Human Rights, ASEAN and Constructivism

Dilip Bhattarai (4185934)

Webster University, Thailand Campus, Bangkok

INTL 5605 Topics in Comparative Politics

Prof. Dr. Robin Ramcharan

10 May 2020
 Human Rights, ASEAN and Constructivism

Abstract

“ASEAN” is navigating almost at the concluding phase of its 6 th decade since its
inception; but intellectuals from all over the world are still debating about its practical
importance. During the current times, this organization has been both wondered and
critiqued at the same time. The first reason for letting the world amazed of being
unpredictably invulnerable to the international financial slump, and after that the organization
proved collapsed to attain enough cooperation among the member-countries. This careless
but poor performance directly infringed the basic human rights in the fellow states. On the
other hand, with respect to the concern of human rights, International Relations approach has
long questioned ASEAN’s restrained accomplishments but most of the customary IR
thoughts are prone to contest the nature or level of its attainments regardless of explicating it.
This is a proven fact that ASEAN is a demanding regional association to hypothesize as the
normal prerequisites and collaborative machineries in order to strengthen the enforcement of
basic human rights are either absent or practically feeble enough to produce productive
output. It has been observed that the ideology which has been supported by the
Constructivists has not been followed by ASEAN in terms of creating feasible ambiance for
Human Rights.

Key Words: Human Rights, ASEAN, Constructivism,

Introduction

The term of “Human rights” has developed firmly confused practically and in the
arena of the international relations studies. The stance of prevalent international relations
theories about explaining human rights is quite multidimensional. Moreover, their main
assertions unfold credible opinions, signifying an apprehensive juxtaposition of state
dominance with thoughts of a general ethical mandate.

The omnipresence of human rights in present-day discussions regarding international

affairs delivers a mysterious portrayal to the academic circles functioning in the domains of
international relations. Quite ironically, in this geopolitical realm of transnational community
which has been subjugated by states’ entitlements to exceptional power in their dominion,
human rights can be observed as a notion of tactful fiction. Human Rights are observed with
a different angle from the perspective of constructivism (Duxbury & Tan, 2019).
1
 Keeping in consideration the dilemma of Human Rights in ASEAN’s perspective, the
standpoint of constructivists appears more reasonable and practical. In the domain of
international associations among the countries, the theory of constructivism asserts that
substantial characteristics of international bonding are socially fabricated, instead of expected
significances of basic human nature or related vital features of international politics. The
dynamics of Constructivism mainly seek to establish that transnational associations are not
only influenced through power politics, but human ideas do affect these relations. As per the
ideology of constructivism, the cardinal arrangements and basic settings of global politics are
social in nature instead of purely substantial. Keeping in consideration the concern of human
rights, this point of Constructivism theory urges the constructivists to hold this claim that
positive and concrete modification in the overall structure of communal collaboration
between ASEAN states can take a positive leap in the direction of even intense international
safety.

As far as Human Rights are concerned, this issue has never been an overlooked
matter for ASEAN in terms of taking mere initiatives. On the 18 th of November in 2012,
associate countries of ASEAN while taking a memorable step of delivering an “ASEAN
Declaration of Human Rights”. This statement is only a compilation of those prospective
steps which have asserted the obligation of the members of ASEAN to basic human rights
to be protected in the region.

The core concern behind this commitment by ASEAN was to outline their own
regional mechanism to secure human rights in the associate co untries. The ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) finally established this scheme
during October in 2009. The mutual progress towards achieving the objectives of this
Charter has amazed the perceivers all over the world. The overall performance of ASEAN
collectively was quite dynamical and its members individually appeared quite active in the
purported Asian values deliberation during the initial phase of 90’s in which ASEAN
endorsed a relativist stance on the concern of human rights, stressing on financial growth to
while impairing political and civil rights (Bui, 2016).

Furthermore, ASEAN’s former statutory documentation has not cited any attention
towards democracy or even human rights. On the other hand, the modern strategy adopted
by ASEAN also appears to deteriorate to endorse the theory of constructivism and
constructivist enlightenments of the organization of ASEAN as a regional establishment.

2
The current trend followed by ASEAN towards human rights is quite different. These days,
the emphasis is on the implanted standards of non-interference, state dominance, and non -
involvement into official matters. This policy is totally different from the practices of
organization which were the salient guidelines of the Charter that was truly based on
constructivist ideology. ASEAN after changing its strategic stance on the concern of human
rights has disregarded the underlying philosophy of constructivist doctrines (Jetschke,
2015).

Research Question

The concept of peaceful and harmonized international set up is utterly incomplete

without the practical glimpse of proper implementation of human rights in this modern world.
ASEAN being a perceptible transnational entity is expected to follow the inclination of
mutual interaction among the public and their involvement in national affairs. But
circumstances are appearing quite diverse to the anticipated practices. This research is based
on finding and elaborating the answer of following query:

RQ 1: “Is ASEAN adopting a divergent approach towards Human Rights as purported by

the Constructivist Ideology?” or

RQ 2: Is the Stance embraced by ASEAN on the concern of Human Rights justified by

Constructivist Creed?”

Research Objectives

Acknowledging the seriousness of the subject-matter in discussion and its practical

legitimacy in related globally intense issues, the primary intents to conduct this examination
is to deeply but precisely scrutinize the research question through the sight of a learner and
present the findings of this research for the reader to actually understand the solemnity of this
matter on international scale. The core goals behind this research are:

• To understand the importance of Human Rights for ASEAN associated states,

• To examine the current situation about Human Rights prevailing in ASEAN countries,
• To explore the need of Constructivist approach towards Human Rights in ASEAN
perspective,
• To highlight how ASEAN’s about-turn on Human Right’s issue from constructivist
philosophy can be detrimental for regional stability.

