refer in conducting their relations with one another.
The principles are: respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, non-interference in
internal affairs of one another, settlement of disputes by peaceful means, and renunciation of threat or
use of force, and effective cooperation.16 ASEAN also adopts decision making based on consultation and
consensus, which means every decision taken by ASEAN should be voted by each member state.
The fundamental principles and the consensus-based decision making are ASEANs distinctive way
of governing itself. This unique mechanism is what is known as ASEAN Way. According to some scholars
such as Shaun Narine, ASEAN Way is ASEANs key of success because it minimize tension between member
states. 17 The principle also ensures equality among members and prevents the discrimination of any
member in major decisions. But in the same time, ASEAN Way also hinder ASEAN from resolving issues
that need to be solved. ASEAN Way become way to bypass problems and sweep them under the rug.
It is been noticed that the ASEAN Way hinder ASEAN from acting effectively on certain security issues.

2.2. South China Sea Dispute

South China Sea is an area stretching from Strait of Malacca and Singapore in the southwest to the Strait
of Taiwan in the northeast. The area is known for its importance as one of the most important global trade
flow, as it connects South East Asia with the Western Pacific. Inside the area are several hundred small
islands, rocks, and reefs with the majority located in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains.18 Aside from
the fact that trillion of dollars go through this area, South China Sea is also home to significant amount of
hydrocarbons and natural gas. With the rising of Asian economy and consequently its demand of energy,
the territorial dispute in South China Sea is critical and not to be resolved any time soon.
The first claim made in the South China Sea was by China in 1951. The claim is based by an official
map of Republic of China made by the Kuomintang government in 1947 which featured nine-dashed line.
China claim more than 60 per cent of the area and has been occupying several islands. China also known

15
Ibid.
16
Overview, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, accessed on 11 May 2017, http://asean.org/asean/about-
asean/overview/.
17
18
South China Sea, U.S. Energy Information Association, accessed on 11 May 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.cfm?RegionTopicID=SCS.
for doing land reclamation and militarizing the newly-made islands. In 2014, China released the Chinese
Governments Position Paper on a Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration which
defends its activities in the South China Sea with historical claim.19
Two contested territories in the area are Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands. The island chains are
largely uninhabited islands which are said to have significant amount of natural resources around them.
Paracel Islands is claimed in whole by China, Taiwan and Vietnam. They also claim Spratly Islands in whole.
Meanwhile Malaysia and the Philippines respectively claim 3 and 8 islands of the Spratly Islands. 20

Country South China Sea Spratly Islands Paracel Islands Gulf of Thailand
Brunei UNCLOS No formal claim No -
Cambodia - - - UNCLOS
China All All All -
Indonesia UNCLOS No No -
Malaysia UNCLOS 3 islands No UNCLOS
Philippines Significant 8 islands No -
portions
Taiwan All All All -
Thailand - - - UNCLOS
Vietnam All All All UNCLOS

The dispute in South China Sea has caused instability in the area. As mentioned, China has been
militarizing the reclaimed islands. In February 2016, China deployed advanced surface-to-air missiles on
one of the island in the Paracels. In response, the US persistently operating freedom of navigation patrol
and joint military patrols with the Philippines.21
Meanwhile, ASEAN countries involved also reacted by increasing their defense budget.
Responding to Chinese aggression done in the disputed areas near James Shoal, Malaysia has increased
its defense budget by 10 percent in October 2014. Manila has also prepared to spend $885 million to
upgrade its military and reasserting its commitment to military cooperation with the United States.
Vietnam is noticed to have the most significant defense budget increase. Vietnam increased its defense
spending to 113 percent in the 2004-2013 period. In 2013 alone, Vietnam spent $3.4 billion to upgrade its
military. Vietnam has also been actively engaged in strategic arms trade with India, Russia, and the U.S.
since 2014.22
With the end of the dispute is nowhere to be seen, intensifying situation in the South China Sea
could be seen as threat to security of ASEAN. The militarization in the South East Asia caused by increasing
tension in South China Sea could lead to security dilemma among ASEAN countries. It is also worth to
remember that the claimant countries had went to armed conflict with each other in the past, thus
security dilemma would only worsen the situation.

