Global Interstate System PDF

III. THE GLOBAL INTERSTATE SYSTEM General Learning Objectives: A. Distinguish different interpretations of and approaches to globalization; B. Describe the emergence of global economic, political, social and cultural systems; C. Analyze the various contemporary drivers of globalization; and D. Asse...

III. THE GLOBAL INTERSTATE SYSTEM General Learning Objectives: A. Distinguish different interpretations of and approaches to globalization; B. Describe the emergence of global economic, political, social and cultural systems; C. Analyze the various contemporary drivers of globalization; and D. Assess the effects of globalization on different social units and their responses. LESSON 1: NATION AND STATE The State, as a political entity, has been viewed by luminaries as a group of people, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, having a government of their own to which the great body of inhabitants render obedience and enjoying freedom from external control. The concept of the state that it “enjoys freedom from external control”, to say the least, has drastically waned due to globalization. Globalization plays a critical role in reconfiguring the state. The process of globalization undoubtedly contributes to the change and reduction of the scope of the state sovereign powers. Globalization has become part of rhetoric of the discipline of International Relations, to be found somewhere or another in every issue of every International system certainly seems to have gone through some very significant changes as far as global interactions are concerned, through whether globalization is quite as far-reaching as some of its more ardent proponents claim is less certain. These proponents are divided between those who think globalization is a great liberating force, leading to greater wealth and prosperity for all, and those who think it an abomination. In both camps, most seem to believe it is inevitable. A common claim is that the state is withering before the relentless advance of globalization, and the control of governments over those activities usually regarded as the prerequisite of the state is receding. Markets now rule at the global level whether we like it or not, though many who follow the Neo- classical agenda are quite happy with this arrangement. In the context of international law, state is not tantamount to nation but they are often used interchangeably. Nation is defined as people or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and disguised from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty. Simply put, the state is a political concept while the nation is ethnical or racial. Nation-State Nation-state and State Sovereignty are the basic concept of the new world order called the “Westphalian System process of 1648” that came from the Peace of Westphalia, European settlements of 1648” which brought to an end the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch and the German phase of the Thirty Years’ War. The peace was negotiated, from 1644, in the Westphalian towns of Münster and Osnabrück. The Spanish-Dutch treaty was signed on January 30, 1648. The treaty of October 24, 1648, comprehend the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes, France, and Sweden. England, Poland , Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were the only European powers that were not represented at the two assemblies. Some scholars of international relations credit the treaties with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty. Scholars now have the following standards as the characteristics of the WestPhalian Nation-State are: i. Consolidation of national power ii. Creation of national loyalty iii. Erosion of natural law iv. Creation of positive laws and v. The conception of the equality of sovereign nation-states With these characteristics, certain ideas of nation-state emerged, they are the following: 1. Each state enjoys the right to inherit full sovereignty 2. Each state has the duty to respect the personality of other states 3. The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable 4. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems. 5. Each state has the right to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other states. Decline of the Power of the State The fundamental doctrines of International Law on exclusive domestic jurisdiction, equality, diplomatic immunity, non-intervention, and recognition of States, like the Westphalian System are challenged on all sides. With globalization, it is suggested that there is a decline in the power of the state or is it so? State and non-state actors like global civil society organizations of multinational corporations play an important role in the reconfiguration of the state. Today, it seems that the heads of governments may be the least to recognize that they and their ministries lost the authority over national societies and economics that they used to have. Their command over outcomes is not what it used to be. Politicians everywhere talk as though they have the answers to economic and social problems, as if they really are in charge of their country’s destiny according to British scholar of international relations Susan Strange. These actors are actually becoming more significant that the impersonal forces of world markets, integrated over the postwar period more by private enterprise in finances, industry, and trade than by the cooperative decision of governments, are now more powerful than the states to which political authority over society and economy is supposed to belong. The decline of the power of the state cannot only be attributed to the state and non-state actors. Some factors like the accelerating pace of technological change is one aspect that should be considered. As mentioned by Strange, that technology had undermined one of the primary reasons for