The nation-states that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are widely described to be peaceful in their relations with each other, so much so that scholars have referred to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ “long peace.” While it is true that war eludes the region, interstate militarized disputes remain a persistent feature. How can we account for the absence of war between Association of Southeast Asian Nations members in light of persistent militarized disputes? To address this question, this article builds on the emerging International Relations literature on habits and practice in interstate relations. I develop a framework centred on the habitual dispositions of communities of practitioners that focuses on the unreflexive cognitive and behavioural qualities of regional relations. These “habits of peace” circumscribe thinking and behaviour among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ state practitioners. Specifically, they have led to a toleration of limited violence among Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states. After tracing the existence of these habitual qualities of relations, I demonstrate their effects on regional crisis response, which makes possible community building and maintenance alongside considerable levels of interstate violence. I explore this through an in-depth analysis of the regional response to the 2011 Preah Vihear crisis between Cambodia and Thailand.
AcharyaA (1998) Collective identity and conflict management in Southeast Asia. In: Emanuel AdlerEBarnettM (eds) Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–227.
2.
AcharyaA (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization58(2): 239–275.
3.
AcharyaA (2014) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
4.
AdlerE (1997) Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations3(3): 319–363.
5.
AdlerE (2008) The spread of security communities: Communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-Cold War transformation. European Journal of International Relations14(2): 195–230.
6.
AdlerEBarnettM (eds) (1998) Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
AdlerEPouliotV (2011) International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Adler-NissenRPouliotV (2014) Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in Libya. European Journal of International Relations20(4): 889–911.
9.
AlmoteJT (1997/1998) Ensuring security the “ASEAN way.”Survival39(4): 80–92.
10.
“ASEAN Secretary-General Cites Progress in Thai-Cambodian Resolution,” Jakarta Post, May5, 2011.
11.
AxelrodR (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review80(4): 1095–1111.
12.
BaAD (2006) Who is socializing whom?The Pacific Review19(2): 157–179.
13.
BaAD (2009) (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
BaAD (2013) The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Between internal and external legitimacy. In: ZaumD (ed.) Legitimating International Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–161.
15.
BeesonM (2009) Institutions of the Asia Pacific: ASEAN, APEC and Beyond. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
BernsteinS (2001) The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.
17.
BertucciME (2014) Habits and policy: The socio-cognitive foundations of foreign policy stability. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, USA.
18.
BourdieuPWacquantLJD (1992) The purpose of reflexive sociology (the Chicago workshop). In: BourdieuPWacquantLD (eds) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–215.
CamicC (1986) A matter of habit. American Journal of Sociology91(5): 1039–1089.
21.
ChachavalpongpunP (2013) Thai–Cambodian conflict: The failure of ASEAN’s dispute settlement mechanisms. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding1(1): 65–86.
22.
CheckelJT (2005) International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization59(4): 801–826.
23.
CheckelJT (2014) Socialization ain’t always nice: Order, disorder and violence in the post-Cold War world. Paper presented at the workshop on “Socialization and Organized Political Violence,”Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies, Yale University, USA, October.
24.
CollinsA (2013) Building a People-Oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
CollinsA (2014) Bringing communities back: Security communities and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ plural turn. Cooperation and Conflict49(2): 276–291.
26.
CrossleyN (2013) Habit and habitus. Body and Society19(2/3): 136–161.
27.
FinnemoreM (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
FinnemoreMSikkinkK (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52(4): 887–917.
29.
FredricksonT (2011) Claim and counterclaim. Bangkok Post, 8February.
30.
FredricksonT (2012) Troops leave Preah Vihear area. Bangkok Post, 19July.
31.
FujiiLA (forthcoming) Relational Interviewing: An Interpretive Approach to Social Science Research. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
GuerinB (2005) Sulawesi Sea row dredges up defenses. Asia Times, 9March.
33.
HaackeJ (2003) ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture. New York, NY: RoutledgeCurzon.
34.
HarrisS (2000) Asian multilateral institutions and their response to the Asian economic crisis: The regional and global implications. The Pacific Review13(3): 495–516.
35.
HayesJ (2013) Constructing National Security: U.S. Relations with India and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HoffmannMJ (2005) What’s global about global governance? A constructivist account. In: BaADHoffmannMJ (eds) Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, Contestation and World Order. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 110–128.
