INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2065

www.rsisinternational.org

Asean at the Crossroads: Rethinking Regionalism Through the Lens

of the Asean Political-Security Community (APSC)

Muhammad Syahmizan Azmi

, Adnan Aminuddin

, Nazni Noordin

, Jazimin Zakaria

1,2,3,4

Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Petani,

Kedah, Malaysia

*Correspondence Author

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000173

Received: 30 September 2025 2025; Accepted: 19 October 2025; Published: 06 November 2025

ABSTRACT

The evolution of the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) represents both the achievements and

limitations of Southeast Asia’s efforts to build a stable and cooperative regional order. The ASPC plays a key

role through initiatives to promote dialogue, prevent regional conflicts and strengthen mutual security

cooperation. Structural challenges, including unresolved territorial disputes, the rise of China, adherence to the

principle of non-intervention, and the growing influence of populism and nationalism, are among the key

challenges that the APSC needs to address. These challenges suggest that ASEAN’s normative and institutional

frameworks are facing security and governance issues. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the research

landscape on leadership and regionalism in Southeast Asia, with a specific focus on the evolution of the APSC.

Scopus-AI analytics were used in the analysis process. Using a comprehensive search string across political,

economic and security dimensions, this study draws insights from five Scopus-AI analytics features (summary,

extended summary, concept map, topic experts and emerging themes) to map the thematic evolution of the

APSC. The findings reveal consistent themes such as the enduring US–China rivalry and ASEAN’s

institutional adaptation, rising themes including populism and nationalism, and novel themes such as the role

of higher education leadership in fostering regional resilience. Moreover, topic experts highlight the importance

of network governance, communicative practices through joint communiqués, and the blue economy as cross-

sectoral dimensions influencing security cooperation. Theoretically, the study contributes to debates on

regionalism and security community theory by reaffirming ASEAN as an incomplete but evolving security

community. Practically, the results highlight the need for institutional reforms, capacity building, and people-

centered approaches to enhance ASEAN’s centrality in regional affairs. By synthesizing thematic insights and

expert perspectives, this study underscores that the future of the APSC depends on ASEAN’s ability to

reconcile sovereignty-centered practices with the demands of deeper integration and collective resilience.

Keywords— ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) ; Regionalism in Southeast Asia; Leadership and

Governance; US–China Rivalry ; Security Community Theory

INTRODUCTION

Regionalism has long been a defining feature of international relations in Southeast Asia, where diverse political

systems, historical legacies, and external pressures converge to shape collective security arrangements. The

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967, presently joined by ten member countries

- Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam - now

plays a key role in maintaining regional peace and stability. In fulfilling this role, ASEAN has taken steps to

strengthen its political security dimension through the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) as part of

its broader community-building agenda (Acharya, 2014; Khoirunnisa, 2023). The decision-making framework

within ASEAN is steered by Article 20 of the ASEAN Charter, which mandates that consultation and consensus

form the central basis of all decisions. Therefore, leadership both within individual member states and

collectively as a regional organization, is an essential component in navigating internal challenges and external

competition.

ASEAN’s development as a political security community has been constrained by structural limitations and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2066

www.rsisinternational.org

normative principles. The “ASEAN Way” mechanism has contributed to conflict management by preventing the

escalation of disputes through the principles of sovereign equality, consensus, and non-interference (Haacke,

2013; Dosch, 2008). However, ASEAN’s ability to respond decisively to pressing security challenges, such as

the South China Sea dispute and the crisis in Myanmar, is somewhat limited by the same principles (Agussalim

& Wicaksono, 2024). Moreover, ASEAN’s institutional weaknesses and the diversity of its political regimes

create further obstacles to deepening regional integration (Jones & Jenne, 2016).

Past scholarship has provided valuable insights into ASEAN’s normative framework (Haacke, 2013), regional

leadership dynamics (Katsumata, 2014), and its evolving role amid great power rivalries (Ram, 2022; Lina &

Kun, 2016). While these studies have highlighted ASEAN’s centrality and limitations, less attention has been

given to systematically analyzing how leadership—whether through state actors like Indonesia, collective

mechanisms, or external influences—has shaped the trajectory of ASEAN’s political-security community. In

particular, there remains a gap in synthesizing emerging themes on leadership’s interplay with ASEAN’s

institutional development, regional security challenges, and public perceptions (Abdullah & Benny, 2013).

This study aims to address that gap by critically analyzing the evolution of APSC through the lens of leadership

and regionalism. Drawing on existing literature, expert perspectives, and conceptual mapping, the paper

examines how leadership has influenced ASEAN’s capacity to maintain stability, respond to crises, and project

centrality in the broader Indo-Pacific order. This study also identified significant emerging themes such as

tensions between great power competition, balancing sovereignty with collective action, ASEAN centrality, and

the need for greater public engagement in community building.

