Navigating Asymmetric Interdependence: s Neoliberal Institutionalist Perspective on ASEAN-China Ties

Sri Yaumil Habibie, Rudiyanto Rudiyanto, Budiman Djoko Said

Abstract


In the dynamic geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia, the relationship between ASEAN and China has emerged as a pivotal strategic partnership. This paper analyzes how ASEAN manages the asymmetric interdependence stemming from disparities in economic and political power, addressing the central research question: How can ASEAN effectively navigate this relationship through regional institutions? This topic is significant as it reveals the diplomatic strategies ASEAN employs in the face of uneven power dynamics. The study examines key mechanisms, such as ASEAN+3, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which have been underexplored in addressing asymmetric interdependence. Using a qualitative research approach grounded in liberal institutionalism theory, the analysis is based on secondary data from policy documents and relevant literature.mFindings indicate that these institutions are vital in establishing norms and frameworks that enhance interaction between ASEAN and China while minimizing conflict risks. Additionally, ASEAN's use of soft power diplomacy is discussed in shaping China's regional behavior, emphasizing principles such as ASEAN centrality and peaceful dispute resolution.nThe conclusion highlights that strengthening regional institutions enables ASEAN to better manage its relationship with China despite asymmetric interdependence. This research illustrates that diplomatic strategies and multilateral cooperation are essential for promoting stability and collaboration in Southeast Asia.

Keywords


Asymmetric Interdependence, ASEAN-China Relations, Neoliberal Institutionalism

Full Text:

PDF

References


A. Tritto and A. Camba, “The Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia: A Mixed Methods Examination,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 32, no. 141, pp. 436–454, May 2023, doi: 10.1080/10670564.2022.2090099.

C. Shen, “The Impact of Infrastructure Development on China–ASEAN Trade-Evidence from ASEAN,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3277, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15043277.

S. C. Park, “The roles and strategies of ASEAN in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),” CED, no. 03, pp. 115–148, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.18543/ced-03-2022pp115-148.

R. M. Wrobel, “Chinese Geopolitics in Southeast Asia: A New Pattern of Economic Power within ASEAN?,” Asiatische Studien - Études Asiatiques, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 149–191, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1515/asia-2017-0049.

S. S. Tan, “Consigned to hedge: south-east Asia and America’s ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ strategy,” International Affairs, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 131–148, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1093/ia/iiz227.

R. O. Keohane and J. S. Nye, “Power and interdependence,” Survival, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 158–165, Jul. 1973, doi: 10.1080/00396337308441409.

A. D. Ba, “Who’s socializing whom? Complex engagement in Sino-ASEAN relations,” The Pacific Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 157–179, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1080/09512740500473163.

Y. F. Khong, “Making bricks without straw in the Asia Pacific?,” The Pacific Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 289–300, Jan. 1997, doi: 10.1080/09512749708719222.

W.-X. Ruan, X. Yu, S.-Y. Wang, T.-C. Zhao, and Y.-Z. Liu, “Exploration of China–ASEAN Trade Relations in the Context of Sustainable Economic Development—Based on the Lotka–Volterra Model,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 517, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su15010517.

D. Singh and M. Cook, Eds., “CHINA’S TWO SILK ROADS INITIATIVE: What It Means for Southeast Asia,” in Turning Points and Transitions, ISEAS Publishing, 2018, pp. 150–165. doi: 10.1355/9789814843089-018.

N. Ren and H. Liu, “Southeast Asian Chinese engage a rising China: business associations, institutionalised transnationalism, and the networked state,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 873–893, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2021.1983952.

B. Qin, D. Zeng, and A. Gao, “Convergence effect of the Belt and Road Initiative on income disparity: evidence from China,” Humanit Soc Sci Commun, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 307, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01315-0.

Q. Li, H. Khan, Z. Zhang, L. Lin, and K. Huang, “The Impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on Corporate Excessive Debt Mechanism: Evidence from Difference-in-Difference Equation Model,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 618, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su15010618.

E. Goh, “Contesting Hegemonic Order: China in East Asia,” Security Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 614–644, May 2019, doi: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604989.

Z. Jia, Y. Wang, Y. Chen, and Y. Chen, “The role of trade liberalization in promoting regional integration and sustainability: The case of regional comprehensive economic partnership,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 11, p. e0277977, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277977.

L. Hu, “Examining ASEAN’s effectiveness in managing South China Sea disputes,” The Pacific Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 119–147, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1080/09512748.2021.1934519.

C.-H. Huang, “The unintended consequences of US deep engagement in the South China Sea,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, pp. 1–22, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2106821.

R. A. Behan, S. A. Mahesar, and N. Mangrio, “SINO-ASEAN COOPERATION: PERCEPTIONS AND COUNTER STRATEGIES OF USA, JAPAN AND INDIA,” ASIA-PACIFIC, vol. 38, pp. 56–72, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.47781/asia-pacific.vol38.Iss0.3128.

X. Gong, “Non-traditional security cooperation between China and south-east Asia: implications for Indo-Pacific geopolitics,” International Affairs, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 29–48, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1093/ia/iiz225.

W.-C. Chao, “The Political Economy of the Philippines and Its Development Strategy under China-USA Power Rivalry and Hegemonic Competition: Hedge with Balance,” The Chinese Economy, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 292–303, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10971475.2022.2136694.

K. F. Chin, “Malaysia in Changing Geopolitical Economy: Navigating Great Power Competition between China and the United States,” The Chinese Economy, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 321–329, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10971475.2022.2136697.

A. Acharya, “The Evolution and Limitations of ASEAN Identity”.

R. Stubbs, “ASEAN Plus Three: Emerging East Asian Regionalism?,” Asian Survey, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 440–455, Jun. 2002, doi: 10.1525/as.2002.42.3.440.

C. Thayer, “A Closer Look at the ASEAN-China Single Draft South China Sea Code of Conduct,” The Diplomat, 2018. Accessed: Nov. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/a-closer-look-at-the-asean-china-single-draft-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct/

D. M. Jones and M. L. R. Smith, “Making Process, Not Progress: ASEAN and the Evolving East Asian Regional Order,” International Security, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 148–184, 2007, Accessed: Nov. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30129804

I. Storey, “Assessing the ASEAN-China Framework for the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea,” no. 2017, 2017.

L. Jones and S. Hameiri, “Debunking the Myth of ‘Debt-trap Diplomacy,’” Asia-Pacific Programme.

K. Gerard, “Explaining ASEAN’s Engagement of Civil Society in Policy-making: Smoke and Mirrors,” Globalizations, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 365–382, May 2015, doi: 10.1080/14747731.2015.1016304.

N. Maier-Knapp, “The non-traditional security concept and the EU-ASEAN relationship against the backdrop of China’s rise,” The Pacific Review, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 411–430, May 2016, doi: 10.1080/09512748.2015.1038579.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.52155/ijpsat.v49.1.6991

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Sri Yaumil Habibie

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.