Negotiating Human Security in ASEAN

ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting with Representatives of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. (Photo: ASEAN 2026 Philippine Chairmanship)

Regional security and stability have been the raison d’etre of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and these propelled its decades-old brand of regionalism. The evolution of the global security landscape—from state to human security—has called for the shift to a flexible process and challenged the bloc’s conventional ASEAN Way.

This movement has been long recognized by leaders but attempts to reshape remain challenging as ASEAN is and remains a dependent variable from the willingness of its member states. Does ASEAN possess the capacity to concurrently execute both agenda? 

This essay establishes that ASEAN is, in fact, ‘negotiating’ its regional mechanism towards human-centered security paradigms. Further, this development encloses ASEAN’s theoretical transition into a Meta-nation state entity reflecting a higher cooperation within the bloc.

Ultimately, this piece doesn’t disprove the criticisms aimed at the ASEAN Way process but traces, rather, the evolution of its security outlook through which a Meta-nation state is developed. 

State to Human Security Shift

State security is grounded in the realist school of international relations where the sovereign state is the primary actor within the global security arena. Under this framework, national security efforts are principally directed toward safeguarding state sovereignty and territorial integrity, primarily through the deployment and strengthening of military force.

Human security, on the other hand, is a concept built upon long-standing commitments—through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and UNDP’s Human Development Report 1994—anchored on security of human beings, democracy, and human rights.

The state was the core of the security outlook during the Cold War and ASEAN Member States (AMS) opted to solve disputes bilaterally. This then expanded to human security against the backdrop  of the post-Cold War order in which Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, has emphasized that national security is dependent on human security.

This paradigm shift in international relations has established an updated baseline to assess international security measures. This essay, though, doesn’t equate to the diminishment of state sovereignty defense but adheres to the principle that “security of people must be regarded as a goal as important as the security of states.”

Some Attempts to Reshape Regional Security Framework

ASEAN’s crisis management is grounded in its brand of regionalism. Historically, the new global order after World War II has plunged Southeast Asia into economic and political instability as well as separatism and border conflicts.

Thus, the ASEAN Way was born to heed the desperate call of regional stability and the lessons from its precursor organizations—Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Association of Southeast Asia, and MAPHILINDO. This regionalism is a move towards security assurance for Southeast Asian countries, who were once against each other's throats during the tragedies of the colonial past. 

In light of the emergence of new security issues operating across borders, ASEAN unity stands as key to managing these regional vulnerabilities. In the late 1990s, attempts by leaders to propose an enhanced interaction have been brought to the table. Malaysia's then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim suggested a ‘constructive intervention’ to leverage each other’s services to boost social development.

Later, Thailand's Foreign Minister, Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, opened a discussion on adopting a ‘flexible engagement’ towards the non-interference culture. In principle, flexible engagement opens collective discussion and comments on each AMS’s local policies if these create regional consequences or at the expense of member states. However, national sensitivities still inhibit such approaches proposed.

In June 2004, Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Dr. Hassan Wirajuda stressed that ASEAN has the ‘maturity’ to navigate a higher level of political and security cooperation, an idea he drew from his years of experience in fields of cooperation.

Despite such rhetoric, none have been institutionalized, except the establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in 2009. Human security is indeed no alien concept in Southeast Asia, but the question lies on the operationalization of this shared commitment.

A Meta-nation in Response

A fundamental structured approach to ASEAN Studies, as a discipline, is the understanding of the ASEAN organization through the Meta-nation state framework. The Meta-nation state interface, coined by the late Professor Dr. Sylvano Mahiwo, posits the dynamics of interactions between actors within and outside the region in varying strata. 

While ASEAN maintains its diplomatic principles, historical developments otherwise project the organization’s transitioning from an alliance-focused approach to a meta-nation state that collectively manages security turbulence.

The 3rd ASEAN Summit in Manila constituted a Joint Statement from ASEAN Foreign Ministers called on Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. and Corazon Aquino to resolve the political turmoil following the 1986 Presidential election “which portends bloodshed and civil war.” The institutionalization of non-interference, through the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), has already entered into force at this time.

The ASEAN Troika, a ministerial ad hoc body, is an ASEAN-led response towards matters that are likely to disturb the region’s security and stability. During the July 1997 coup in Cambodia, ASEAN activated a Troika consisting of the Foreign Ministers from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand.

The Troika entered Phnom Penh, even prior to Cambodia's accession to ASEAN, as a mediatory role between clashing parties. In a similar manner, a Troika was established in 2023 consisting of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Lao PDR to the coup in Myanmar to assist in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. This reflects a microcosm of ASEAN’s evolution into a Meta-nation state community.

At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, ASEAN leaned into an increasing policy convergence and a consolidated regional health response by employing pre-existing and new mechanisms. The COVID-19 ASEAN Response Fund strengthened ASEAN diplomatic mechanisms into building confidence and negotiating assistance for its AMS.

The July 2025 trigger of the long-standing Thailand-Cambodia border tension has involved armed conflicts risking the lives and displacement of civilians. Such disputes should’ve fallen within the domain of sovereign states through bilateral talks.

Yet, ASEAN-led peace agreements such as the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord and Joint Statements from Foreign Ministers have been involved in the process, urging both countries to cease hostilities and commit to peaceful processes guided by the ASEAN Charter and TAC. An ASEAN Observer Team was likewise deployed along the borders to monitor compliance with the ceasefire. 

Threats to human security have become a transnational concern in nature and needed transnational strategies. Historical upheavals have reinforced the realization that the instability of one or two puts ASEAN unrest. I wouldn’t say, though, that ASEAN’s operation as a Meta-Nation state was totally synchronized for the whole time being.

Clearly, ASEAN is not a supranational bloc with the power to impose binding decisions with ease. Negotiating an enhanced cooperation for human security seems easier said than done in a discourse dominated by states. Yet, beyond its traditional non-interference, ASEAN sought to evolve into a Meta-nation state community that collectively pursues security.

---

This article written by Angel D. Bagtang, a Master of ASEAN Studies student at the University of the Philippines Open University. Her research interests focus on ASEAN regionalism, comparative politics, and decolonial methodologies in the region.