The contribution of this paper can be traced in three forms. First, it provides a comprehensive review of

ASEAN’s leadership dynamics in shaping its political-security trajectory, offering clarity on recurring debates.

Second, it develops a conceptual synthesis that highlights leadership as a critical but underexplored dimension

of ASEAN’s regionalism. Third, it outlines future research directions on how leadership innovation could

enhance ASEAN’s institutional resilience and legitimacy in an era of heightened geopolitical uncertainty.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section reviews the theoretical underpinnings of

leadership and regionalism in Southeast Asia. This is followed by a historical analysis of ASEAN’s political-

security development and its normative framework. The following section examines leadership challenges,

external influences, and emerging issues, culminating in a discussion of ASEAN's future prospects as a political

security community. Finally, the conclusion highlights key insights, contributions, and avenues for further

research.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts bibliometric and thematic approaches using Scopus AI Analytics, accessed on 11 September

2025, to investigate the research landscape on leadership and regionalism in Southeast Asia, with a particular

emphasis on the evolution of the APSC. Scopus AI was used because of its comprehensive indexing of

multidisciplinary scholarly output and advanced analytics, which allow structured insights into knowledge

domains, author networks, and emerging thematic areas. The methodology combines database-based analysis

with interpretive synthesis to ensure both conceptual rigor and depth in addressing the study’s objectives.

The search strategy utilised a Boolean query designed to encapsulate relevant literature of leadership,

governance, regionalism, and ASEAN political-security integration. The following search string was applied in

Scopus: ("leadership" OR "governance" OR "authority" OR "management") AND ("regionalism" OR "regional"

OR "localism" OR "territorial") AND ("Southeast Asia" OR "ASEAN" OR "Indochina" OR "Mekong") AND

("politics" OR "policy" OR "diplomacy" OR "international relations") AND ("development" OR "integration"

OR "cooperation" OR "collaboration"). This query retrieved peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and

conference proceedings published up to September 2025, ensuring a robust dataset covering both foundational

works and recent contributions.

Scopus AI produced several key layers of analysis. The Summary reveals a growing trend in publications

addressing ASEAN’s political-security framework, with a significant increase in scholarship after 2010,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2067

www.rsisinternational.org

reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions and ASEAN’s efforts to institutionalize a Political-Security

Community (Acharya, 2014; Khoirunnisa, 2023). The Expanded Summary further details thematic clusters,

including ASEAN’s normative principles known as “the ASEAN Way”, leadership in conflict management, and

the influence of external powers such as the United States and China on Southeast Asian regionalism (Haacke,

2013; Lina & Kun, 2016).

The Concept Map generated to visualize intelletual linkages discovered by Scopus AI. The Concept Map also

highlighted interconnected domains of research, with leadership positioned at the focal point of themes such as

sovereignty, regional cooperation, and institutional capacity. This mapping explained how leadership acts as

both a driver and constraint in ASEAN’s regionalism, linking issues of governance, diplomacy, and security

cooperation.

Finally, Scopus AI identified Emerging Themes that are relevant to advancing current debates. The themes

include: (1) ASEAN’s struggle to harmonize its principle of non-interference with the need for decisive action

in crises such as Myanmar (Agussalim & Wicaksono, 2024); (2) the role of great power rivalry in testing ASEAN

centrality (Ram, 2022); and (3) the significance of public perceptions in legitimizing ASEAN’s political-security

efforts (Abdullah & Benny, 2013). Collectively, these themes reveal areas of contestation and innovation that

warrant further scholarly attention.

By integrating Scopus AI’s bibliometric insights with a critical thematic synthesis, this methodology directly

supports the study’s aim: to provide an in-depth exploration of leadership and regionalism in Southeast Asia,

analyze the evolution of APSC, identify key topic experts shaping the discourse, and highlight emerging themes

for future inquiry.