19
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China, Position Paper of the Government of the People's
Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the
Philippines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China, 7 December 2014, accessed on 11 May
2017, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml.
20
U.S. Energy Information Association, ibid.
21
"Japan supports but won't join US 'freedom of navigation' patrols in South China Sea," RT International, accessed
May 15, 2017, https://www.rt.com/news/376410-japan-us-patrols-south-china/.
22
Linh Tong, The ASEAN Crisis, ibid.
2.3. ASEANs Disunity towards the Issue
As a regional organization, ASEAN has made efforts to deal with the issue. Yet, as mentioned, no
agreement is concluded among the members as not all states are involved in the dispute. ASEAN claimant
states are the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei. The rests of the member are not involved at all
(Cambodia, Laos, Singapore) or only pushes forward claim towards its EEZ (Indonesia). This alone has
important consequences to the nonexistent consensus of the members regarding South China Sea. In
addition to that, each members alliance preference also affect ASEANs inability to produce consensus.
China-aligned ASEAN members such as Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia are opposed or
have little interests in becoming involved in anything that would be detrimental to their interests in
relations to China. At the 45th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 2012, ASEANs foreign ministers failed to
issue a joint communique as Cambodia rejected mentioning to Scarborough Shoal and EEZ.23 During the
ASEAN 30th Summit in April 2017, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who acts as the sitting chairman
of ASEAN stated any discussion about the China militarization in the South China Sea was useless.
Discussion of the issue would only bring trouble with China.24
Yet, internally, the Philippines is also divided on the issue. Philippines Foreign Ministry and security
establishment are eager to see the arbitration award and UNCLOS serving as the legal basis for negotiation
between ASEAN and China.25 Singapore urged ASEAN to continue the talk to produce a Code of Conduct
on South China Sea.26 Indonesia is also in favor to produce a Code of Conduct and often positions itself as
a mediator along with Singapore.
ASEANs effort to resolve the issue started internally. In 1992, ASEAN members created Declaration
on the South China Sea, which is not a legally-binding agreement. It succeeded to ameliorate the tension
between ASEAN states. However, when having to deal with third-party such as China, ASEAN has yet to
success at conflict resolution.
During the 29th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 1999, ASEAN members called for a legally binding Code
of Conduct in the South China Sea. In 2002, Declaration of Conduct was signed by ASEAN and China. The
Declaration reaffirmed a commitment to international law and to the freedom of navigation in the South
China Sea.27 It was hoped to be transformed into a more binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea.
The framework for Code of Conduct finally came into being in 2017. Yet if we look into the negotiations
in the past, China has been dragging its feet towards reaching a consensus with its South East Asian
neighbors. It could be seen from the time needed for both parties to finally agreed on a framework, 20
years. Some ASEAN diplomats believed that it is one of Chinas ploys of buying time as it building and

23
China Reveals Its Hand on ASEAN in Phnom Penh, Center for Strategic & International Studies, accessed 11
May 2017, https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-reveals-its-hand-asean-phnom-penh.
24
Shannon Tiezzi, "Why China Isn't Interested in a South China Sea Code of Conduct," The Diplomat, February 26,
2014, accessed May 10, 2017, http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/why-china-isnt-interested-in-a-south-china-sea-
code-of-conduct/.
25
Richard Javad Heydarian, "Asean-China Code of Conduct: Never-ending negotiations," The Straits Times, March
08, 2017, accessed May 10, 2017, http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/asean-china-code-of-conduct-never-
ending-negotiations.
26
Singapore Minister's Comments In Parliament On ASEAN And South China Sea, Embassy of the Republic of
Singapore Pnom Penh, accessed 15 May 2017,
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/phnom_penh/press_statements_speeches/embassy_new
s_press_releases/2012/201208/Press_13082012.html/
27
Manuel Mogato and Martin Petty, "Push for South China Sea code stirs ASEAN suspicions about Beijing's
endgame," Reuters, April 27, 2017, accessed May 10, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-
asean-analysis-idUSKBN17T0A5.
militarizing its artificial islands.28 ASEAN states are still unsure of Chinas good intention towards the Code
of Conduct.

2.4. Is ASEAN Way Worth Keeping?

As explained in the previous subchapter, ASEAN Way is one of the main factor of ASEANs incapability to
resolve the South China Sea dispute effectively. The mechanism has blocked ASEAN from giving timely
response to the dispute. Asymmetric characteristic of the dispute is also a test for ASEAN, which according
to liberal ideas, could be used by weaker states such as those in South East Asia to collect their power
and increase their leverage. Yet, due to ASEANs block in dealing with the issue, the member states are
starting to resort to unilateral path.
In other fields of cooperation, such as economics and socio-cultural, ASEAN Way which includes
consensus-based mechanism has been working very well. Yet, in dealing with security issues, it seems that
this mechanism should be reconsidered. As demonstrated in the South China Sea case, ASEAN Way has
slowing down ASEAN from keeping its foundation purposes, that is to maintain and foster regional
stability and security of South East Asia. Shaun Narine mentioned that ASEAN Way is ASEANS secret key
of success. Yet, Narine also states that ASEAN Way is an ineffective tool to resolve dispute and unite
different views between ASEAN member states. This is because ASEAN Way is used to bypass
problems.29 Dominik Heller inserts that by bypassing, ASEAN has not been able to develop an adequate
conflict management.30 This is what happening in ASEANs progress of dealing with South China Sea issue.
Beyond all the pro and contras of ASEAN Way, is ASEANs Way worth keeping? I argue that ASEAN
Way is worth keeping, but it will need readjustments. As mentioned, ASEAN Way is the foundation of
ASEAN, the reason that the member states assembled together in a regional organization. Yet, as time
goes by and the organization faces more complicated problems, ASEAN should adapt to changes. When
handling critical security issues like the South China Sea dispute, ASEAN should develop a more decisive
and effective approach. Thus, I recommend ASEAN to develop a whole new mechanism in dealing with
security issues. The new mechanism may not be accommodating to all members as the ASEAN Way does.
Each member may not have veto right regarding what is at stake.
Based on liberal perspectives, an effective institution needs a strong authoritative power or influence.
ASEAN needs to have a strong figure or a whole separate authoritative body such as Court of Justice of
the European Union. In ASEAN, the absence of such authoritative body which requires high-degree
compromise of sovereignty roots in the member states history of colonialism. Hence, to make it possible,
ASEAN will need to open themselves and integrate further like the UE did. If EU-style of integration is not
possible, then an ad hoc authoritative body whose purpose solely to resolve the South China Sea dispute
could be an alternative option.

