Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates disaster management in Southeast Asia by examining the institutional dynamics between two regional international organizations (IOs): the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC). It analyzes the drivers and consequences of their overlap, which emerged from ASEAN’s expansion into disaster management via a formal agreement—the AADMER—and the creation of an operational arm—the AHA Centre—to carry it out. The analysis reveals substantial overlap in policy scope and governance functions, with more modest yet meaningful overlap in membership and funding. However, this overlap declined in the 2010s as the ADPC began to reorient its mandate and objectives. We theorize that ASEAN member states were prompted to create a formal regional disaster relief mechanism in response to increasingly frequent and costly disasters. Rather than relying on the ADPC, they opted to strengthen ASEAN’s institutional role due to its greater authority and member states’ like-mindedness. We further argue that the ADPC’s institutional misfit—rather than ideological or normative divergence—resulted in differentiation, coordination, and collaboration. Empirical findings support these claims, demonstrating how institutional design and strategic considerations shape IO overlap and its consequences in the disaster relief regime complex.

Keywords

regime complexity disaster relief ASEAN international organizations ADPC

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ASEAN . Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response.

Acharya

(2009). Constructing a security community in southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge.

ADPC . (2010). ADPC activity report 2005-2010. ADPC.

ADPC . (2011). 2011 ADPC annual report. ADPC.

ADPC . (2021). 2021-2022 ADPC annual report. In: Agreement on the establishment of the ASEAN Co-ordinating Centre for humanitarian assistance on disaster management. ADPC.

AHA Centre Annual Report . (2021). AHA centre annual report. AHA.

AHA Centre Annual Report . (2022). AHA Centre annual report. AHA.

Alles

(2012). Depoliticizing natural disasters to enhance human security in a sovereignty-based context: Lessons from Aceh (2004) to Yangon (2008). In Teh Cheng Guan

(Ed.), Human security: Securing East Asia's future (pp. 157–172): Springer.

Alter

K. J.

Meunier

(2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592709090033

10.

Alter

K. J.

Raustiala

(2018). The rise of international regime complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 14, 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830

11.

ASEAN . (2009). ASEAN disaster management agreement to enter into force by end of 2009. ASEAN Secretariat. 16 September 2009 [Press release]. Retrieved from. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/asean-disaster-management-agreement-enter-force-end-2009-asean-secretariat-16-september

12.

Auzzir

Z. A.

Haigh

R. P.

Amaratunga

(2014). Public-private partnerships (PPP) in disaster management in developing countries: A conceptual framework. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)01006-5

13.

Baharudin

(2025). How Asean’s humanitarian centre played a vital role after Myanmar earthquake. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/how-aseans-humanitarian-centre-played-a-vital-role-after-myanmar-earthquake?utm_source=chatgpt.com

14.

Balcik

Beamon

B. M.

Krejci

C. C.

Muramatsu

K. M.

Ramirez

(2010). Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.09.008

15.

Barnett

Walker

(2015). Regime change for humanitarian aid. Foreign Affairs, 94, 130–141. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483824.

16.

Bayram

A. B.

Graham

E. R.

(2017). Financing the United Nations: Explaining variation in how donors provide funding to the UN. Review of International Organizations, 12(3), 421–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-016-9261-0

17.

Bellamy

A. J.

Drummond

(2011). The responsibility to protect in Southeast Asia: Between non-interference and sovereignty as responsibility. The Pacific Review, 24(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2011.560958

18.

Birkland

T. A.

(2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Georgetown University Press.

19.

Brattberg

Rhinard

(2013). Actorness and effectiveness in international disaster relief: The European Union and United States in comparative perspective. International Relations, 27(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117813497298

20.

Chandra

Shaela

Clarissa

(2016). What role does the private sector have in supporting disaster recovery, and what challenges does it face in doing so? Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

21.

Coe

Spandler

(2022). Beyond effectiveness: The political functions of Asean’s disaster governance. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 28(3), 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803002

22.

Cook

A. D. B.

Chen

(2022). Disaster governance and prospects of inter-regional partnership in the Asia-Pacific. The Pacific Review, 35(3), 446–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1841823

23.

Cook

A. D. B.

Jonatan

Caballero-Anthony

(2026). Missing targets: Reforming disaster policy in Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 19(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2448036

24.

CRED-UNDRR . (2020). The human cost of disasters: An overview of the last 20 years (2000-2019). Retrieved from. https://www.undrr.org/publication/human-cost-disasters-overview-last-20-years-2000-2019

25.

Crocco

O. S.

Tkachenko

(2020). Regional human resource development: The case of Southeast Asia and ASEAN. Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1858261

26.

Davis

C. L.

(2009). Overlapping institutions in trade Policy. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592709090045. Retrieved from. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40407210

27.