Figure 1 : Research Methodology Funnel

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The results derived from Scopus AI Analytics (11 September 2025) reveal that scholarship on leadership and

regionalism in Southeast Asia, particularly in relation to ASEAN’s Political-Security Community, has grown

steadily since the early 2000s, with research converging around ASEAN’s normative principles, leadership

dynamics, and external power influences. The Summary and Expanded Summary highlight that while the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2068

www.rsisinternational.org

“ASEAN Way” of consensus and non-interference has sustained stability, it has also limited decisive action in

crises such as Myanmar and the South China Sea disputes. The Concept Map positions leadership as the central

axis connecting themes of governance, diplomacy, sovereignty, and institutional capacity, underscoring

leadership’s role as both a driver and constraint of integration. Insights from Topic Experts, including Acharya

(2014), Haacke (2013), and Katsumata (2014), reinforce foundational debates on ASEAN’s security community

and diplomatic culture, while newer contributions (Khoirunnisa, 2023; Agussalim & Wicaksono, 2024) address

contemporary challenges. Finally, Emerging Themes emphasize ASEAN’s struggle to reconcile non-

intervention with collective responsibility, the implications of U.S.-China competition particularly on ASEAN’s

centrality, and the significance of public perceptions on legitimacy. Overall, these findings convey the message

that leadership remains a crucial factor in shaping ASEAN's ability to maintain sovereignty through regional

cooperation and maintain its political security objectives in a challenging geopolitical environment.

Insights from Summary and Expanded Summary

The evolution of the APSC is influenced by the complex interaction of historical experience, institutional norms,

and contemporary geopolitical constraints. As described in the Summary and Extended Summary from Scopus

AI Analytics (11 September 2025), ASEAN’s normative framework (the ASEAN Way), characterised by

sovereign equality, non-interference, and consensus decision-making, has been the foundation of its regional

conflict management approach (Haacke, 2013; Acharya, 2014). This “ASEAN Way” has contributed

significantly to conflict prevention by preventing disputes, such as those in the South China Sea, from escalating

into open hostilities (Dosch, 2008; Khoirunnisa, 2023). However, its effectiveness in conflict resolution remains

limited, especially in crises involving interstate conflicts such as Myanmar (Agussalim & Wicaksono, 2024;

Emmers, 2017)

From a historical standpoint, the APSC has been plagued by territorial disputes, Cold War dynamics, and the

rise of external powers in the region. The South China Sea disputes and the growing influence of China have

forced ASEAN to strive for proper balance between maintaining unity and preserving sovereignty (Putra et al.,

2019; Lina & Kun, 2016). While ASEAN has projected itself as the hub of regional cooperation and sought to

institutionalize its centrality in Asia-Pacific security dialogues, the challenges of balancing U.S. and Chinese

strategic competition have exposed its structural weaknesses (Ram, 2022; Acharya, 2021). This reflects the dual

pressures of external power rivalry and intra-regional diversity. Both continues to test ASEAN’s cohesion and

leadership capacity.

Leadership emerges as a crucial determinant in ASEAN’s political-security evolution. ASEAN lacks consistent,

strong and capable leadership to mobilise collective action (Agussalim & Wicaksono, 2024; Katsumata, 2014).

This leadership deficit has been evident on various issues. Among other things, the ASEAN's cautious response

to the Myanmar humanitarian crisis and the ongoing maritime dispute indirectly raise questions about its long-

term credibility as a security community. While ASEAN aspires towards cooperative security, it has not

developed into a collective security or defence system, leaving it vulnerable to external strategic pressure (Nasu

et al., 2019; Saragih et al., 2020).

Public perception is another significant dimension of ASEAN’s political-security orientation. Research suggests

that citizens in most ASEAN countries are still lack awareness of ASEAN’s political-security mechanisms. Some

also perceive the ASEAN Political Security Community as elitist and government-driven, despite ongoing

initiatives to build confidence in their potential to enhance peace and stability (Abdullah & Benny, 2013). Such

findings signify that deeper engagement with civil society is crucial and necessary to strengthen legitimacy and

foster a sense of shared ownership of ASEAN's security interest.

In sum, the Summary and Extended Summary imply that the APSC has advanced from a conflict prevention

mechanism to a hub of security cooperation. However, it is still hampered by several hurdles such as leadership

deficits, institutional fragility and external geopolitical pressures. ASEAN’s ability to reinforce its centrality will

depend on several elements. These include ASEAN’s capacity to accomodate the principle of non-intervention

with the calls for collective responsibility, strengthen leadership among its member states, and engage the public

more effectively in regional security discourse.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2069

www.rsisinternational.org

Concept Map

Figure 2 : Concept Map of Evolution of ASEAN Political-Security Community

Concept Map of Evolution of ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC)

A concept map showing a structured visualization of the research landscape involving the APSC was generated

with the support of Scopus AI Analytics (11 September 2025). Three thematic dimensions are presented in the

concept map including; historical development, key concepts and regional dynamics. Those three themes

collectively trace the evolution and contemporary challenges of the APSC framework. The first theme, the

historical development branch emphasizes the formation of ASEAN in 1967 and the evolution of the security

framework that has shaped its institutional norms and actions over time. The second theme, the key concepts

branch highlights the fundamental ideas of a security community and collective identity building, underlining

ASEAN’s aspirations to foster regional stability through shared norms and mutual trust. The third theme, the

regional dynamics branch captures contemporary challenges and external influences, including four elements

comprising cultural relations, peacekeeping operations, security dilemmas and great power politics. Together,

these interrelated branches imply that the APSC is not only rooted in its historical origins but is also continuously

shaped by the evolving conceptual framework and dynamic pressures of regional and global security.

