The Tragedy of the Southeast Asian Commons

Ritualism in ASEAN’s Response to the South China Sea Maritime Dispute

in European Journal of East Asian Studies
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The South China Sea disputes have proven to be the most divisive issue in ASEAN. The collective decision-making of the ten member states towards the issue remains ineffective and this has often been attributed to their disunity. However, disunity in the ASEAN maritime commons is symptomatic of the underlying political culture in Southeast Asia. Using Lucian Pye’s analysis of power as ritual in Southeast Asian political culture, we can surmise that the disjuncture between the hopes for a definitive Code of Conduct and the resulting lack of consensus in the 2012 biannual ASEAN summit chaired by Cambodia concretised ritualism. This paper’s analysis focuses on how intra-ASEAN disagreement in resolving the South China Sea maritime dispute was compounded by Cambodia’s 2012 ASEAN chairmanship. It revealed that power as ritual reduces ASEAN integration into a temple in support of the secularised version of the cosmic order and thus tolerating its lack of pragmatic utility and efficiency.

The Tragedy of the Southeast Asian Commons

Ritualism in ASEAN’s Response to the South China Sea Maritime Dispute

in European Journal of East Asian Studies

Sections

References

1

Garrett Hardin‘The tragedy of the commons’ScienceVol. 162 (December 1968) p. 1245.

3

Jose T. AlmonteToward One Southeast Asia (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute for Strategic and Development Studies2004) p. 197.

4

Lucian PyeAsian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority (London: Belknap1985).

5

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

7

Odgaard‘The South China Sea’ pp. 328–329.

8

Odgaard‘The South China Sea’ p. 329.

28

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

29

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

31

MacIver‘The myth of authority’ p. 125.

32

Clifford GeertzNegara: The Theater State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press1980).

33

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

34

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 40.

35

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 45.

36

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

37

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 45.

40

Amitav Acharya‘Imagined proximities: the making and unmasking of Southeast Asia as a region’Southeast Asian Journal of Social ScienceVol. 27 (1999) pp. 58–62.

42

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 91.

45

PyeAsian Power and Politics p. 39.

48

In the 1990sthe ASEAN Regional Forum was initiated by the ASEAN. It was formed in the context of the end of the Cold War which ‘left the Asia-Pacific searching for a new organizing principle for security’; Sheldon W. Simon ‘Southeast Asian international relations: is there institutional traction?’ in Narayanan Ganesan and Ramses Amer (eds) International Relations in Southeast Asia: Between Bilateralism and Multilateralism (Singapore: ISEAS 2012) p. 50.

50

De CastroDecision Making in Regional Organization p. 107. See also Amitav Acharya Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order second edition (New York: Routledge 2009) p. 55.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 48 48 13
Full Text Views 96 96 56
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0