Delforge

Wathelet

Below

Sofia

C. L.

Tonnelier

van Loenhout J. A. Speybroeck

(2025). EM-DAT: the emergency events database. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105509

28.

di Floristella

A. P.

(2016). Dealing with natural disasters. The Pacific Review, 29(2), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498

29.

Drezner

D. W.

(2009). The power and peril of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090100

30.

Egger

Schopper

(2022). Organizations involved in humanitarian action: Introducing a new dataset. International Studies Quarterly, 66(2), sqac009. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac009

31.

Eilstrup-Sangiovanni

Westerwinter

(2022). The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09449-7

32.

Fan

Krebs

H. B.

(2014). Regional organisations and humanitarian action: The case of ASEAN. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

33.

Faude

Fuss

(2020). Coordination or conflict? The causes and consequences of institutional overlap in a disaggregated world order. Global Constitutionalism, 9(2), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000376

34.

Fikar

Gronalt

Hirsch

(2016). A decision support system for coordinated disaster relief distribution. Expert Systems with Applications, 57, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.039

35.

Gehring

Faude

(2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01901010. Retrieved from.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24526245

36.

Ghosh

Chatterjee

Shaw

(2025). Disaster management law and agreement in ASEAN. In Cui

Shaw

(Eds.), Disaster law: Implications to governance and implementation (pp. 37–54): Springer Nature Singapore.

37.

Gómez

(2021). Localisation or deglobalisation? East Asia and the dismantling of liberal humanitarianism. Third World Quarterly, 42(6), 1347–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1890994

38.

Gray

(2018). Life, death, or zombie? The vitality of international organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx086

39.

Haftel

Y. Z.

(2012). Regional Economic Institutions and Conflict Mitigation: Design, Implementation, and the Promise of Peace. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

40.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Hofmann

S. C.

(2017). Institutional authority and security cooperation within regional economic organizations. Journal of Peace Research, 54(4), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316675908

41.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Hofmann

S. C.

(2019). Rivalry and overlap: Why regional economic organizations encroach on security organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(9), 2180–2206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002719832057

42.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Hofmann

S. C.

(2025). Under cover: Substituting formal IOs during hard times. Ethics & International Affairs, 39(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679425100117

43.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Lenz

(2022). Measuring institutional overlap in global governance. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09415-3

44.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Lukin

(forthcoming). Weathering the storm? Adaptation and maladaptation in the evolution of the disaster relief regime complex. Global Studies Quarterly.

45.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Nadel

(2024). Economic crises and the survival of international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 19(4), 665–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09549-0

46.

Haftel

Y. Z.

Wajner

D. F.

Eran

(2020). The short and long (er) of it: The effect of hard times on regional institutionalization. International Studies Quarterly, 64(4), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaa057

47.

Henning

R. C.

(2011).Asian Development Bank Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration. In Economic crises and institutions for regional economic cooperation (81): Asian Development Bank.

48.

Henning

R. C.

(2019). Regime complexity and the institutions of crisis and development finance. Development and Change, 50(1), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12472

49.

Henning

R. C.

Pratt

(2023). Hierarchy and differentiation in international regime complexes: A theoretical framework for comparative research. Review of International Political Economy, 30(6), 2178–2205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2023.2259424

50.

Hofmann

S. C.

(2009). Overlapping institutions in the realm of international security: The case of NATO and ESDP. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090070

51.

Hofmann

S. C.

(2019). The politics of overlapping organizations: Hostage-taking, forum-shopping and brokering. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(6), 883–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1512644

52.

Hooghe

Lenz

Marks

(2019). A theory of international organization. Oxford University Press.

53.

Hooghe

Marks

Lenz

Bezuijen

Ceka

Derderyan

(2017) Measuring international authority: a postfunctionalist theory of governance (III): OUP.

54.

Htein

M. K.

Lim

Zaw

T. N.

(2018). The evolution of collaborative networks towards more polycentric disaster responses between the 2015 and 2016 Myanmar floods. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 964–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.08.003

55.

Josepha Debre

Dijkstra

(2021). COVID-19 and Policy responses by international organizations: Crisis of liberal international order or window of opportunity? Global Policy, 12(4), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12975

56.

Jupille

Mattli

Snidal

(2013). Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge University Press.

57.

Lassa

J. A.

(2017). Understanding gaps and opportunities in ASEAN humanitarian systems. Retrieved from. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05944.4

58.

Müller

L. M.

(2023). The involved networker: Agency by the ASEAN secretariat in the ASEAN economic community. In: In the shadow of the member States: Policy-making agency by the ASEAN secretariat and dialogue partners (pp. 77–101): Springer Nature Singapore.

59.

Naldi

G. J.

(2014). The ASEAN protocol on dispute settlement mechanisms: An appraisal. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 5(1), 105–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idt031

60.

