The ASEAN Way, a major trademark of the ASEAN is a distinct diplomatic and procedural approach that the association has employed since its inception in 1967. The agreement-making, absence of interference of the domestic affairs of the member states and unofficial diplomacy are all believed to be the pillars of the Southeast Asian dispute resolution and cooperation in the region. These ideals emphasize the importance of consultation and respect amongst member states so that ASEAN is able to solve the issues relating to the region by diplomacy and not by conflict. Subsequently, the ASEAN Way has been considered as a significant instrument in facilitating stability and trust among the various political regimes of the Southeast Asia ( Buszynski, 1997).

The necessity to manage the diverse political, economic, and cultural orientations of the ASEAN member states and foster the growth of regional cooperation gave rise to the ASEAN Way. Beverly Loke (2005) suggests that the ASEAN Way which is characteristic of most cultural treatment of the management of international security that is instilled in the minds of ASEAN policy makers, sums up the behavioral and procedural forms which have been bureaucratized within ASEAN to thwart and handle conflicts. Although this strategy has been achieved through various challenges caused by the conflicting national or national interests as well as external pressure, it has played a significant role in the preservation of peace and security in the region.

One of the key tenets of the ASEAN Way is non-interference, which member nations have rigorously adhered to. This rule guarantees every country sovereignty and autonomy in its domestic affairs, which also contributes to the respect and trust of the ASEAN members for one another ( Tekunan, 2014). The principle was originally developed to prevent conflicts and decrease tensions amongst newly independent Southeast Asian republics. It also contributes to diplomatic unity by encouraging communication and consultation instead of direct engagement in domestic political affairs. The non-interference principle is regarded as an asset and a drawback of the ASEAN Way. Even though it has been significant in safeguarding peace among the member states, it has been faulted on failing to take more decisive action on those issues that would require collective action such as the violation of human rights and threats across national boundaries.

The concept of the ASEAN Way is also highly connected with the radical and historical situation of Southeast Asia. Katsumata (2003) argues that the ASEAN Way was formulated due to the interest of the Southeast Asian countries in redefining international standards, such as non-interference in the well-defined environment in the region. Political issues that have had an impact on this restoration project are the urge to preserve domestic peace and the issue of state sovereignty. These issues gave birth to the ASEAN Way which is perceived as a viable solution to regional politics which relies on the principles of autonomy and non-interference as the means of protection against external invasion and internal turmoil.

The ASEAN Way has not been without its problems, particularly when it came to attempting to adjust to new geopolitical and security demands to do so despite its anchor value in the diplomacy culture of ASEAN. In one instance, Haacke (1999) notes that the concept of flexing engagement by some ASEAN members is an in-house problem to the ASEAN Way that suggests a more activist-oriented approach to the region, which may require the assessment of the rigorous compliance. This debate emerged as ASEAN was facing increasing regional challenges such as political crisis and transnational security challenges which required concerted efforts. It also suggests the increasing awareness that there might be a need to change the conventional diplomatic practices by ASEAN to remain relevant in the changing regional environment. This elicits a dilemma in adhering to the set standards and new realities to conform, thus depicting the dynamic characteristics of the ASEAN Way and its capacity to evolve. This discussion arose when ASEAN confronted growing regional difficulties, including political crises and transnational security concerns, which necessitated collective action. It indicates a growing realization that ASEAN’s traditional diplomatic tactics may need to evolve in order to stay effective in a changing regional environment. This highlights the conflict between adhering to established norms and adapting to new realities, demonstrating the dynamic nature of the ASEAN Way and its capacity for evolution.