the existence of the state, its capacity to repeal attacks by others. The escalation of capital cost of most technological innovations which has relatively lessen the input of labor is another contributory factor. The contemporary global problems of terrorism and climate change also continue to cause the decline of the power of the state. The Attributes of Today’s Global System 1. countries or states are independent and govern themselves; 2. these countries interact with each other through diplomacy; 3. international organizations facilitate these interactions (i.e. UN); and 4. international organizations also take on lives of their own. Nation-state Relatively modern phenomenon in the human history whereby it composed of two non-interchangeable terms: nation and state. a. Nation According to Benedict Anderson, is an “imagined community” and does not go beyond a given “official boundary”. It is inherently limited and sovereign. It has boundaries, meaning not anyone can be a Filipino. This refers to large group of people who share common characteristics such as language, traditions and ethnicity. b. State In layman’s terms, refers to a country and its government. A community of persons more or less numerous occupying a definite territory completely free of external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. The state is the most universal and most powerful of all social institutions. The state is a natural institution. Aristotle said man is a social animal and by nature he is a political being. To him, to live in the state and to be a man were identical. The modern term 'state' is derived from the word 'status'. It was Niccolo Machiavelli ( 1469 - 1527) who first used the term 'state' in his writings. His important work is titled as 'Prince'. The state is the highest form of human association. It is necessary because it comes into existence out of the basic needs of life. It continues to remain for the sake of good life. The aims, desires and aspirations of human beings are translated into action through the state. Though the state is a necessary institution, no two writers agree on its definition. Aristotle defined the state as a 'union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self - sufficing life by which it meant a happy and honourable life'. 4 Elements of State 1. People It is the people who make the state. Population is essential for the state. Greek thinkers were of the view that the population should neither be too big nor too small. According to Plato the ideal number would be 5040. 2. Territory There can be no state without a fixed territory. People need territory to live and organize themselves socially and politically. It may be remembered that the territory of the state includes land, water and air - space. 3. Government Government is the third element of the state. There can be no state without government. Government is the working agency of the state. It is the political organization of the state.  Branches of government Legislature: Make law Executive: Veto legislation Recommend legislation Judiciary: Review legislative acts Legislature: Confirm executive appointments Override executive veto Executive: Enforce laws Judiciary: Review Executive acts Issues injunctions Powers and functions of EXECUTIVE are: 1. Enforcing law 2. Maintaining peace and order. 3. Repelling aggression. 4. Building friendly relations with other states 5. When necessary to wage war to protect the country. 6. Making appointments to higher posts. 7. Raising money and spending them. 8. Convening the sessions of the legislature and conducting business. 9. Issues ordinances whenever the legislature is to in session. 10. Implement schemes and projects to improve he social and economic conditions of the people. 11. Power to grant pardon, reprieve or remission of punishment. The functions of LEGISLATIVE are: 1. Enact laws 2. Oversee administration 3. Pass the budget 4. Hear public grievances. 5. Discuss subjects like: Development plans National policies International relations. Judiciary: Judiciary is the third important organ of the government machinery. Its main function is to interrupter laws and administer justice. Functions of Judiciary: 1. Administration of justice. 2. To determine what is law and what is the cope and meaning of it. 3. To give advisory opinion on matters referred to it 4. Sovereignty The fourth essential element of the state is sovereignty. The word 'sovereignty' means supreme and final legal authority above and beyond which no legal power exists. The concept of 'sovereignty' was developed in conjunction with the rise of the modern state. The term Sovereignty is derived from the Latin word superanus which means supreme. the father of modern theory of sovereignty was Jean Bodin (1530 - 1597) a French political thinker. Sovereignty has two aspects: 1) Internal sovereignty - Internal sovereignty means that the State is supreme over all its citizens, and associations. 2) External sovereignty - External sovereignty means that the state is independent and free from foreign or outside control The functions and role of the State have been transformed substantially. The general configuration of its responsibilities has changed and this has introduce important modifications both in the policy arena and in the State’s requirements for high-level skills, qualitatively and quantitatively. The course of change points to a shift of focus away from hands-on management and the direct production of services and goods towards strategic planning with a view to the establishment and maintenance, refinement and reform of an enabling framework for private enterprise and individual initiative. The governments that seem to “be ‘riding the wave of globalization’ are those that have opened their [policy] analysis to uncertainty, ambiguity and change. In these globally aware governments, institutions have been created