A Review of Concept Map of The Evolution of ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC)

The evolution of the APSC signifies ASEAN’s long-standing commitment to fostering regional stability through

cooperative mechanisms. The APSC, initially established under the framework of the ASEAN Vision 2025, aims

to institutionalize the “ASEAN Way” approach in the region by highlighting core principles such as consensus

and non-intervention to ensure peace, stability, and resilience (Chairil, Putri, & Pertiwi, 2022). However, while

the community has applied more advanced mechanisms for dialogue and consultation, it remains primarily

limited to cooperative security, which is less effective in developing collective security capacities. This scenario

reflects ASEAN’s continued preference for an informal, non-binding, consensus-driven approach that limits

progress and also limits deeper integration (Saragih, Yani, Bainus, & Sumadinata, 2020).

Despite multiple initiatives exercised, the APSC still faces ongoing challenges that expose its structural

weaknesses. The rise of China and its assertiveness in the South China Sea have resulted into divisions among

ASEAN member states. Some member states have chosen to prioritize economic relations over collective

security responses (Putra, Darwis, & Burhanuddin, 2019). Inflexible adherence to the principle of non-

interference also prevented ASEAN from addressing a variety of issues. Among the emerging issues are the

backsliding of democracy and human rights abuses, particularly in Myanmar (Khoirunnisa, 2023). All of these

limitations present a recurring dilemma for the APSC. While its framework accomodates a dialogue mechanism,

it lacks capacity to effectively enforce and manage high-risk security crises.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2070

www.rsisinternational.org

The APSC through its institution ; the ASEAN Secretariat has been constrained by the limited role, which largely

acts as a facilitator rather than a policy-making body. The Secretariat’s influence in matters concerning political

security is constrained by member state pressures, especially in intergovernmental decision-making. This

institutional weakness not only restricts ASEAN’s ability to pursue long-term strategic initiatives but at the same

time also places the burden of leadership on rotating chairs and dominant member states. As a result, ASEAN’s

security strategies has often seen fragmented and its direction is determined by the political will of national

governments rather than driven by strong regional institutions.

Another critical dimension of the APSC are the tension between state sovereignty and people-centred aspirations.

Rhetorically, ASEAN often emphasizes the creation of a “people-centred community”. However, as suggested

by Caballero-Anthony (2020) ASEAN’s security practices remain dominated by the principles of sovereignty

and non-intervention. This contradiction is clearly identifed in ASEAN’s limited application of global norms

such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Sukma (2012) states R2P remains marginalised within ASEAN due

to member states’ hesitation to accept external scrutiny of their domestic affairs. On the other hand, lack of

interests among public to engage in regional security debates is also a challenge for ASEAN. In this regard, civil

society organizations and transnational networks must play their significant role in advancing people-to-people

connections, aligning ASEAN with elements of social trust and interdependence.

Prospectively, the APSC future will depend on its ability to adapt to shifting geopolitical and societal pressures.

Regional threats such as maritime disputes, terrorism, and great power rivalry, particularly between the United

States and China require ASEAN readiness to reconcile its foundational principles. Meanwhile, enhancing the

ASEAN Secretariat’s institutional capacity and deepening inclusivity through civil society engagement could

help solidify ASEAN’s legitimacy as a security actor. While ASEAN's gradualist and consensus-based approach

has ensured its survival and its centrality in regional diplomacy, the APSC's credibility as a political-security

community will ultimately depend on its ability to shift from conflict avoidance mode to meaningful conflict

management mode in an increasingly complex security environment.

Linkages between The Evolution of the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) and Regional

Dynamics

The APSC is closely associated with the complex regional dynamics of Southeast Asia. Inter-state disputes,

power competition, and enduring sovereignty principles are among several identified hurdles. The APSC has

uplift ASEAN’s desire to institutionalize security cooperation within the confines of its “ASEAN Way” approach

which emphasizes non-intervention, consensus, and informality (Putra, Darwis, & Burhanuddin, 2019). These

guiding norms shape the manner ASEAN responds to issues of external pressures, such as the rise of China, and

internal conflicts, such as territorial disputes thereby bringing the APSC directly into the dilemma of regional

security and the balance of power (Khoirunnisa, 2023).

