intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.6intertrends-555Research ArticleФИКСИРУЕМ ТЕНДЕНЦИЮCATCHING A TRENDПереосмысление опыта построения сообществ безопасности: пример АСЕАНRethinking the Record of Security Community Building in ASEANКоролёвАлександрKorolevAlexander

Королёв Александр Сергеевич - младший научный сотрудник Центра комплексных европейских и международных исследований, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»

Москва

Mr Alexander Korolev - Junior Researcher, Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, National Research University – Higher School of Economics

Moscow 101000

askorolev@hse.ruНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsRussian Federation2019120520251738098Copyright © Королёв А., 20252025Королёв А.Korolev A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/555

В статье рассматриваются структурные элементы концепции сообщества безопасности и её приложение к опыту Юго-Восточной Азии. Актуальность исследования связана с официальным запуском в 2015 г. Сообщества АСЕАН, которое состоит из трёх ключевых элементов – экономическое сообщество, сообщество политики и безопасности и социокультурное сообщество. Новизна настоящей работы заключается, во-первых, в использовании обновлённого подхода к анализу сообществ безопасности, во-вторых, в переосмыслении опыта АСЕАН в вопросах формирования такого рода общности. Значимыми переменными, обуславливающими становление отношений, исключающих вероятность применения силового инструментария для преодоления противоречий, выступают чувство «коллективного мы» среди правящих элит и населения, наличие общих целей, интересов и разделяемых всеми членами сообщества ценностей, приверженность ключевым нормам и принципам функционирования объединения, наличие прочных каналов коммуникации между государствами, способность коллективного реагирования государств на внутренние и внешние вызовы и урегулирования конфликтов мирным путем. Таким образом, одним из ключевых нововведений исследования служит утверждение, что помимо политического истеблишмента, разделяющего общие ценности, принципы и нормы, субъектом сообществ безопасности также выступает гражданское общество. В заключение делается вывод, что в настоящее время АСЕАН представляет собой зарождающееся сообщество безопасности плюралистического типа. При сохранении существующих проблем переход к зрелой стадии не представляется возможным. К числу ключевых ограничений АСЕАН можно отнести проблему формирования коллективного целого, периодический отход от основополагающих принципов Ассоциации, трудности при достижении консенсуса по ряду чувствительных вопросов. В качестве конкретных примеров автор приводит разные позиции стран–участниц объединения по проблеме Южно-Китайского моря, а также отсутствие единого подхода к «Свободному и открытому Индо-Тихоокеанскому региону», формирующемуся в новом геостратегическом пространстве.

The article discusses the structural elements of the security community concept using the example of ASEAN. The relevance of studying this phenomenon rises dramatically due to the official launch of the ASEAN Community in 2015, which consists of three key elements – the Economic Community, the Political and Security Community and the Socio-Cultural Community. The scientific novelty of the work lies, firstly, in the use of an updated approach to the analysis of this security community concept, and secondly, in rethinking the experience of ASEAN and, in particular, failures in the formation of the security community. The work argues the major variables that contribute to the initial formation of the security community are the “we-feeling” sense among the population, adherence to key norms and principles of functioning of the association, the presence of strong channels of communication between states, and the ability of states to collectively respond to internal and external challenges. It is concluded that at present, ASEAN is a nascent, pluralistic security community. However, while maintaining the existing problems identified in the study, the transition to a more mature stage is not possible. The key constraints of ASEAN include a periodic departure from the basic principles of the Association, and the failure to reach consensus on a number of sensitive issues. As concrete examples we can identify the various positions of ASEAN member states on the South China Sea issue, as well as the lack of a unified approach to the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Region”, an emerging geostrategic space.