or altered to scan the rapidly changing environment, to promote policy invention and policy dialogue, to speed up decision-making in order to take advantage of emerging opportunities, and to embrace short-term failures in favor of creating long-term sustainable strategies. Governments without adequate capacity to recognize and respond to change are destined to be forever behind the ‘waves of change’. The ability to embrace change is related to an attitude of openness to diversity, comfort with uncertainty, and optimism about the future. With the advance of globalization, the State has an important role to play in the establishment and preservation of an "even playing field" and an enabling environment for private enterprise, individual creativity and social action. Strong democratic states are necessary to protect the children, the sick, the elderly and other vulnerable segments of society, combat the social exclusion of minority groups and ensure a more equitable distribution of the benefits of globalization. A democratic State, which is proactive and strategic, is required to arrest and, in the medium-term, reverse poverty and underdevelopment. It is important to underline that an intelligent, democratic State can also be socially proactive, but does not mean "big government". It means "quality" not "quantity" or volume of government activity. It implies a State with lean but strong democratic institutions.  LESSON 2: CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL GOVERNANCE Nature of Global Governance The context of global; government or governance is an abstract matter because no state could ever dare to trade their sovereignty to a global entity or institution. Most international law writers, however, define the term as an effort towards socio-economic and political cooperation among transnational actors, aimed at negotiating responses to issues and challenges that concern more than one state or region. Specifically, Thomas G. Weiss defined global governance as concrete cooperative problem-solving arrangements, many of which increasingly involve not only the United nations of states but also other United Nations’ organs namely international secretariats and other non-state actors. Simply stated, global governance refers to the way in which global affairs are managed. There are institutions of global governance such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, the World Bank and others which have restricted or demarcated power and authority to enforce compliance. In response to the acceleration of worldwide coordination and collaboration, both between human societies and between humankind and the biosphere, the term “global governance” may refer to the process of designating standards, laws, rules, or regulations intended for a global scale. Role of public International Law in Global Governance Broadly defined, international law is the set or body of rules generally regarded and accepted in relations among international subjects. Earlier, states were the only subjects of international organizations and non-state entities are also treated as subjects, which were earlier treated as objects of international law. Thus, it serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. International law is binding on a state inasmuch as it agrees to comply with specific international obligations. This condition is inherent in state sovereignty. Nevertheless, international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty. This is an issue of state sovereignty. Violations of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens) can lead to wars. The main role of international law is to promote global peace and prosperity. Ideally, international law and its accompanying institutions act as a balm to smooth over opposing interests that nations may have. Both international law and its institutional setting are clearly embedded with ideology, a cause for serious concern for many nations that feel their own national identities are under attack by growing economic interdependence and encroaching “Western” values. Doctrine of Transformation versus Doctrine of Incorporation The Doctrine of Transformation is based upon the perception of two distinct systems of law operating separately, and maintains that before any rule or principle of international law can have any effect within the domestic jurisdiction, it must be expressly and specifically ‘transformed’ into municipal law by the device of ratification by the sovereign and the idea has developed from this that any rule of international law must be transformed, or specifically adopted, to be valid within the internal legal order. On the other hand, the Doctrine of Incorporation holds that international law is part of the municipal law automatically without the necessity for the interposition of a constitutional ratification procedure. It is an automatic reception of international law into domestic law without the formal needs for official legislation to sanction it and give effect to it. This ‘automatic’ adoption is said to operate unless there are some clear provisions in the domestic law, such as a statute or judicial decision, which preclude the use of the international law. The reason for this view is because international law becomes part of domestic law without the need for express adoption by the courts or legislature. Sources of International Law 1. International Treaties Treaties and conventions are the cogent source of international law and are considered “hard law.” Treaties can play the role of contracts between two or more parties, such as an extradition treaty or a defense pact. Treaties can also be legislation to standardize a particular aspect of international relations or form the constitutions of international organizations. Whether or not all treaties can be regarded as sources of law, they are sources of obligation for the parties to them. Article 38 (1)(a) of the ICJ, which uses the term “international conventions”, concentrates upon treaties as a source of contractual obligation but also acknowledges the possibility of a state expressly accepting the obligations of a treaty to which it is not formally a party. 