The Southeast Asian regional dynamics also make it difficult to foster collective security under the APSC

framework. Putra et al. (2019) observes that the ASEAN’s multilateralism approach is tested by several issues

such as overlapping interests of member states and the influence of external actors, which continue to complicate

security cooperation initiatives. It has indirectly reveals the organization’s bureaucratic rigidity and its reliance

on intergovernmental processes. The existing ASEAN approach has facilitated dialogue but remains

government-driven and largely reactive to crises. The approach is quite successful in preventing conflicts from

escalating, but ironically also hinders its ability to develop into a robust political security community (Jones &

Smith, 2007).

In measuring awareness of APSC mechanisms, public opinion is important. It is also significant to illustrates the

link between the APSC and regional dynamics. Surveys carried out in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore

revealed positive support for the idea of a political-security community, despite limited awareness of APSC

(Abdullah & Benny, 2013). The respondents also perceived the APSC as elitist and dominated by state agendas

This suggests there is a clear gap between elite-level security cooperation and broader societal engagement. This

elitist orientation also demonstrates how regional dynamics are often interpreted through the state-centric

priorities, which creates limited space for public participation or civil society engagement.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2071

www.rsisinternational.org

Normative foundations of ASEAN is another factor. The Southeast Asian regional identity is influenced by

informal norms, sovereignty concerns, and non-interference principles, which collectively give ASEAN a

distinct normative structure (Pervez, 2019). Although these values foster trust and cohesion among elites, they

also limiting Asean’s ability to enforce collective decisions and . weaken its institutional foundations. Political

fragility and weak state capacity in some member states further limit ASEAN’s ability to materialise its

community-building rhetoric into concrete institutionalization. Thus, ASEAN’s regional identity reinforces both

the strengths and weaknesses of the APSC as it evolves within Southeast Asia’s dynamic environment.

Finally, the paradox of ASEAN’s community-building is shaped by efforts of the militarized security culture in

parts of Southeast Asia. While the APSC seeks to promote peace and stability, some challenges such as regional

arms dynamics and entrenched militarism, continue to undermine its people-centred rhetoric and long-term

aspirations for a cohesive security community. This scenario shows that APSC evolution is not only factored by

intergovernmental diplomacy but also by broader regional dynamics, including historical insecurities, military

postures, and great power rivalries. As such, the APSC represents a balancing act between regional visions for

stability and the realities of Southeast Asia’s complex and contested security environment.

Linkages between The Evolution of ASEAN Political Secuirty Community (APSC) and Key Concepts

The APSC is one of the three pillars of the ASEAN Community, which is designed to build a peaceful, stable

and just region. Korolev (2019) describes the APSC adopts the key concept of a security community, where

countries develop mutual trust and commit to seeking peaceful settlement of disputes through peaceful

negotiations. The APSC differs from formal defense alliances, in that it focuses more on cooperative security

and confidence-building than on collective defense mechanisms. However, Li & Tianyi (2019) suggest its

evolution has been shaped by the opportunities and limitations of ASEAN’s normative principles including

sovereignty and the principle of non-interference that have limited its ability to fully implement community-

building measures.

According to Acharya (2021), the ASEAN’s notion as a security community is dynamic and evolving, therefore

he argued that ASEAN’s security community status is still vulnerable and contingent on the absence of major

intraregional conflicts. With the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is still ongoing, it is quite hard to see

ASEAN to emerge as a credible security community

. Korolev (2019) suggests occasional deviations from its

consensus-based approach and institutional stagnation expose the tension between the aspirational rhetoric of

community-building and the pragmatic realities of geopolitical contestation. These developments reveal that the

concept of security community within ASEAN is still a ‘work in progress’ rather than a fully consolidated

achievement.

ASEAN’s cooperative security approach to conflict is also significant. ASEAN prefers to engage in dialogue,

mediation, and confidence-building to avoid tensions among members and with external powers (Saragih, Yani,

Bainus, & Sumadinata, 2020). The cooperative security framework has effectively contributed to preventing

open conflict in the region and further reinforcing ASEAN’s role as a mediator of peace processes. Anyhow, as

suggested by Putra et al. (2019), ASEAN’s reliance on cooperative security exposes its limitations and weak

enforcement capacity to address serious violations of human rights, political repression, or large-scale

humanitarian crises.

Another key pillar of the APSC is people-centered orientation that aimed to elevate inclusivity and resilience in

the region. Caballero-Anthony (2020) points out that ASEAN’s advocacy for “people-oriented, people-centered”

community is well-highlighted in its vision, yet tensions between state sovereignty and broader societal concerns

reveals more needs to be done.