Nesadurai

H. E. S.

(2009). ASEAN and regional governance after the cold war: From regional order to regional community? The Pacific Review, 22(1), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740802651169

61.

Nguyen

L. A.

Crocco

O. S.

Tkachenko

Jonathan

(2022). Crisis leadership during COVID-19: The response of ASEAN and EU regional leaders. Human Resource Development International, 25(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2071096

62.

Panke

Stapel

(2023). Overlapping regionalism around the world: Introducing the overlapping regionalism dataset. International Area Studies Review, 26(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659231194943

63.

Papp

(2023). An analysis of ASEAN’s cyclone nargis 2008 disaster diplomacy. Asian International Studies Review, 24(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1163/2667078x-bja10024

64.

Pevehouse

J. C.

Nordstrom

McManus

R. W.

Jamison

A. S.

(2020). Tracking organizations in the world: The correlates of war IGO version 3.0 datasets. Journal of Peace Research, 57(3), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319881175

65.

Pratt

(2018). Deference and hierarchy in international regime complexes. International Organization, 72(3), 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000164

66.

Raustiala

Victor

D. G.

(2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818304582036

67.

Reinsberg

Heinzel

Siauwijaya

(2024). Tracking earmarked funding to international organizations: Introducing the earmarked funding dataset. The Review of International Organizations, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09548-1

68.

Reinsberg

Westerwinter

(2023). Institutional overlap in global governance and the design of intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 18(4), 693–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-023-09488-2

69.

Rum

(2018). The two-level games of developing ASEAN disaster management cooperation. In 50 Years of Amity and Enmity: The Politics of ASEAN Cooperation, edited by Winanti, P. S., & Rum, M. UGM Press, (pp. 27–57). UGM Press.

70.

Seybolt

T. B.

(2009). Harmonizing the humanitarian aid network: Adaptive change in a complex system. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1027–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00567.x

71.

Shaw

Cui

(2025). Disaster law: An overview on its history, potentials and challenges. In Cui

Shaw

(Eds.), Disaster law: Implications to governance and implementation (pp. 1–14): Springer Nature Singapore.

72.

Shokr

Jolai

Bozorgi-Amiri

(2021). A novel humanitarian and private sector relief chain network design model for disaster response. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 65(2), 102522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102522

73.

Simm

(2018). Disaster response in Southeast Asia: The ASEAN agreement on disaster response and emergency management. Asian Journal of International Law, 8(1), 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251316000205

74.

Spandler

(2022). Saving people or saving face? Four narratives of regional humanitarian order in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 35(1), 172–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1833079

75.

Stubbs

(2019). ASEAN sceptics versus ASEAN proponents: Evaluating regional institutions. The Pacific Review, 32(6), 923–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1611627

76.

Suzuki

(2021). Interfering via ASEAN? In the case of disaster management. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40(3), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034211016865

77.

Syaban

Bisri

M. B. F.

(2022). The role of institutional vulnerability in the adoption of ASEAN agreement on disaster management and emergency response (AADMER) at local level. In Mardiah

A. N. R.

Olshansky

R. B.

Bisri

M. B. F.

(Eds.), Post-disaster governance in Southeast Asia: Response, recovery, and resilient societies (pp. 145–171): Springer Singapore.

78.

Toyasaki

Arikan

Silbermayr

Falagara Sigala

(2017). Disaster relief inventory management: Horizontal cooperation between humanitarian organizations. Production and Operations Management, 26(6), 1221–1237. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12661

79.

Trias

A. P. L.

Lassa

Surjan

(2019). Connecting the actors, discovering the ties: Exploring disaster risk governance network in Asia and the Pacific. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.007

80.

UNDRR . (2021a). ADPC and UNDRR sign a statement of cooperation to promote climate and disaster resilience [Press release]. Retrieved from. https://www.undrr.org/news/adpc-and-undrr-sign-statement-cooperation-promote-climate-and-disaster-resilience

81.

UNFCCC . (2018). Asian disaster preparedness Center. Retrieved from. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/adpc.pdf

82.

UNISDR Asia and Pacific . (2011). At the crossroads climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Asia and the Pacific: A review of the region’s institutional and Policy landscape. UNISDR.

83.

Van Aalst

M. K.

(2006). The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters. Disasters, 30(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00303.x

84.

von Borzyskowski

Vabulas

(2023). When do withdrawal threats achieve reform in international organizations? Global Perspectives, 4(1), 67826. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.67826

85.

Webber

(2001). Two funerals and a wedding? The ups and downs of regionalism in East Asia and Asia-Pacific after the Asian crisis. The Pacific Review, 14(3), 339–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740110064839

Institutional Overlap in the Disaster Relief Regime Complex: The Case of ASEAN and the ADPC

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References