сообщество безопасностиАСЕАНинститутыколлективная идентичностьценностинормыпринципыsecurity communityASEANinstitutionscollective identityvaluesnormsprinciplesСтатья подготовлена за счет гранта Российского научного фонда No 17-18-01577 «Формирование Сообщества Большой Евразии и стратегии двустороннего взаимодействия России со странами региона».The article was funded by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation No. 17-18-01577 "Formation of a Greater Eurasian Community and Strategies for bilateral cooperation between Russia and the countries of the region."ReferencesБайков А.А. Сравнительная интеграция. Практика и модели зарубежной интеграции в зарубежной Европе и тихоокеанской Азии. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2012. 256 с.Baykov A.A. (2012). Sravnitel'naja integracija. Praktika i modeli zarubezhnoj integracii v zarubezhnoj Evrope i tihookeanskoj Azii [Comparative integration. Experience and Patterns of Integration in the United Europe and Asia Pacific]. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2012. 256 p.Канаев Е.А. Формирование Сообщества АСЕАН: особенности 2011 г. // Юго-Восточная Азия: актуальные проблемы развития. 2011. №. 17. C. 48–60.Kanaev E.A. (2011). Formirovanie Soobshhestva ASEAN: osobennosti 2011 g [ASEAN Community Formation: Features of 2011]. South East Asia: Actual problems of development. No. 17. P. 48–60.Колдунова Е.В. Интеграция без конфликта или конфликт при интеграции? // Международные процессы. 2011. Т. 9. №. 27. С. 105–111.Koldunova E.V. (2011). Integratsiya bez konflikta ili konflikt bez integratsii? [Integration without a conflict or a conflict without integration?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 9. No. 27. P. 105–111.Локшин Г.М., Кобелев Е.В., Мазырин В.М. Сообщество АСЕАН в современном мире: Монография. М.: ФОРУМ, 2019. 296 с.Lokshin G.M., Kobelev E.V., Mazyrin V.M. (2019). Soobshchestvo ASEAN v sovremennom mire [ASEAN community in the modern world]. Moscow: FORUM. 296 p.Рябов А.В. Переформатирование системы международных отношений в Тихоокеанской Азии: векторы и динамика изменений (часть II) // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2019. Т. 63. №. 1. С. 112–122.Ryabov A.V. (2019). Pereformatirovanie sistemy mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij v Tihookeanskoj Azii: vektory i dinamika izmenenij [Reformating the system of international relations in Pacific Asia: vectors and dynamics of changes]. World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 63. No. 1. P. 112–122.Севастьянов С.В. Институты азиатско-тихоокеанского и Восточно-Азиатского регионализма: динамика развития, проблемы и интересы участников // Россия и АТР. 2008. №. 3. С. 82–94.Sevastyanov S.V. (2008). Instituty aziatsko-tihookeanskogo i Vostochno-Aziatskogo regionalizma: dinamika razvitija, problemy i interesy uchastnikov [Institutions of Asia Pacific and East Asian regionalism: development dynamics, problems and interests of participants]. Rossija i ATR. No. 3. P. 82–94.Acharya A. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: “Security Community” or “Defence Community”? // Pacific Affairs. 1991. P. 159–178.Acharya A. (1991). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: “Security Community” or “Defence Community”. Pacific Affairs. P. 159–178.Acharya A. A regional security community in Southeast Asia? // The Journal of Strategic Studies. 1995. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 175–200.Acharya A. (1995). A regional security community in Southeast Asia? The Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 175–200.Acharya A. Collective identity and conflict management in Southeast Asia // Cambridge Studies in International Relations. 1998. Vol. 62. No. 1. P. 198–227.Acharya A. (1998). Collective identity and conflict management in Southeast Asia. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Vol. 62. No. 1. P. 198–227.Acharya A., Layug A. Collective identity formation in Asian regionalism: ASEAN identity and the construction of the Asia-Pacific Regional Order. A paper presented at the World Congress of International Political Science Association (IPSA) held in Madrid, Spain. 2012. 48 p.Acharya A., Layug A. (2012). Collective identity formation in Asian regionalism: ASEAN identity and the construction of the Asia-Pacific Regional Order. A paper presented at the World Congress of International Political Science Association (IPSA) held in Madrid, Spain. 48 p.Acharya A. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge, 2014. 314 p.Acharya A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge. 314 p.Acharya A. The Evolution and Limitations of ASEAN Identity // Building ASEAN Community. 