Despite ASEAN progressive measures to address non-traditional security issues

including terrorism, pandemics, and climate change, its member states remain reluctant to compromise especially

on matters pertaining to sovereignty, this act impedes deeper integration. This situation illustrates the structural

dilemma of the APSC particularly in balancing a normative aspirations to people-centered security with the

entrenched practices of state-centrism and non-interference.

Putra et al. (2019) argues that the APSC exposes the limits of multilateralism in regional security affairs, where

the relationships between states remain plagued by differences of political values, uneven capacities and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2072

www.rsisinternational.org

competing national interests. Although ASEAN has been quite successful in normalising dialogue and deterring

large-scale conflicts, ASEAN’s weak institutionalisation and its overreliance on consensus have resulted in its

progress toward integration. The APSC framework demonstrates two side of coins ; the resilience and fragility

of ASEAN’s political-security order. The APSC is resilient in maintaining peace and stability for over five

decades, but at the same time quite fragile in its ability to adapt to new regional and global challenges. In

substance, the APSC together with its key concepts of security community, cooperative security, people-

centeredness, and multilateralism demonstrate that it remains an aspiration and continue to evolve at the

intersection of regional norms and geopolitical uncertainties.

Linkages between The Evolution of ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) and Historical

Development

The historical development of the APSC can be traced back to the establishment of ASEAN in 1967 through the

Bangkok Declaration which was created to promote economic, political, security and social cooperation in

Southeast Asia during the Cold War era (Lee, 2021). In the early stages of its establishment, ASEAN adopted

an approach of fostering dialogue and cooperation to prevent conflict between countries, reflecting broader goals

that include regional resilience and political stability. From decade to decade, ASEAN sought to institutionalize

these initiatives into the creation of three main pillars under the framework of the ASEAN Community which

also emphasized political, economic and socio-cultural security. All three elements are officially stated in the

2007 ASEAN Charter (Cuyvers, Chen, & Lombaerde, 2019). The APSC in this context also represents the

culmination of decades of cooperation that evolved from informal diplomacy to a more structured framework of

regional integration.

The APSC historical course has been influenced by ongoing challenges. The rise of China and its growing

influence in the South China Sea has put significant pressure on regional unity. Putra et. al (2019) argues this

situation has put the principle of non-intervention and firmness of stance among member countries into test.

While Khoirunnisa (2023) observes the inability to effectively deal with human rights crises, such as the situation

in Myanmar, further reveals the weakness of ASEAN's consensus-based approach. This situation indicates a gap

between ASEAN's aspirations to act as a collective security institution and its continued reliance on principles

that prioritize regime sovereignty and security over regional accountability.

Another key dimension in the historical development of ASEAN lies in the direction of ASEAN as a security

community. Emmers (2017), notes although ASEAN has successfully helped prevent large-scale conflicts

among its members before, persistent mistrust and unresolved disputes show that it has yet to achieve the depth

of integration required for a mature security community. In this perspective, ASEAN has progressed beyond

dialogue but continues to fail to achieve binding security guarantees. Some scholars describe APSC as "thin"

security communities, where norms and habits of peaceful interaction exist but remain vulnerable to collapse

during crises (Nasu, McLaughlin, Rothwell, & Tan, 2019).

The historical development of the APSC has also been overshadowed by regional resilience and growing

maritime security concerns. Herrmann (2015) highlights ASEAN, which initially focused on managing Cold

War-era competition in their own backyards, gradually included non-traditional security (NTS) issues, including

sea piracy, terrorism and climate change, into the dimensions of its political security agenda. One of the issues

contributing to geopolitical tensions in the region is maritime disputes in the South China Sea. All of these

security issues ae pushing ASEAN to adopt a cooperative approach that emphasizes regional resilience and

preventive diplomacy. This broad understanding of security reflects ASEAN's adaptation to contemporary

challenges. Moreover, it also reveals the difficulty of balancing traditional sovereign concerns with the need for

collective action.

Emerging Themes

The analysis of emerging themes in ASEAN studies highlights the complex interplay between enduring

geopolitical realities, evolving domestic political dynamics, and new areas of regional cooperation. These themes

reflect how ASEAN’s Political-Security Community (APSC) continues to adapt to both long-standing and novel

challenges, particularly as the region navigates pressures from major powers, internal sociopolitical shifts, and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2073

www.rsisinternational.org

developmental priorities.

