“This is Not the 90s”: Myanmar and Change in ASEAN’s Normative Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine the contours of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) response to the latest regional challenge from Myanmar, the 2021 coup. Scholars and practitioners alike often portray ASEAN as a relatively cohesive community of states united in adherence to a long-held and comparatively stable set of norms within the so-called "ASEAN way." Core among these norms has been domestic non-interference. However, we argue that rather than being determined by a coherent set of agreed norms, ASEAN's response to this crisis has been shaped by intra-regional contestation and division around how ASEAN ought to enact its particular "way" of regional governance. More narrowly, we show that the ASEAN response has been shaped by contestation over competing normative impulses in the organization—centrality and non-interference—which have developed in increasing tension since the humanitarian disaster after Cyclone Nargis in 2008 and the Rohingya crisis after 2016. We show that in response to these crises, officials from the organization and its member states advanced divergent accounts of what ASEAN ought to do and why, given competing normative commitments to centrality and non-interference. By showing how ASEAN's response to the 2021 coup is the result of internal contestation within the organization, we support accounts of regional governance in Southeast Asia that stress less the fixity of ASEAN norms than their contestation in practice. To make our argument we analyze more than 250 documents and draw on interviews with regional officials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".