Additionally, the ASEAN Way has been crucial in helping ASEAN take the lead in regional security cooperation, particularly through the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). These platforms, which are based on the principles of the ASEAN Way, have made it possible for ASEAN to engage the main external powers without diminishing its importance in the regional security framework ( Heng, 2014). The ASEAN Way has also played an instrumental role in assisting ASEAN to be at the forefront in cooperating on regional security, especially ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). It is through these platforms that are founded on the principles of the ASEAN Way that the ASEAN has been enabled to involve the primary external powers without downgrading its role in the regional security structure ( Heng, 2014). Nonetheless, these engagements are inherently constrained by the same norms via which these engagements are executed, especially, consensus-based decision-making process, which is prone to deliver stalling and watered-down conclusiveness during crisis periods.

It is true that ASEAN has succeeded in ensuring peace and security in Southeast Asia due to its own approach to regional diplomacy, which is called the ASEAN Way. The ASEAN Way is facing challenge due to the necessity to adjust to the new regional and global processes despite its success in promoting the development of collaboration and avoiding conflicts among the member states. As ASEAN strives to overcome them, the ASEAN Way will probably remain extolled as a source of peace as much as it will be criticized to fail in meeting more and more complicated and global issues.

Another important aspect of the ASEAN Way is that it focuses on communication and consensus as some of the key regional cooperation tools. Rather than formal legal mechanisms or force, ASEAN is promoting amongst member countries consultation and creating a gradual trust. This is the diplomacy that has helped the region to be stable, even with the various political systems, cultures, and historical challenges. Leszek Buszynski (1997) argues that the cooperative approach of ASEAN has helped the member states to settle differences between each other without necessarily engaging in a dispute. Equally, Juergen Haacke (1999) notes that the ASEAN Way depicts a common diplomatic culture which appreciates harmony, mutual respect, joint effort among the regions when addressing political and security issues.

A regional identity in ASEAN is a complex and emerging phenomenon, a peculiarity of which is dictated by a strange mix of the past, cultural diversity, and political expediency. During the formation of the ASEAN in 1967, it has been struggling to make sure that the member states share a common identity that supersedes the massive differences within the member states. The ASEAN Way’s tenets of non-interference, consensus-building, and respect for sovereignty are fundamental to this identity.

The ASEAN regional identity has been established through the principles of common norms and values that are meant to promote peace and stability in Southeast Asia. Rumelili (2007) has indicated that ASEAN has managed to promote the development of a collective identity of Southeast Asian states on the basis of these norms that have led to a high degree of conflict among a group of diverse states with a history of conflict. Such a sense of collective identity is not just a creation of unified cultural and historical experiences but also a political instrument that is aimed at strengthening corporate cooperation and integration in the region.

The history of the development of the regional identity in ASEAN can be dated back to the period when the major agenda of this organization was to temper inter-state relations and to avoid conflict. According to Nesadurai (2008), the initial emphasis ASEAN had was to stabilize the inter-state relations, which provided the foundation of wider regional identity. This identity has, over the years, expanded to include security cooperation as well as economic and socio-cultural integration, which can be seen through such missions as the ASEAN Community and ASEAN Charter.

The adoption of the Charter of ASEAN in 2008 is a great stepping stone in the process of forming the regional identity of ASEAN. It codifies the values and principles guiding the ASEAN Community and preconditions the further integration in many aspects, among which are politics, security, and economics ( Lin, 2010). The adoption of the Charter is the way ASEAN commits itself to a rules-based organization, which respects its collaborative norms in the face of globalization and regionalization.

Irrespective of these attempts, the process of creating a regional identity in ASEAN has not been free of obstacles. Cultural diversity of the member states of ASEAN, language, political systems, etc, is a major challenge facing the establishment of a strong regional identity. According to Koh (2007), the attempts of ASEAN to establish a socio-cultural community and ASEAN identity have to be balanced between the establishment of the regional identity and the acknowledgement of individual identities of the member states. This strike is essential in the process of making sure that the regional integration process does not undermine the cultural and political peculiarities that distinguish each member state.