A consistent theme in the literature is the US-China rivalry and Southeast Asia’s strategic positioning. The

competition between both sides continue to define the geopolitical context in which ASEAN operates. Dosch

(2021) notes that Southeast Asian states exercise hedging strategies to balance their relations with both

Washington and Beijing, aiming to avoid overdependence on either while maintaining strategic autonomy.

This

enduring theme underscores ASEAN’s centrality as both a buffer and a facilitator of dialogue in a contested

regional order. The US-China rivalry provides advantages for ASEAN to strengthen its institutional cohesion,

as regional integration is increasingly deemed as a mechanism to enhance collective bargaining power against

external pressures.

The second consistent theme is ASEAN’s institutional adaptation and regional integration. Jones & Jenne (2022)

suggests since the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015, institutional reforms have aimed at

improving the association’s capacity to manage political, security, and economic challenges. These reforms are

vital for addressing non-traditional security issues, ranging from climate change to cybersecurity, while also

ensuring economic resilience. Nevertheless, the literature highlights persistent weaknesses in ASEAN’s

decision-making, rooted in its consensus-based “ASEAN Way” and the principle of non-interference, which at

times limit the bloc’s ability to respond decisively to regional crises (Acharya, 2021). Institutional strengthening

remains central to ASEAN’s strategy for maintaining regional stability and coherence in the face of external and

internal challenges.

The resurgence of populism and nationalism in Southeast Asia is also identified as part of the rising themes.

Populist leaders in countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand have reshaped domestic political

landscapes and influenced regional cooperation. These movements often prioritize national sovereignty and

inward-looking policies, which risk undermining ASEAN’s collective objectives and its potential to pursue

deeper integration. The growing attention to this theme indicates concerns that populist and nationalist pressures

could distract regional solidarity and complicating efforts to build a cohesive political-security community.

Together, these emerging themes demonstrate that ASEAN’s evolution is shaped by both continuity and change.

The persistent influence of great-power rivalry and institutional adaptation underscores the resilience and

centrality of ASEAN in regional politics, while rising themes such as populism and nationalism reveal new

dynamics that will increasingly define the direction of Southeast Asia’s political-security community. These

findings suggest that ASEAN’s ability to remain relevant will depend on its capacity to balance external

pressures, manage internal sociopolitical shifts, and invest in developmental areas that strengthen regional

integration.

CONCLUSION

This study has analyzed the evolution of the APSC through a Scopus-AI analytical lens, with a specific

concentration on its fundamental concepts, historical development, relevance to regional dynamics, and

emerging themes that influence current debates. While the APSC has successfully fostered a habit of dialogue,

conflict prevention, and cooperative security, its progress is still plagued by structural weaknesses such as the

rigid application of principle of non-interference, protracted territorial disputes, the rise of China, and the

growing influence of populist and nationalist politics within member states. New themes identified, including

the enduring US-China rivalry, and institutional adaptations underscore that both traditional security concerns

and evolving non-traditional challenges will shape the future of ASEAN’s political security. Overall, these

findings reaffirm ASEAN’s dual roles as a stabilizing tool for regional cooperation and an institution struggling

to reconcile sovereignty-centric practices with demands for deeper integration. Theoretically, this study

contributes to debates on regionalism and security community dimensions by highlighting that ASEAN remains

an incomplete or seen as “thin” security community, where elements of trust-building and cooperative

mechanisms are in existence but limited in scope. The findings support Acharya’s (2021) argument that

ASEAN’s normative framework which founded by informality, consensus, and sovereignty creates both results

; resilience and fragility. Moreover, the study reveals the relevance of hedging theory for understanding how

ASEAN member states engage in balancing external pressures, particularly in the context of US-China rivalry.

Practically, in terms of ASEAN policymaking, the findings imply that institutional reforms particularly

empowering the ASEAN Secretariat and enhancing decision-making capacity are required to respond effectively

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2074

www.rsisinternational.org

to regional security challenges. Furthermore, recognizing the impact of populism and nationalism is crucial for

crafting inclusive regional moves that avoid alienating domestic constituencies while promoting integration. In

order to maintain regional stability, multilateralism must be continously utilised to position ASEAN as a

cohesive entity rather than selectively working with individual states. In sum, the APSC has achieved positive

results in fostering dialogue and avoiding conflict, yet it continues to face limitations in areas of institutional

weakness, sovereignty-centered practices, and shifting geopolitical trends. Addressing these limitations will

require theoretical rethinking of ASEAN as a security community and practical reforms that enhance its

adaptability in a rapidly changing regional order.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Kedah State Research Committee, UiTM Kedah

Branch, for the generous funding provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am. This support was crucial in

facilitating the research and ensuring the successful publication of this article.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, K., & Benny, G. (2013). Regional public opinion towards the formation of political security

community in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 6(4), 650–665.

