Peacekeeping in ASEAN and the OAS a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peacekeeping has undergone considerable changes in the last quarter century. One of the most consequential changes has been the growing profile of peacekeeping operations conducted by regional organizations. The last quarter century from the end of the Cold War to the present has witnessed a proliferation of peacekeeping operations organized by regional organizations. Peace keeping and peace enforcement have been the traditional domains of the United Nations peacekeeping, ‘blue helmets’, forces. The nature of peacekeeping has also changed. Peacekeeping has gone from operations that have involved mediating and observing ceasefires between states, to direct intervention in conflicts where state authority has been overthrown or has collapsed. A corollary to this has been the growing focus on issues that fall outside the realm of traditional military topics but touch on issues of democracy, human rights, economic development and environmental issues. These non-traditional security challenges have redefined the scope of peacekeeping. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has in recent years expressed a desire to develop an ASEAN peacekeeping force. This paper addresses the question of whether the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has developed an institutional framework that would lead to an ASEAN peacekeeping or peacebuilding force. A historical survey of peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations by ASEAN states shows that while these states intervened in other Southeast Asian states this was done as part of Cold War era coalitions. Furthermore, no ASEAN peacekeeping framework has yet appeared that would facilitate the development of a regional peacekeeping force. ASEAN states have participated in peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations as individual states under the auspices of other states, ad hoc coalitions or regional organizations. ASEAN’s legal and institutional framework lacks the capacity to develop a peace keeping force. ASEAN, as a regional organization, has been curtailed from its inception due to the structural constraints of the organization as it has been constituted. ASEAN lacks the legal and institutional mechanisms that would enable it to engage in peacekeeping or peacebuilding operations. ASEAN’s structural impediments are delineated by a historical survey of peacekeeping in the regional organization. This paper then addresses ASEAN’s contemporary peacekeeping dilemma. A comparative analysis of ASEAN with the Organization of American States serves to highlight the ongoing deficiencies in ASEAN. This comparison with another regional organization that shares a similar profile indicates where ASEAN has failed to make critical reforms that would enable peacekeeping or peacebuilding. This comparative analysis shows that ASEAN despite its move to create a political-security community with a peacekeeping component lacks the institutional capabilities that the Organization of American States has instituted.The paper suggests that a possible explanation for the failure of ASEAN in comparison with the OAS could lie in the historical and cultural development of the two organizations. The reticence of ASEAN members to yield sovereignty to a regional body may be traced to the formative years of ASEAN as dedicated to stopping the advance of communism. The OAS by way of contrast has had a history of regional interaction, pan- Americanism and movements for democratic governance stretching back over two hundred years.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".