2. International Customs This source of international law specifically emphasizes the two requirements of state practice plus acceptance of the practice as obligatory or opinio juris sive necessities (usually abbreviated as opinio juris). Derived from the consistent practice of Western states accompanied by opinio juris (the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary international law is differentiated from acts of comity (mutual recognition of government acts) by the presence of opinio juris. Treaties have gradually displaced much customary international law. This development is similar to the replacement of customary international law and continues to play a significant role in international law. 3. General Principles of International Law The scope of general principles of law is vague and controversial but may include such legal principles that are common to a large number of systems of municipal law. Given the limits of treaties or custom as sources of international law, the rules on International Law of Justice may be looked upon as a directive to the Court to fill any gap in the law and prevent gaps by reference to general principles. 4. Judicial Decisions Judicial decisions and the teaching of the most highly competent publicists of the various states are subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. There is no rule of state decision in international law. The judgment of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case. Nevertheless, often the Court would refer to its past decisions and advisory opinions to support its elucidation of a present case. Often the International Court of Justice will consider General Assembly resolutions as indicative of customary international law. Some Issues Resolved through Global Governance 1. Human Rights. Every individual can demand certain fundamental rights (the right to life, freedom from bodily harm, personal freedom, freedom of expression and of speech) 2. The Protection of Individuals During Wars and Armed Conflicts. International humanitarian law defines the rules of war and especially those concerning the protection of civilians, the wounded and prisoners of war. 3. The Fight Against Terrorism and Other Serious Crimes. Efforts to deal with such threats can only be effective if they are founded on international law. 4. Environment. The more universal the rules on protecting climate and preserving natural resources are, the more efficient they are. 5. Trade and Development A stable international order is an essential prerequisite for achieving this. 6. Telecommunication A telephone call abroad would be impossible without a body of international law. 7. Transport International treaties are essential for ensuring the safety of international air and rail travel. Global Governance as a New Paradigm Globalization The growing idea of globalization as an important theme and the subsequent dwindling of nation –states, points to a prospect of transferring to a global scale of regulatory instruments. Upon the model that regulation was no longer working effectively at the national or regional levels. As a complex and multi- viewed phenomenon, globalization is considered by some as a form of capitalist extension which necessitates the integration of local and national economics into a global, tolerant market economy. Environment Action An implication of environmental concerns, which received multilateral endorsement at the Earth Summit or the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, is one of the central themes of today’s global governance. The Summit issues, relating to the climate and biodiversity, symbolized a new approach expressed conceptually by the term Global Commons Earth Summit was held as a platform for other Member States to collaborate to address concern on sustainable development, climate change, renewable energy, and biosphere. International Trade The emergence of conflicts over standards: trade and the environment, trade and property rights, trade and public health. These conflicts continued the traditional debate over the social effects of macroeconomic stabilization policies, and raised the question of arbitration among equally legitimate objectives in a compartmentalized governance system where the major areas of interdependence are each entrusted to a specialized international institution. Although often limited in scope, these conflicts are nevertheless symbolically powerful, as they raise the question of the principles and institutions of arbitration. Global Economy An increased questioning of international standards and institutions by developing countries, which have entered the global economy, find it hard to accept that industrialized countries hold onto power and give preference to their own interests. The challenge also comes from civil society, which considers that the international governance system has become the real seat of power and which rejects its principles and procedures. Although these two lines of criticism often have conflicting beliefs and goals, they have been known to join in order to oppose the dominance of developed countries and major institutions, as demonstrated symbolically by the failure of the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999.  