Suchergebnisse

There have been a number of articles about ASEAN's centrality in the regional security architecture of Asia. Yet, the notion of centrality remains undefined and under-operationalised. Implicit in the discourses of centrality is the idea of ASEAN's leadership, which in turn raises questions about ASEAN's ability to do so, given its limited capacity. This article defines ASEAN's centrality from the perspective of social network approach and argues that ASEAN's structural position in the density of networks that it has established and those that it has linkages with explains ASEAN's centrality. Despite its lack of material power, ASEAN has been able to claim centrality because of its position as a node in a cluster of networks, and this condition of 'high betweenness' allows ASEAN to exercise influence in regional processes with the tacit acceptance of major powers. However, while centrality may have been achieved, maintaining centrality in a rapidly changing regional environment compels ASEAN to address challenges to its centrality. This would necessarily include its ability to maintain consensus, carry out collective action and achieve its stated goals. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

At the 2005 World Summit, ASEAN Member States contributed to an official global consensus that states do indeed have a responsibility to protect their populations from the four mass atrocity crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As is the case in a number of regions, however, there is a strong sense of caution - if not hostility - in Southeast Asia (and East Asia more broadly) towards the Responsibility to Protect's provision for military interventions as a last resort, in order to protect populations from such harm. Furthermore, there is an accompanying, more general ambivalence towards the perceived relevance of the norm for Southeast Asia, due to the perceived nature and/or intensity of conflicts in the region. Against this backdrop, this article attempts to shed light on a sub-altern discourse in the region that argues that the RtoP is not only relevant, but that it is critical it be operationalised in light of the various manifestations of conflict that plague the region. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

The transnational security challenges posed by non-traditional security (NTS) issues like pandemics are pushing ASEAN to deepen regional security cooperation. However, unless regional efforts at addressing complex NTS threats like pandemics are reinforced by a more holistic, human security approach, many of the current initiatives will remain inadequate. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

Der Beitrag verfolgt vor dem Hintergrund eines regen Sicherheitsdiskurses in der Region Asien zwei Ziele: Erstens werden die Entwicklung des Konzepts menschlicher Sicherheit in Asien sowie die unterschiedlichen Thematiken dargestellt und herausgearbeitet, mit denen das Konzept in der Region beworben wird. Zweitens wird untersucht, wie das Konzept der menschlichen Sicherheit eine prominente Rolle in der Sicherheitsagenda der asiatischen Staaten erlangt hat und in welche Richtung es sich weiter entwickeln könnte. Das Kernargument des Beitrags ist, dass das Konzept, das in der Vergangenheit kaum eine Rolle spielte, heute zum integralen Bestandteil der Sicherheitsagenden der Region wird. So wird im Anschluss an die Einleitung im zweiten Schritt untersucht, wie Japan, die ASEAN und China das Konzept der menschlichen Sicherheit in ihrer Außenpolitik umsetzen und wie sie mittlerweile ihre Vorstellungen davon in der internationalen Arena propagieren. Im dritten Schritt wird herausgearbeitet, was die zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen der Region zur Gestaltung und Verbreitung des Konzepts beigetragen haben. Abschließend werden die Ergebnisse zusammengefasst und Überlegungen darüber angestellt, inwiefern menschliche Sicherheit als Rahmen für eine verbesserte Sicherheitskooperation in der Region dienen könnte. (ICG2)

This article examines lessons learned from the recent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome crisis in East and Southeast Asia, arguing that the wide-ranging impact of infectious diseases makes it imperative for states to treat these diseases as security concerns. "Securitizing" infectious diseases provides urgency for mobilizing resources and strengthening regional cooperation. Adding infectious diseases to the security agenda allows for better handling of sudden outbreaks that endanger lives and threaten the survival of nation-states; this is also in line with the region's concept of comprehensive security.