fmpВестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV. Международные отношения и мировая политикаLomonosov World Politics Journal2076-7404Московский государственный университет имени М.В.Ломоносоваfmp-73Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОРГАНИЗАЦИИINTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONSАСЕАН как сообщество безопасности: проблемы теоретического осмысленияASEAN As a Security Community: Challenges of ConceptualizationНикифоровИ. А.NikiforovI. A.

Никифоров Илья Александрович — аспирант кафедры региональных проблем мировой политики факультета мировой политики  

119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, 1

Ilya A. Nikiforov — PhD Candidate at the Chair of Regional Issues of World Politics, School of World Politics

1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991

ake.nikiforov@gmail.comФедеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова»Lomonosov Moscow State University201826112020103154174Copyright © Никифоров И.А., 20202020Никифоров И.А.Nikiforov I.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/73

Сообщество в сфере политики и безопасности АСЕАН (СПБА) — новейшая масштабная инициатива Ассоциации, направленная на поддержание мира в регионе через формирование общих норм и правил поведения. Появление данной структуры вызвало весьма оживленную дискуссию среди экспертов по Юго-Восточной Азии: можно ли говорить о построении в АСЕАН сообщества безопасности в его классическом, теоретическом понимании? В настоящей статье рассмотрены аргументы сторон и предпринята попытка ответить на данный вопрос. Оптимистически настроенные приверженцы конструктивизма во главе с А. Ачарьей отстаивают жизнеспособность своей модификации концепции сообществ безопасности применительно к данному региону, ключевыми элементами которой являются региональная идентичность и обладающие конструирующей функцией нормы. Их оппоненты, придерживающиеся позиций реализма (Н. Ху, М. Лейфер), настаивают на неприменимости идей конструктивистов в реалиях АСЕАН и неспособности государств региона сформировать сообщество безопасности. По результатам анализа сделан вывод о том, что оба подхода не лишены недостатков, а точку в их споре ставить преждевременно ввиду того, что создание сообщества безопасности в АСЕАН — процесс, далекий от завершения. В настоящее же время, с точки зрения автора, наиболее уместным и соответствующим реальной обстановке в регионе является альтернативный, умеренно критический подход, позволяющий сравнить Ассоциацию с режимом безопасности.

ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) is the ASEAN’s newest and ambitious initiative aimed at maintaining peace in the region by establishing common norms and standards of good conduct. The launch of the APSC has provoked an intense debate among experts on ASEAN on whether the Association could be regarded as a security community in the classic theoretical sense. The author examines arguments in the key participants of this debate and presents its own point of view. The paper shows that constructivist scholars led by A. Acharya argue that their interpretation of the classic security community concept is relevant to the situation in the Southeast Asia, which is characterized by a strong sense of regional identity and a constitutive political role of norms. Their opponents represented by realist scholars, such as N. Khoo and M. Leifer, demonstrate the irrelevance of constructivist ideas to the ASEAN realities and emphasize the inability of Southeast Asian states to build a functioning security community. The conclusion is drawn that while both approaches have their own drawbacks, it would be premature to choose one or the other because the establishment of the security community in the ASEAN is an ongoing process, which is still far from complete. Therefore, the most promising and relevant for current political situation in the region is a moderately critical approach that treats ASEAN as a security regime rather than a security community.