3. Conclusion

South China Sea is the most critical conflict of interest currently happening in South East Asia. This dispute
is a test of relevance to the only regional institutions in the area, ASEAN. One of ASEAN foundation
purposes is to promote peace and regional stability. Yet, until now, ASEAN has been unable to create a

28
Ibid.
29
Shaun Narine, ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the ASEAN Way, in Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 10, 1997, pg.
962.
30
Dominik Heller, The Relevance of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) for Regional Security in the Asia-Pacific, in
Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol 27, No. 1 (April 2005), 138.
stance that unites the voice of its members. As a result, the South China Sea dispute has caused insecurity
in the South East Asia region.
ASEANs inability to a unified stance roots in its nature of handling issues, ASEAN Way. ASEAN
Way is ASEANs unique mechanism to govern itself and for members to conduct relations with one
another. The most important elements of ASEAN Way are ASEANs fundamental principle and consensus-
based mechanism. The ASEAN Way is told by some ASEAN experts to have decrease the organizations
capability to resolve security issues in the area, including the South China Sea. That is demonstrated
through various instances in where ASEAN member states differ in their stances towards the advances in
the dispute. The different stances slow down ASEAN, making the regional is more vulnerable as ASEAN
failed to response effectively about the issue.
Despite pro and contra about it, ASEAN Way is still an important element of ASEAN. However, it
will need readjustments as ASEAN faces more complicated and intricate issues today than during the time
of its foundation. Two of the solutions is to develop a whole new mechanism in dealing with security
issues or to form an independent, ad-hoc authoritative body to deal exclusively with the South China Sea
issue.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Center for Strategic & International Studies." Center for Strategic and International Studies. June 09, 2017.
Accessed May 10, 2017. https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-reveals-its-hand-asean-phnom-penh.
"Japan supports but won't join US 'freedom of navigation' patrols in South China Sea." RT International. Accessed
May 15, 2017. https://www.rt.com/news/376410-japan-us-patrols-south-china/.
"Overview." Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Accessed May 11, 2017. http://asean.org/asean/about-
asean/overview/.
South China Sea. U.S. Energy Information Association. Accessed May 11, 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.cfm?RegionTopicID=SCS.
Embassy of the Republic of Singapore Pnom Penh. 2012. Singapore Minister's Comments In Parliament On
ASEAN And South China Sea. Accessed May 15, 2017.
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/phnom_penh/press_statements_speeches/emb
assy_news_press_releases/2012/201208/Press_13082012.html.
Heller, Dominik. "The relevance of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) for regional security in the Asia-Pacific."
Contemporary Southeast Asia (2005): 123-145.
Heydarian, Richard Javad. "Asean-China Code of Conduct: Never-ending negotiations." The Straits Times. March
08, 2017. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/asean-china-code-of-conduct-
never-ending-negotiations.
Keohane, Robert O. "International institutions: Can interdependence work?." Foreign Policy (1998): 82-194.
Keohane, Robert O. International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988):
379-396.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China. Position Paper of the Government of the People's
Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic
of the Philippines. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China. 7 December, 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2017. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml.
Mogato, Manuel, and Martin Petty. "Push for South China Sea code stirs ASEAN suspicions about Beijing's
endgame." Reuters. April 27, 2017. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-
southchinasea-asean-analysis-idUSKBN17T0A5.
Narine, Shaun. "ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the" ASEAN Way"." Asian Survey 37, no. 10 (1997): 961-978.
Narine, Shaun. "Institutional theory and Southeast Asia: The case of ASEAN." World Affairs 161, no. 1 (1998): 33-
47.
Tiezzi, Shannon. "Why China Isn't Interested in a South China Sea Code of Conduct." The Diplomat. Accessed May
11, 2017. http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/why-china-isnt-interested-in-a-south-china-sea-code-of-
conduct/.
Tong, Linh. "The ASEAN Crisis, Part 1: Why the South China Sea Is a Critical Test." The Diplomat. December 24,
2016. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/the-asean-crisis-part-1-why-the-south-
china-sea-is-a-critical-test/.