LESSON 3: THE GLOBAL DIVIDES: THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH The North-South Divide is a socio-economic and political grouping of states. This divide was created during Cold War Era. The Cold War was the geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle between two world superpowers, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that started in 1947 at the end of the Second World War and lasted until the dissolution of the Soviet union on December 26, 1991. The terms “the North” and “the South” when used in a global context are alternative designation for “developed” and ‘developing” countries. Together, the North and South constitute virtually the entire global population. Th North is composed of Third World states. This categorization disregards the geographic locus of states with some states in the southern hemisphere such as Australia and the New Zealand being tagged as portion of the North Characterization of “the North” States Global North countries have the following common characteristics:  Tend to have stable currencies and robust financial markets, making them attractive to investors from all over the world.  Aligned or amicable with Western countries, highly industrialized, has comparatively low poverty, and high accessibility to modern resources and infrastructure.  Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law , human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.  Public education and health services are at a high level for developed countries as those are the major areas of spending.  Good infrastructure that allows access to every part of the country that needs it.  Marked with less corruption and good stable political system where the checks and balances are functioning properly. Characterization of “the South” States Global South countries have the following common characteristics:  Lack of well-developed market economies based on entrepreneurship and private enterprises.  Unable to evolve an indigenous technology appropriate to their own resources.  Dependent on powerful Global North multinational corporations to transfer technical know-how  With gross incomes (GNI) per capita of under $900 per year and their overwhelmingly rural populations depend on agriculture for subsistence.  Their geographic location hampers the economic development.  Productivity remained low due to managerial inefficiency, lack of modern technology and inadequate transportation and communication infrastructures. The Gap between the North and South In the 1980’s, the Brandt Line was developed as a way of showing the how the world was geographically split into relatively richer and poorer nations. According to this model, richer countries are almost all located in the Northern Hemisphere, with the exception of Australia and New Zealand. Poorer countries are mostly located in tropical regions and in the Southern Hemisphere. However over time it was realized that this view was too simplistic. Countries such as Argentina, Malaysia, and Botswana all have above global average GDP (PPP) per appear to be now among a poorer set of countries by the same measure. Despite very significant development gains globally which have raised many millions of people out of absolute poverty, there is substantial evidence that inequality between the world’s richest and poorest countries is widening. In addition, in 2013, the richest 85 people in the world owned the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. Today the world is much more complex than the Brandt Line depicts as many poorest countries have experienced significant economic and social development. Emergence of Third World States “Third world” was originally a term used during the Cold War. It denoted countries that were not aligned with either the US-led Western bloc or the Soviet-led Eastern bloc of countries. At the time, “first world” referred to countries allied with the United States and the capitalist, democratic West, while “second world” denoted countries allied to the Soviet Union and the communist Eastern bloc of countries. Since the Cold War ended, the term “second world” has fallen out of use. The terms “first world” and “third world”, however, are still sometimes used to distinguish developed countries from developing countries. Third world countries tend to possess certain characteristics. Not only do most of their people live in poverty, but they are often poorly governed and politically unstable. In addition, the vast majority of third world countries were once colonial possessions of European powers, and have achieved independence very recently. The term the Third World was introduced in 1952 by the French demographer, anthropologist, and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who compared it with the Third Estate, a concept that emerged in the context of the French Revolution. First Estate refers to the clergy and the monarch, Second Estate to the nobility, and Third Estate to the balance of the eighteenth-century French population- as much as 98%. The Third World, as a phrase, also achieved acceptance because it usually contrasted the poor countries to the First World (the non-Communist, high- income, “developed” countries) and the Second World (Communist countries, which though not as wealthy as those of the First World, were then characterized by greater order, higher incomes, and longer life expectancies.) Today, the term third world country is often used to describe the developing countries if Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. Many poorer nations adopted the term to describe themselves. Developed and Developing Countries The most commonly used terms to describe and differentiate between countries are “developed” and “developing” countries. Developed countries describes the countries which the highest level of development based on similar factors to those used to distinguish between MDC’s and LDCs as well as based on levels of industrialization. These terms are the most frequently used and the most politically correct; however, there is no really actual standard by which we name and group these countries. The implication of the terms “developed” and “developing” is that developing countries will