Moreover, the capability of ASEAN as a regional identity is also doubtful when it comes to its relations with outside forces and its contribution to the overall East Asian regionalism. Though ASEAN has gone further towards the establishment of a common regional identity, as it is contended by Jones and Smith (2007), the reality of international relations and the role of external players still weigh down on the cohesiveness of this identity. As had been the case with the ASEAN plus Three (APT) process, there are complexities of extending the regional identity of ASEAN to the Northeast Asian nations, such as China, Japan, and South Korea, whereby divergent interests and identities are involved ( Terada, 2003).

The regional identity of ASEAN is a dynamic and multifaceted construct that has been at the core of the activities of the organization in ensuring that the region of Southeast Asia is at peace, stable, and cooperative. Although there has been a lot of progress concerning the promotion of a collective identity, concerns related to internal diversity and the external forces seem to remind ASEAN that it should always evolve and enhance its regional identity. The ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Civic efforts are some of these steps in this direction, but it is the capacity of ASEAN to reconcile the alterations in the interests of the member states with the overall objective of regional integration that will determine whether these efforts will succeed.

Table 1 describes the institutional procedures employed by the ASEAN diplomacy to maintain peace. Member states participate in communication, preventative diplomacy, and cooperation via forums such as the ASEAN Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC). These procedures minimize tensions, resolve conflicts peacefully, and strengthen stability in Southeast Asia, illustrating how the ASEAN Way promotes long-term regional peace.

Figure 1 demonstrates the concept of the regional security and diplomatic organization of ASEAN which connects the member states of ASEAN and other foreign countries. It highlights the fact that ASEAN is the most important diplomatic center in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the ASEAN regional forum (ARF), ASEAN plus Three (APT) and the East Asia Summit (EAS) institutional forums, ASEAN is assisting the conversation and collaboration with relevant regional and global communities including China, Japan, South Korea and the US, among others. These models encourage proactive diplomacy, dispute resolution, and confidence-building. As a result, ASEAN uses diplomatic communication and multilateral cooperation to bring about peace and stability in the area Paasi (1986).

The so-called ASEAN Way, which avoids the use of force, consensus-building, and casual mediation, has been judged essential to Southeast Asia’s peace and security. In spite of the complicated political and cultural environment of the area, where it was founded in 1967, ASEAN has proven to be one of the most positive partners of the region in terms of conflict management and, subsequently, the advancement of the law and order.

The ASEAN peace is intensely embedded in the ideals of the organization especially the principle of non-interference. Since every state considers the sovereignty of other states and does not interfere with their internal affairs, this principle has turned out to be very crucial in avoiding conflicts among the ASEAN member states. According to Tekunan (2014), the principle of non-intervention that exists in the ASEAN Way has created an environment of mutual respect and trust between its countries of the region, which has played an essential role in ensuring peace in the region. This has enabled ASEAN to move through the high tensions without necessarily engaging in conflict which ensures that the peace in the region is maintained.

Moreover, consensus based decision-making has been one of the primary reasons, which has simultaneously resulted in the absence of conflicts and improved coordination among the member states of the ASEAN Way due to its heterogeneous composition. Beverly Loke (2005) argues that despite some of the situations where such a strategy may lead to delay in decision-making, it has been good to ensure that the member states feel included and their concerns are heard. This participatory style has helped in preventing worsening of conflict situations since decisions are made when there is a broad agreement among the members hence reducing probability of action being pursued on personal terms which can lead to conflict.

Another way the ASEAN Way has contributed to peace in the region is how ASEAN has been managing external war and other security issues. As an example, the reaction of ASEAN to the Cambodian crisis in the late 1970s and 1980s explains the success of the ASEAN Way in addressing regional security problems. Kyudeug Hwang (2019) explains the way ASEAN, by applying the principles of ASEAN Way, managed to contribute to the solution to the Cambodian conflict in a substantial manner, thus cementing its peace and stability agenda in Southeast Asia. The success is highly referred to as a prime example of how ASEAN can control the security in the region with its own diplomatic system.

