Минилатеральное сотрудничество АСЕАН в контексте теории онтологической безопасности

Authors

Keywords:

онтологическая безопасность, минилатерализм, многосторонность, АСЕАН, Quad, AUKUS

Abstract

This study aims to examine the ontological security dilemma of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in relation to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and the Trilateral Defense Alliance (AUKUS). These U.S.-centric minilateral security institutions limit ASEAN’s central role based on the normative-legal order in the region. The research conducted is based on a constructivist approach, applying ontological security theory and argues that the use of ASEAN’s strategic hedging principles leads to an “ontological security dilemma” within the organization. The shortcomings of the ASEAN hedging concept that creates an “ontological security dilemma” are identified. The research notes that due to disagreements within ASEAN, ontological security is expressed in forms of “fragmented self” in relation to AUKUS, and “marginalized self” due to Quad and ASEAN normative and institutional contradictions. In conclusion, it is proposed that an informal communication channel between ASEAN, Quad and AUKUS can be established based on the approach of “ASEAN minus X + (2) Y”, “Quad plus”, “AUKUS plus”, which can reduce the dilemma of ASEAN ontological security.
Received: 18 December 2024 · Accepted: 20 January 2025

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kuik C.-C. Hedging via Institutions: ASEAN-led Multilateralism in the Age of the Indo-Pacific // Asian J. Peacebuilding. 2022. Vol. 10, № 10. P. 355–386.

Wolfers A. The Pole of Power and the Pole of Indifference // World Polit. 1951. Vol. 4, № 1. P. 39–63.

Kavka G.S. Hobbes’s War of All Against All // Ethics. University of Chicago Press. 1983. Vol. 93, № 2. P. 291–310.

Herz J.H. Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma // World Polit.

Cambridge University Press, 1950. Vol. 2, № 2. P. 157–180.

Тимофеев И.Н. Дилемма безопасности: риск вооруженного конфликта между великими державами // Полис. 2009. № 4. С. 8–34.

Jervis R. Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma // World Polit. 1978. Vol. 30, № 2. P. 167–214.

Tang S. The Security Dilemma: a Conceptual Analysis // Secur. Stud. Routledge. 2009. Vol. 18, № 3. P. 587–623.

Mitzen J. Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma // Eur. J. Int. Relat. SAGE Publications Ltd. 2006. Vol. 12, № 3. P. 341–370.

Krickel-Choi N.C. Rethinking Ontological Security Theory: Conceptual Investigations into “Self” and “Anxiety”: PhD Thesis. Stockholm University, Department of Economic History and International Relations. 2021. URL: https://www.dissertations.se/dissertation/f6f2202caa/

Steele B.J. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-identity and the IR state. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge, 2008. 244 p.

Vucetic S. China and its Region: an Assessment of Hegemonic Prospects // J. Reg. Secur. 2022. Vol. 16, № 2. P. 127–150.

Innes A.J. [et al.]. Memory, Trauma and Ontological Security // Memory and Trauma in International Relations Theories. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2013. 296 р.

Krickel-Choi N.C., Chen C.-C. Defending the islands, defending the self: Taiwan, sovereignty and the origin of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute as ontological security-seeking // Pac. Rev. Routledge. 2024. Vol. 37, № 2. P. 301–327.

Flockhart T. Is this the end? Resilience, ontological security, and the crisis of the liberal international order // Contemp. Secur. Policy. 2020. Vol. 41. P. 215–240.

Shambaugh D. Where Great Powers Meet: America and China in Southeast Asia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. 352 p.

Krickel‑Choi N.C. The embodied state: why and how physical security matters for ontological security // J. Int. Relat. Dev. 2022. № 25. P. 159–181.

Koga K. Institutional Dilemma: Quad and ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific // Asian Perspect. 2023. Vol. 47, № 1. P. 27–48.

Poonkham J. Power Politics and the Institutional Architecture in the Mekong Subregion: Beyond the Geopolitical Trap? URL: https://www.academia.edu/82345127/Power_Politics_and_the_Institutional_Architecture_in_the_Mekong_Subregion_Beyond_

the_Geopolitical_Trap

The White House. Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States. The White House, 2022.

Haripin M., Priamarizki A. A Pragmatic Path: Indonesia’s Engagement with AUKUS // RSIS. 2024. № 099. URL: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ IP24099.pdf

Downloads

Published

2025-01-15

Issue

Section

Статьи

How to Cite

Mafuang S. Минилатеральное сотрудничество АСЕАН в контексте теории онтологической безопасности // The Bulletin of the Volga Region Institute of Administration. 2025. Vol. 25, no. 1. P. 14–25.