IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v26y2023i1p40-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ASEAN, COVID-19 and Myanmar crisis: Dealing with critical juncture

Author

Listed:
  • I Gede Wahyu Wicaksana
  • Demas Nauvarian
  • Putu Shangrina Pramudia

Abstract

Explaining how international institutions develop is the significant contribution of historical institutionalism (HI) to the study of contemporary world politics. HI offers two important concepts, critical juncture and path dependence, demonstrating dynamics within the institution, leading towards continuity and change. The case of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Myanmar democratic crisis tells us about the impact of the crucial moments on the regional organisation and its responses. Yet, ASEAN is resistant to change. What makes it possible is the question that cannot be answered by using the HI approach. Hence, we explain by employing a theoretical framework founded upon the link between diplomatic culture and institutional legitimacy, adopted from the English School (ES) theory of International Relations (IR). This article argues that ASEAN's diplomatic culture ensures member countrie’s compliance with the Association's code of conduct and prevents external power intrusion into Southeast Asian affairs and interests. Therefore, ASEAN's institutional legitimacy can be maintained. The Association deals with the critical juncture without undertaking any fundamental change.

Suggested Citation

  • I Gede Wahyu Wicaksana & Demas Nauvarian & Putu Shangrina Pramudia, 2023. "ASEAN, COVID-19 and Myanmar crisis: Dealing with critical juncture," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 40-54, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:26:y:2023:i:1:p:40-54
    DOI: 10.1177/22338659221151129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/22338659221151129
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/22338659221151129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Shanahan Renshaw, 2013. "Democratic Transformation and Regional Institutions: The Case of Myanmar and ASEAN," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 32(1), pages 29-54.
    2. Thomas Rixen & Lora Anne Viola, 2015. "Putting path dependence in its place: toward a Taxonomy of institutional change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 301-323, April.
    3. Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 379-408, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    2. Tanja A. Börzel & Thomas Risse, 2009. "Diffusing (Inter-) Regionalism - The EU as a Model of Regional Integration," KFG Working Papers p0007, Free University Berlin.
    3. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    4. Christopher Pallas & Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "NGO monitoring and the legitimacy of international cooperation: A strategic analysis," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    5. Simon Hartmann & Thomas Lindner & Jakob Müllner & Jonas Puck, 2022. "Beyond the nation-state: Anchoring supranational institutions in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 1282-1306, August.
    6. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    7. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    8. Georgios Dimitropoulos, 2022. "The use of blockchain by international organizations: effectiveness and legitimacy [The governance of blockchain dispute resolution]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(3), pages 328-342.
    9. Jasper Krommendijk, 2015. "The domestic effectiveness of international human rights monitoring in established democracies. The case of the UN human rights treaty bodies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 489-512, December.
    10. Kerstin Radtke, 2014. "ASEAN Enlargement and Norm Change – A Window of Opportunity for Democracy and Human Rights Entrepreneurs?," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 33(3), pages 79-105.
    11. Biegoń, Dominika & Gronau, Jennifer & Schmidtke, Henning, 2013. "Magic mirror on the wall, who in the world is legitimate after all? Legitimacy claims of international institutions," TranState Working Papers 169, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    12. Schouten, Greetje & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2011. "Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1891-1899, September.
    13. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Mikkel Kruuse & Kasper Reming Tangbæk & Kristjan Jespersen & Caleb Gallemore, 2019. "Navigating Input and Output Legitimacy in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Institutional Stewards at Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-27, November.
    15. Margaret Levi & Audrey Sacks, 2009. "Legitimating beliefs: Sources and indicators," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 311-333, December.
    16. Axel Dreher & Katharina Michaelowa, 2008. "The political economy of international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 331-334, December.
    17. Terrence L. Chapman, 2007. "International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics, and Institutional Legitimacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 134-166, February.
    18. Stephen, Matthew D., 2015. "‘Can you pass the salt?’ The legitimacy of international institutions and indirect speech," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 768-792.
    19. Palladino, Nicola, 2023. "A ‘biased’ emerging governance regime for artificial intelligence? How AI ethics get skewed moving from principles to practices," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5).
    20. A. Marx & E. Bécault & J. Wouters, 2012. "Private Standards in Forestry. Assessing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:26:y:2023:i:1:p:40-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.