attain developed status at some point in the future. Present Day Global Relations of North and South The international free trade and unhindered capital flows across countries could lead to a contraction in the North-South divide. In this case, more equal trade and flow of capital would allow the possibility for developing countries to further develop economically. As some countries in the South experience rapid development, there is evidence that those states are developing high levels of South-South aid. Brazil, in particular, has been noted for its high levels of aid with $1 billion annually- ahead of many traditional donors and the ability to use its own experiences to provide high levels of expertise and knowledge transfer. This has been described as a “global model in waiting”. The United Nations has also established its role in diminishing the divide between North and South through the Millennium Development Goals was then set to achieve in 2015. These goals seek to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development. However, due to ambitious targets, these were not fully complied with by all signatory- states. At present, the global relation is marked with states’ desire to make this world a better place to live in. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its hearts are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries - developed and developing - in a global partnership. They recognize the ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth - all while tackling climate change and working too preserve our oceans and forests. Differences in economic and military power, history, culture, and values -- not where they are located on a map[ -- tend to dictate where countries stand on certain issues and which policies they pursue. It is true that many countries in the developed world may converge around certain policies and many in the developing world around others. But it is equally true that there are multiple exceptions to this generalization, and they must not be ignored.  LESSON 4: ASIA REGIONALISM The enormous challenges brought about by globalization prompted governments, societies, and associations to form regional networks or organizations. These challenges forged alliances between and among nation- states to safeguard their national interest in the economics, political, military, and cultural aspects. This concept of regionalism paved the way for the creation of international organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), European Union (EU) etc. Thus, this lesson is focused on economic integration of Asian nations as regionalism is seen as an economic and political phenomenon. Economic crisis brought together, specifically Asian countries, to alleviate if not to eradicate the ill effects of globalization. The ASEAN is an alliance of (10) ten-member Asian states which seeks to promote intergovernmental cooperation and facilitates economic, political, security, military, educational, and socio-cultural integration among its members and other countries. On the other hand, APEC is a regional forum established by (21) twenty one- member states to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-pacific region. They jointly work towards the realization of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-pacific by ensuring that goods, services, investment, and people move easily across borders. Also, The ASEAN PLUS THREE (APT) is a cooperation process that began in 1997 when the leaders of ASEAN plus China, Japan, and South Korea issued a joint statement on East Asia Cooperation at their third APT summit in Manila. It is a regional organization aimed to address mutual issues and concerns in energy, security, natural gas development, oil market studies, oil stockpiling, and renewable energy (asean.org). with the realization of the goals of these organizations, it is not unlikely that the unfavorable effects of globalization will at least be mitigated. It has often been said that regionalism requires shared values to facilitate cooperation and to reduce the misunderstandings that frequently arise from cultural and political differences. Unlike Europe, which shares a common Christian foundation of sorts, Southeast Asian has had no similar sense of common bonding. It was understood not as a region but a crossroads for Indian, Chinese, Muslim and Western civilizations. The idea of Southeast Asia as a region is of recent origin and its general acceptance was a product of regionalism, ASEAN and its predecessor, the Association of Southeast Asia. Nevertheless, despite the lack of cultural and political commonalities, ASEAN not only managed to survive but to expand, both in terms of membership and function, to the point where it became a model for similar enterprises in other regions. ASEAN has succeeded because of the common bonds that were created between the political elites of member states, and in particular their foreign ministries. Leaders would work together in the “ASEAN way” according to which decisions were made by consensus avoiding any interference in each other’s domestic affairs. They played golf to get to know each other and sang karaoke in carefully managed events to promote personal ties. They demonstrated that regionalism in Southeast Asia could work in a culturally dissimilar context, unlike Europe. Constructivists would claim that norms of cooperation were established between the political elites, strengthening regional cooperation and overcoming the barriers created by political and cultural diversity. Constructivists understand ASEAN as a grand norm building project in which declarations are made by the leaders which stimulate cooperative behavior and promote the region’s steady integration. Realists, however, cringe at what they regard as ASEAN rhetoric and critically examine the empirical record to assess its success or otherwise.