https://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2013.650.665

2. Acharya, A. (1997). Ideas, identity, and institution‐building: From the ‘ASEAN way’ to the ‘Asia‐Pacific

way’? The Pacific Review, 10(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512749708719226

3. Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change

in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024

4. Acharya, A. (2009). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of

regional order (2nd ed., pp. 1–322). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939239

5. Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of

regional order (3rd ed., pp. 1–292). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796673

6. Acharya, A. (2021). ASEAN and regional order: Revisiting security community in Southeast Asia (pp. 1–

157). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122333

7. Agussalim, D., & Wicaksono, T. (2024). Navigating turbulence: ASEAN’s leadership challenges in the

human rights violation in Myanmar and South China Sea dispute. Journal of ASEAN Studies, 12(1), 157–

184. https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v12i1.11158

8. Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39–60.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09512749908719277

9. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2020). Security governance and ASEAN’s political security community:

Fragmented but inclusive security communities? Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences,

13(1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00269-z

10. Chairil, T., Putri, R. A. A. K., & Pertiwi, S. B. (2022). Road to ASEAN Political Security Community

Vision 2025: Understanding convergence and divergence in ASEAN voting behaviors in the UNGA.

Journal of ASEAN Studies, 10(2), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v10i2.8175

11. Cuyvers, L., Chen, L., & De Lombaerde, P. (2019). 50 years of regional integration in ASEAN. Asia

Pacific Business Review, 25(5), 609–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2019.1652975

12. Dosch, J. (2008). Who’s leading who in ASEAN-China relations? Community-building versus Pax Sinica

in the management of regional security. In China, Japan and regional leadership in East Asia (pp. 156–

178). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848442795.00019

13. Emmers, R. (2017). Enduring mistrust and conflict management in Southeast Asia: An assessment of

ASEAN as a security community. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 5(1),

75–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2016.24

14. Haacke, J. (2013). ASEAN’s diplomatic and security culture: Origins, development and prospects (pp. 1–

294). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203037539

15. Herrmann, W. A. (2015). ASEAN perspective on challenges and opportunities of partnerships across the

seas. Maritime Affairs, 11(2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2015.1102427

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2075

www.rsisinternational.org

16. Jones, D. M., & Jenne, N. (2016). Weak states’ regionalism: ASEAN and the limits of security cooperation

in Pacific Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 16(2), 209–240.

https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcv015

17. Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. R. (2007). Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East

Asian regional order. International Security, 32(1), 148–184. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2007.32.1.148

18. Katsumata, H. (2014). What explains ASEAN’s leadership in East Asian community building? Pacific

Affairs, 87(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.5509/2014872247

19. Khoirunnisa, K. (2023). Toward a political-security community in Southeast Asia: Progress, pitfalls, and

prospects. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 9(1), 269–294.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2377740023500136

20. Korolev, A. (2019). Rethinking the record of security community building in ASEAN. Mezhdunarodnye

Protsessy, 17(3), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.6

21. Lee, E. Y. J. (2021). Legal development of the ASEAN community building. In ASEAN international law

(pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_1

22. Leifer, M. (1999). The ASEAN peace process: A category mistake. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 25–38.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09512749908719276

23. Li, X., & Liu, T. (2019). ASEAN Community Vision 2025 with the Belt and Road Initiative. In Routledge

handbook of the Belt and Road (pp. 439–442). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203039-84

24. Lina, W., & Kun, Z. (2016). China’s policy shifts on Southeast Asia: To build a “community of common

destiny.” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 2(1), 81–100.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2377740016500081

25. Nasu, H., McLaughlin, R., Rothwell, D. R., & Tan, S. S. (2019). The legal authority of ASEAN as a

security institution (pp. 1–278). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108669511

26. Pervez, M. S. (2019). The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN): A galactic security

community? South East Asia Research, 27(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2019.1618639

27. Putra, B. A., & Darwis, B. (2019). ASEAN political-security community: Challenges of establishing

regional security in Southeast Asia. Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 33–49.

https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-1/2

28. Ram, V. (2022). ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific security architecture. In Multilateralism in the Indo-

Pacific: Conceptual and operational challenges (pp. 60–72). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003278719-6

29. Saragih, H. M., Yani, Y. M., Bainus, A., & Sumadinata, R. W. S. (2020). The important position of the

ASEAN political security community in resolving conflicts and problems of the Southeast Asian region.

International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(8), 403–413.

30. Sukma, R. (2012). The ASEAN Political And Security Community (APSC): Opportunities and constraints

for the R2P in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 25(1), 135–152.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2011.632975