Narrow Results

Southeast Asia is a byword for diversity. It is possible to find examples of nearly every conceivable form of political organisation and level of economic development imaginable in the region, from rich Singapore to poor Laos, and from democratic Indonesia to ‘communist’ Vietnam, with lots of variations in between (Case 2002). And yet amid all this heterogeneity there are some surprising commonalities and congruencies. Much of the congruence springs from a shared history; much of the commonality flows from a desire to overcome the legacy of ‘late’ development and a concomitant sense of insecurity. Paradoxically enough, therefore, the pursuit of stability and independence in the face of an, at times, inauspicious geopolitical context has given Southeast Asian states reasons to cooperate despite their diversity. Security governance in Southeast Asia continues to reflect the imprint of such historical factors to this day (Collins 2003; Emmers 2009; Goh 2008). As a result, if we want to understand the evolution and contemporary dimensions of security governance in the region, we must begin by looking backwards to see why Southeast Asian states continue to have such a preoccupation with ‘Westphalian’ forms of security and stability…

In 2002, an important milestone was laid on one of the central-most security issues of Southeast Asia when ASEAN and China signed the Declaration of Conduct of the Parties on the South China Sea (DOC). The document soon became a frequently talked about topic relating to the regional security architecture, one that raised much hope but also questions about the management of one of the most enduring security challenges of the region.

This chapter seeks to review ASEAN’s approach to building a set of codes to regulate the conduct of the stakeholders in the South China Sea, and how the Declaration of Conduct of the Parties on the South China Sea (DOC) influenced ASEAN engagement with China after its signing. The chapter would also assess the DOC’s implementation over the past 20 years, reviews current efforts to upgrade the DOC into the supposedly superior Code of Conduct, and suggest a way forward.