АСЕАНСообщество АСЕАНСообщество в сфере политики и безопасности АСЕАНСПБАсообщество безопасностиконструктивизмреализмрежим безопасностинормыидентичностьASEANASEAN CommunityASEAN Political-Security CommunityAPSCsecurity communityconstructivismrealismsecurity regimenormsidentityReferencesКолдунова Е.В. АСЕАН на современном этапе и проблемы региональной стабильности // Юго-Восточная Азия: актуальные проблемы развития. 2016. № 28. С. 13–19.Koldunova E.V. 2016. ASEAN na sovremennom etape i problemy regional’noi stabil’nosti [ASEAN at the present stage and the problems of regional stability]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya: aktual’nye problemy razvitiya, no. 28, pp. 13–19. (In Russ.)Колдунова Е.В. Формирование сообщества АСЕАН: аспекты безопасности // Юго-Восточная Азия: актуальные проблемы развития. 2007. № 10. С. 53–61.Koldunova E.V. 2007. Formirovanie soobshchestva ASEAN: aspekty bezopasnosti [Development of the ASEAN Community: Security aspects]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya: aktual’nye problemy razvitiya, no. 10, pp. 53–61. (In Russ.)Acharya A. ASEAN 2030: Challenges of building a mature political and security community. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2013.Acharya A. 2013. ASEAN 2030: Challenges of building a mature political and security community. Tokyo, Asian Development Bank Institute.Acharya A. Collective identity and conflict management in Southeast Asia // Security communities / Ed. by E. Adler, M. Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. P. 198–227.Acharya A. 1998. Collective identity and conflict management in Southeast Asia. In Adler E., Barnett M. (eds.). Security communities. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–227.Acharya A. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, 2001.Acharya A. 2001. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia. London, Routledge.Acharya A. Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia’s regional order // Order and security in Southeast Asia: Essays in memory of Michael Leifer / Ed. by R. Emmers, J. Liow. London: Routledge, 2006. P. 78–93.Acharya A. 2006. Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia’s regional order. In Liow J.C., Emmers R. (eds.). Order and security in Southeast Asia: Essays in memory of Michael Leifer. London, Routledge, pp. 78–93.Acharya A. The myth of ASEAN centrality? // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 273–280.Acharya A. 2017. The myth of ASEAN centrality? Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 273–280.Acharya A. Who are the norm makers? The Asian-African Conference in Bandung and the evolution of norms // Global Governance. 2014. No. 20 (3). P. 405–417.Acharya A. 2014. Who are the norm makers? The Asian-African Conference in Bandung and the evolution of norms. Global Governance, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 405–417.Adler E., Barnett M. A framework for the study of security communities // Security communities / Ed. by E. Adler, M. Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. P. 29–66.Adler E., Barnett M. 1998a. A framework for the study of security communities. In Adler E., Barnett M. (eds.). Security communities. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–66.Adler E., Barnett M. Security communities in theoretical perspective // Security communities / Ed. by E. Adler, M. Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. P. 3–28.Adler E., Barnett M. 1998b. Security communities in theoretical perspective. In Adler E., Barnett M. (eds.). Security communities. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–28.Alagappa M. Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.Alagappa M. 2003. Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features. Stanford, Stanford University Press.Bellamy A. Security communities and their neighbours: Regional fortresses or global integrators? London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.Bellamy A. 2004. Security communities and their neighbours: Regional fortresses or global integrators? London, Palgrave Macmillan.Chang F.K. Economic and security interests in Southeast Asia // Orbis. 2014. No. 58 (3). P. 378–391.Chang F.K. 2014. Economic and security interests in Southeast Asia. Orbis, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 378–391.Chang J.Y. Essence of security communities: Explaining ASEAN // International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2016. No. 16 (3). P. 335–369.Chang J.Y. 2016. Essence of security communities: Explaining ASEAN. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 335–369.Collins A. Building a people-oriented security community the ASEAN Way. New York: Routledge, 2013.Collins A. 2013. Building a people-oriented security community the ASEAN way. New York, Routledge.Deutsch K. The analysis of international relations. New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1988.Deutsch K. 1988. The analysis of international relations. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.Deutsch K. Political community and the North Atlantic area // The European Union: Readings on the theory and practice of European integration / Ed. by B.F. Nelsen. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. P. 121–143.Deutsch K. 1998. Political community and the North Atlantic area. In Nelsen B.F., Stubb A. (eds.). The European Union: Readings on the theory and practice of European integration. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 121–143.Emmerson D. Mapping ASEAN’s futures // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 280–288.Emmerson D. 2017. Mapping ASEAN’s futures. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 280–288.Emmerson D. Shocks of recognition. Leifer, realism, and regionalism in Southeast Asia // Order and security in Southeast Asia: Essays in memory of Michael Leifer / Ed. by R. Emmers, J. Liow. London: Routledge, 2006. P. 10–29.Emmerson D. 2006. Shocks of recognition. Leifer, realism, and regionalism in Southeast Asia. In Liow J.C., Emmers R. (eds.). Order and security in Southeast Asia: Essays in memory of Michael Leifer. London, Routledge, pp. 10–29.Hsueh C. ASEAN and Southeast Asian peace: Nation building, economic performance, and ASEAN’s security management // International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2016. No. 16 (1). P. 27–66.Hsueh C. 2016. ASEAN and Southeast Asian peace: Nation building, economic performance, and ASEAN’s security management. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 27–66.Jenne N. The Thai-Cambodian border dispute: An agency-centered perspective on the management of interstate conflict // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 315–348.Jenne N. 2017. The Thai-Cambodian border dispute: An agency-centered perspective on the management of interstate conflict. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 315–348.Jones D.M. Weak states’ regionalism: ASEAN and the limits of security cooperation in Pacific Asia // International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2016. No. 16 (2). P. 209–240.Jones D.M. 2016. Weak states’ regionalism: ASEAN and the limits of security cooperation in Pacific Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 209–240.Jones L. ASEAN’s unchanged melody? The theory and practice of ‘noninterference’ in Southeast Asia // The Pacific Review. 2010. No. 23 (4). P. 479–502.Jones L. 2010. ASEAN’s unchanged melody? The theory and practice of ‘non-interference’ in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 479–502.Khoo N. The ASEAN security community: A misplaced consensus // Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs. 2015. No. 2. P. 180–199.Khoo N. 2015. The ASEAN security community: A misplaced consensus. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, no. 2, pp. 180–199.Khoo N. Deconstructing the ASEAN security community: A review essay // International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2004. No. 4 (1). P. 35–46.Khoo N. 2004. Deconstructing the ASEAN security community: A review essay. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 35–46.Khoo N. Is realism dead? Academic myths and Asia’s international politics // Orbis. 2014. No. 58 (2). P. 182–197.Khoo N. 2014. Is realism dead? Academic myths and Asia’s international politics. Orbis, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 182–197.Leifer M. Regional solutions to regional problems? // Towards recovery in Pacific Asia / Ed. by G. Segal, D.S.G. Goodman. London; New York: Routledge, 2000. P. 108–118.Leifer M. 2000. Regional solutions to regional problems? In Segal G., Goodman D.S.G. (eds.). Towards recovery in Pacific Asia. London, New York, Routledge, pp. 108–118.Natalegawa M. The expansion of ASEAN and the changing dynamics of Southeast Asia // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 232–239.Natalegawa M. 2017. The expansion of ASEAN and the changing dynamics of Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 232–239.Peou S. Realism and constructivism in Southeast Asian security studies today: A review essay // The Pacific Review. 2002. No. 15. P. 119–138.Peou S. 2002. Realism and constructivism in Southeast Asian security studies today: A review essay. The Pacific Review, vol. 15, pp. 119–138.Snyder J. One world, rival theories // Foreign Policy. 2004. No. 145. P. 52–62.Snyder J. 2004. One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy, no. 145, pp. 52–62.Stein J.G. Detection and defection: Security ‘regimes’ and the management of international conflict // International Journal. 1985. No. 40. P. 599–627.Stein J.G. 1985. Detection and defection: Security ‘regimes’ and the management of international conflict. International Journal, vol. 40, pp. 599–627.Tan S.S. A tale of two institutions: The ARF, ADMM-Plus, and security regionalism in the Asia Pacific // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 259–265.Tan S.S. 2017. A tale of two institutions: The ARF, ADMM-Plus, and security regionalism in the Asia Pacific. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 259–265.Walt M. International relations: One world, many theories // Foreign Policy. 1998. No. 110. P. 34–46.Walt M. 1998. International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, no. 110, pp. 34–46.Weatherbee D.E. International relations of Southeast Asia: The struggle for autonomy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009.Weatherbee D.E. 2009. International relations of Southeast Asia: The struggle for autonomy. Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Wendt A. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics // International Organization. 1992. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 391–425.Wendt A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 391–425.Woon W. The ASEAN Charter ten years on // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2017. No. 39 (2). P. 245–252.Woon W. 2017. The ASEAN Charter ten years on. Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 245–252.

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