37.
HopfT (2002) Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
HopfT (2010) The logic of habit in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations16(4): 539–561.
39.
International Crisis Group (2011) Waging peace: ASEAN and the Thai–Cambodian border conflict. Asia Report no. 215, 6December.
40.
JacksonR (2005) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
JohnstonAI (2001) Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly45: 487–515.
42.
JonesDMSmithMLR (2007) Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian Regional Order. International Security32(1): 148–184.
43.
KacowiczAM (1998) Zones of Peace in the Third World: South America and West Africa in Comparative Perspective. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
44.
KahnemanD (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58(9): 697–720.
45.
KatsumataH (2006) Establishment of the ASEAN regional forum: Constructing a “talking shop” or a “norm brewery”?The Pacific Review19(2): 181–198.
46.
KivimakiT (2001) The long peace of ASEAN. Journal of Peace Research38(1): 5–25.
47.
KivimakiT (2008) Power, interest or culture — is there a paradigm that explains ASEAN’s political role best?The Pacific Review21(4): 431–450.
48.
KoesnaidiJWShalmontJFransiscaYet al (2014) For a more effective and competitive ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism. World Trade Institute, 1July.
49.
LevyJS (1998) The causes of war and the conditions of peace. Annual Review of Political Science1(1): 139–165.
50.
LittleR (2011) Britain’s response to the Spanish Civil War: Investigating the implications of foregrounding practice for English School thinking. In: AdlerEPouliotV (eds) International Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–199.
51.
McBethJ (2012) Fighting leopards or white elephants?Jakarta Globe, 26January.
52.
MarchJGOlsonJP (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York, NY: Free Press.
53.
MitzenJ (2006) Ontological security in world politics. European Journal of International Relations12(3): 341–370.
54.
NeumannIB (2002) Returning practice to the linguistic turn. Millennium31(3): 627–651.
55.
NeumannIB (2007) “A speech that the entire ministry may stand for,” or: Why diplomats never produce anything new. International Political Sociology1(2): 183–200.
56.
OnealJRRussettB (1999) The Kantian peace: The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. World Politics52(1): 1–37.
57.
PalmerGD’OrazioVKenwickMet al (2015) The MID4 data set: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
58.
PouliotV (2008) The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization62(2): 257–288.
59.
PouliotV (2010) International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO–Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
PouliotV (2011) Diplomats as permanent representatives: The practical logics of the multilateral pecking order. International Journal66(3): 543–561.
61.
PouliotV (2012) Regional security practices and Russian–Atlantic relations. In: PaulTV (ed.) International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 210–229.
62.
PouliotV (2014) Practice tracing. In: BennettAJeffreyTC (eds) Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–259.
63.
RattanaseveeP (2014) Leadership in ASEAN: The role of Indonesia reconsidered. Asian Journal of Political Science22(3): 113–127.
64.
SchatzE (ed.) (2009) Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
65.
SendingOJ (2002) Constitution, choice and change: Problems with the “logic of appropriateness” and its use in constructivist theory. European Journal of International Relations8(4): 443–470.
66.
SothirakP (2013) Cambodia’s border conflict with Thailand. Southeast Asian Affairs, 87–100.
67.
ThompsonS (2015) Leadership and dependency: Indonesia’s regional and global role, 1945–1975. In: RobertsCBHabirADSebastianLC (eds) Indonesia’s Ascent: Power, Leadership, and the Regional Order. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 22–39.
68.
TorbatiYLeongT (2015) ASEAN defence chiefs fail to agree on South China Sea statement. Reuters, 4November.
69.
VerplakenB (2010) Habit: From overt action to mental events. In: AgnewCRCarlstonDEGrazianoWGet al. (eds) Then A Miracle Occurs: Focusing Behavior in Social Psychological Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 68–88.
70.
WainB (2012) Latent danger: Boundary disputes and border issues. Southeast Asian Affairs, 38–60.
71.
WeinerA (2009) Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies35(1): 175–193.
72.
WilliamsMC (2007) Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of National Security. New York, NY: Routledge.
73.
WomackB (2008) China as a normative foreign policy actor. In: TocciN (ed.) Who is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Community and its Global Partners. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, pp. 265–299.