2017. Vol. 186. P. 25–38.Acharya A. (2017). The Evolution and Limitations of ASEAN Identity. Building ASEAN Community. Vol. 186. P. 25–38.Adler E., Barnett M. Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 484 p.Adler E., Barnett M. (1998). Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 484 p.Barr M.D. Lee Kuan Yew and the “Asian values” debate // Asian Studies Review. 2000. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 309–334.Barr M.D. (2000). Lee Kuan Yew and the “Asian values” debate. Asian Studies Review. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 309–334.Beeson M. ASEAN's ways: still fit for purpose?. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2009. Vol. 22. No.3. P. 333–343.Beeson M. (2009). ASEAN's ways: still fit for purpose? // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 333–343.Borelli M. ASEAN Counter-terrorism Weaknesses // Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses. 2017. Vol. 9. No. 9. P. 14–20.Borelli M. (2017). ASEAN Counter-terrorism Weaknesses. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses. Vol. 9. No. 9. P. 14–20.Caballero-Anthony M. Mechanisms of dispute settlement: the ASEAN experience // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 1998. P. 38–66.Caballero-Anthony M. (1998). Mechanisms of dispute settlement: the ASEAN experience. Contemporary Southeast Asia. P. 38–66.Caballero-Anthony M. Partnership for Peace in Asia: ASEAN, the ARF, and the United Nations // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2002. P. 528–548.Caballero-Anthony M. (2002). Partnership for Peace in Asia: ASEAN, the ARF, and the United Nations.Chanona A. A Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. 2003. Vol. 3. No. 5. P. 1–13.Contemporary Southeast Asia. P. 528–548.Clarke P. Does growing economic interdependence reduce the potential for conflict in the China-TaiwanUS triangle? American Journal of Chinese Studies. 2008. Vol.15. No. 2. P. 57–68.Chanona A. (2003). A Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA // Jean Monnet/ Robert Schuman Paper Series. Vol. 3. No. 5. P. 1–13.Deutsch K.W. Political Community and the North American Area. Princeton University Press, 2015. 244 p.Clarke P. (2008). Does growing economic interdependence reduce the potential for conflict in the ChinaTaiwan-US triangle? // American Journal of Chinese Studies. Vol.15. No. 2. P. 57–68.Farnham B. The theory of democratic peace and threat perception // International studies quarterly. 2003. Vol. 47. No. 3. P. 395–415.Deutsch K.W. (2015). Political Community and the North American Area. Princeton University Press. 244 p.Harper T.N. ‘Asian Values’ and Southeast Asian Histories // The Historical Journal. 1997. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 507–517.Farnham B. (2003). The theory of democratic peace and threat perception. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 47. No. 3. P. 395–415.Holsti Kal J. A new international politics? Diplomacy in complex interdependence. International Organization. 1978. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 513–530.Harper T.N. (1997). ‘Asian Values’ and Southeast Asian Histories. The Historical Journal. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 507–517.Jong K.H., Ping L.P. The changing role of dialogue in the international relations of Southeast Asia // Asian Survey. 2011. Vol. 51. No. 5. P. 953–970.Holsti Kal J. (1978). A new international politics? Diplomacy in complex interdependence. International Organization. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 513–530.Keohane R.O., Nye J.S. Power and interdependence. Boston: Little Brown. 1977. 334 p.Jong K.H., Ping L. P. (2011). The changing role of dialogue in the international relations of Southeast Asia. Asian Survey. Vol. 51. No. 5. P. 953–970.Khalifah N.A. International Trade of the East Asian Economic Caucus // Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia. 1992. Vol. 25. P. 19–45.Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence. Boston: Little Brown. 334 p.Kipgen N. ASEAN and China in the South China Sea disputes. Asian Affairs. 2018. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 433–448.Khalifah N.A. (1992). International Trade of the East Asian Economic Caucus. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia. Vol. 25. P. 19–45.Lee J. Trends in Southeast Asia. The “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” and Implications for ASEAN // ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. 