But the ASEAN Way does not pass without criticism. Other scholars opine that it is the same principles that make the ASEAN Way a successful mechanism that can restrict its ability to counter more nuanced, transnational security threats like non-interference and consensus. Heng (2014) notes that the ASEAN Way has had some success in ensuring peace in the region; however, it encounters many challenges when it comes to external issues like the aggressiveness of China in the South China Sea. The consensus form of approach can cause inactivity or poor reactions, especially when member states have conflicting interests or when outside forces are highly influential.

Despite these obstacles, the ASEAN Way has remained essential to maintaining peace in Southeast Asia. Despite being at the center of the regional security structural composition, its principles have allowed ASEAN to include the major external powers in regional security debates, notably the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). As Husain (2017) argues, the fact that ASEAN has been able to promote the positive and negative peace, i.e. to minimize the occurrence of direct conflict and increase the levels of cooperative relationships, proves that ASEAN Way remains topical and applicable in the context of the changing security environment of Southeast Asia.

The ASEAN Way has played a crucial role in promoting and maintaining peace in the region of Southeast Asia. Due to the non-interference, consensus, and informal diplomacy principles, ASEAN has been in a position to prevent conflicts in the region, facilitate cooperation, and solve complex security problems. Although the shortcomings of the ASEAN Way still exist within the framework of emerging problems and transnational threats, it is still a significant paradigm in the cycle of providing peace and security to Southeast Asia.

As seen in Table 2, ASEAN diplomatic rules build up a similar identity among member states. The principles of agreement, non-interference and informal diplomacy as exemplified in the ASEAN Way promote a culture of cooperation in politics and countries with divergent political systems and cultures can work together. This saw ASEAN gradually forge a regional identity based on trust, dialogue and respect.

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework for regional identity building inside a regional organization, such as ASEAN. According to the theory, regional identity comes from the interaction of two fundamental dimensions: regional consciousness and the region’s identity. Regional awareness refers to how individuals, groups, and states understand themselves as part of a larger regional community. In contrast, the region’s identity describes how the territory is characterized by both internal perceptions (“image from inside”) and external perspectives (“image from outside”). These interwoven factors help to build a collective sense of belonging, shared standards, and common values, all of which contribute to the creation of a stronger regional identity ( Sokla, 2019).

Over the past 50 years, ASEAN has been successful in maintaining peace and fostering collaboration in Southeast Asia thanks in large part to consensus, non-interference, and informal diplomacy the cornerstones of the ASEAN Way. This special arrangement has seen ASEAN scale through the extensive and intricate political, cultural, and economic environment of the region to become one of the most successful regional corporations beyond Europe.

Nevertheless, with the ongoing development of the region and the world, the ASEAN Way has to struggle with great challenges. The values that used to have guaranteed unity and stability are now viewed as a limitation to dealing with contemporary, transnational challenges that are manifested in the form of human rights, economic integration, and non-traditional security dangers. The consensus principle can contribute to inefficiency and slowness, and the principle of non-interference usually delays the ASEAN capability to efficiently handle internal crises inside member states. Since the beginning, learning have tended to focus on the obstacles facing the application of universal human rights norms in the region ( Aguirre and Pietropaoli, 2012).

These challenges notwithstanding, the ASEAN Way continues to be a key tool of regional diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Its flexibility and focus on communication and collaboration are still useful in dealing with the complex procedures of the region. But to survive and remain pertinent in the twenty-first century, ASEAN can have to reconsider its initial concepts to become more decisive and acting as one without acting in opposition to the interest of its member states. ASEAN follows the concept of non-interference both in their political and economic sphere. This time it faced trouble as well. Jong, K. (2010). ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Surveillance Program (ASP) can be further integrated to integrate regional economies.

Finding a balance between the core values that have historically formed the basis of the ASEAN success and adjusting to the requirements of a more interconnected and complex global context is likely to become the main staple of the future of the ASEAN Way. In so doing, the ASEAN will remain on the frontline of achieving prosperity, peace and stability in the Southeast Asian region and beyond.