2018. No. 13. P. 1–34.Kipgen N. (2018). ASEAN and China in the South China Sea disputes // Asian Affairs. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 433–448.Mancheri N.A. China and its Neighbors: Trade Leverage, Interdependence and Conflict. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies. 2015. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 75–94.Lee J. (2018). Trends in Southeast Asia. The “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” and Implications for ASEAN. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. No. 13. P. 1–34.Martel S. From ambiguity to contestation: discourse (s) of non-traditional security in the ASEAN community. The Pacific Review. 2017. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 549–565.Mancheri N.A. (2015). China and its Neighbors: Trade Leverage, Interdependence and Conflict // Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies. Vol. 4. No.1. P. 75–94.Owen J.M. How liberalism produces democratic peace // International security. 1994. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 87–125.Martel S. (2017). From ambiguity to contestation: discourse (s) of non-traditional security in the ASEAN community // The Pacific Review. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 549–565.Risse-Kappen T. Democratic peace–warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument // European Journal of International Relations. 1995. Vol. 1. No. 4. P. 491–517.Owen J.M. (1994). How liberalism produces democratic peace. International security. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 87–125.Severino C.R. Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN community: Insights from the former ASEAN secretary-general. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 2006. P. 489.Risse-Kappen T. (1995). Democratic peace–warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 1. No. 4. P. 491–517.Severino C.R. The ASEAN regional forum. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 2009. P. 44.Severino C. R. (2006). Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN community: Insights from the former ASEAN secretary-general. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. P. 489.Simon S.W. Realism and neoliberalism: international relations theory and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review. 1995. Vol.8. No. 1. P. 5–24.Severino R. (2009). The ASEAN regional forum. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. P. 44.Tan S.S. Not Quite Beyond the ‘ASEAN Way’? Southeast Asia’s Evolution to Rules-based Management of Intra-ASEAN Differences. Building ASEAN Community. 2017. P. 67.Simon S.W. (1995). Realism and neoliberalism: international relations theory and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 5–24.Tönnies F. Community and association. Routledge & Paul, 1955. 293 p.Tan S. S. (2017). Not Quite Beyond the ‘ASEAN Way’? Southeast Asia’s Evolution to Rules-based Management of Intra-ASEAN Differences // Building ASEAN Community. P. 67.Tusicisny A. Security communities and their values: Taking masses seriously // International Political Science Review. 2007. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 425–449.Tönnies F. (1955). Community and association. Routledge & Paul, 1955. 293 p.Wah C.K. 1997. ASEAN: the long road to “one Southeast Asia” // Asian Journal of Political Science. 1997. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 1–19.Tusicisny A. (2007). Security communities and their values: Taking masses seriously. International Political Science Review. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 425–449.Young O.R. Regime dynamics: the rise and fall of international regimes // International organization. 1982. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 277–297.Wah C.K. (1997). ASEAN: the long road to “one Southeast Asia”. Asian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 1–19.Yukawa T. The ASEAN Way as a symbol: an analysis of discourses on the ASEAN Norms. The Pacific Review. 2018. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 298–314.Young O.R. (1982). Regime dynamics: the rise and fall of international regimes. International organization. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 277–297.Yukawa T. (2018). The ASEAN Way as a symbol: an analysis of discourses on the ASEAN Norms // The Pacific Review. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 298–314.Yukawa T. (2018). The ASEAN Way as a symbol: an analysis of discourses on the ASEAN Norms // The Pacific Review. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 298–314.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.