3
Hypothesis

“A Constructivist approach adopted by ASEAN on the concern of Human Rights in the

associated states can get favorable outcomes for mutual understanding regional and
stability”

Literature Review

The initiatory step to institute the forum of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations or generally known as “ASEAN” was taken by 10 national heads in 2003 at Bali
Summit which was held in Indonesia. Since that time, the conception of building a concerto
among nations in ASEAN became globally known concern that has considerably attracted
several intellectuals and academics across the globe. These scholars have expressed their
viewpoints about the pledges and practical efforts taken by the associate members of ASEAN
so far. A variety of literature has been written and printed that has highlighted the functional
worth of ASEAN towards securing the basic human rights in the region. In this regard,
different writers have expressed their mixed views and reviews linking the theoretical
influence of constructivism on human rights in the perspective of ASEAN regime.

It is quite difficult to discuss the entire range of literature about the topic here but only
few of them have been quoted here while examining their contents in the light of the topic in
discussion.

Raju his work has pointed out the nature of the role which ASEAN is playing in the
region to augment territorial peace, progress, and transnational solidity in the Southeast Asia .
The book has been written in an understandable approach. The entire content of the work
contains a detailed examination of the present situation of the area and a concise but
sagacious synopsis of the prospective track of ASEAN as well. The basic concern which has
been highlighted by the writer in the book is the issue of unresolved dilemma of human rights
that is a prevalent problem in some of the ASEAN member states. Even during the 5 th decade
after its inception, the problem of poor human rights in the region is an alarming tragedy.
With strong references, scholarly debates, and available facts and figures, the writer has
attempted his best to spotlight the subject in argumentative style. Moreover, the writer has
mentioned that ASEAN's exterior and financial associations with other states like China,
Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, and the European Union are a
positive step to strengthen the international relations but if the issue of negligence in

4
providing the basic human rights to the regional public is unresolved, a dream of permanent
peace and prosperity in the region cannot be fulfilled (Raju, 2019).

This fact cannot be denied that the discussion about a gigantic gulf between
theoretical outline of constructivism and its practical implementation in overall international
affairs has been overlooked by most of the intellectuals and writers. The journal article
written by Rosyidin has targeted to scrutinize the status of constructivist consideration in the
outline of ASEAN’s policy design about human rights. Though the writer has underlined the
current situation of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar; yet the approach of the paper is to
ridicule the feeble position of ASEAN. The Rohingya issue is just an open glimpse about
how ASEAN states are dealing with their regional issues. Quite different from other writers
like Hashimoto, Farhan, and Samonova who have also referenced the positive aspect
financial prosperity through mutual collaboration, Rosyidin has bluntly expressed that
without concrete human rights assurance, any industrial progress means nothing. ASEAN’s
feeble part in resolving Rohingya issue in Myanmar has actually urged the people across the
globe to raise a voice of condemnation on the operational efficiency of ASEAN in solving the
territorial issues (Rosyidin, 2017).

Regardless of the fact that a variety of several human rights statutory regulations have
been associated with ASEAN, for instance as the ASEAN Charter, AICHR, and ASEAN
Declaration of Human Rights, but no concrete step has been taken ever to mediate in an
attempt to solve the contingency of Rohingya people. On the other hand, the findings of the
writer offer potential positive participation of constructivism in identifying and offering
strategic proposals for ASEAN to disentangle the issue. Rosyidin has raised a very interesting
point by asserting the constructivists’ perspective that ASEAN remained unable to play any
positive part through its effective intervention because mutual identity among the states was
still missing. Consequently, institutional obligation stayed reluctant to play its pivotal part in
the direction of solving the worst dilemma of human rights in the region and ASEAN could
not take any collective action in this sensitive international matter. In the concluding words of
this article, Rosyidin has pointed out that better results can be obtained through practical
application of constructivists’ theology because the functional norms which constructivism
suggest can offer strong policy measures while signifying that all associate countries of
ASEAN should prioritize to the procedure of painting a vibrant picture of mutual
individuality before designing any organizational arrangement.

5
 According to Poole, the area of Southeast Asia is a huge, well-populated and
culturally assorted territory of the world. Discussing about the subject-matter, the writer has
observed that ASEAN is alleged to endorse human rights and democracy as a pivotal concern
to territorial collaboration and peaceful regional order, but at the same time most associated
countries lack democratic norms and hold questionable records about human rights. Through
the book, the writer appears to examine how the theme of constructivism has been
overlooked by ASEAN and why Southeast Asian states have mutually implemented the
eloquence of human rights, peace, equality, democracy, and rule of law. Poole has argued
that these member states are enthused by their own matters of concern regarding their
external territorial rightfulness (Poole, Democracy, Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia,
2019).

Quite supporting the point of view of Rosyidin, Poole has critically analyzed
ASEAN’s position towards egalitarianism and the truth about relapsing of human rights in its
member states. The book reveals the truth about ASEAN and its overall hollow performance
in the direction of human rights assurance for the oppressed Southeastern people. Precisely
speaking the book discloses the gulf between political realities prevailing in ASEAN states
and the alleged rhetoric.

The literary effort executed by Gomez and Ramcharan examines the plight of human
rights in the region of Southeast Asia. The style and content of the book holds a different
approach while discussing the dreadful circumstances of the region. Thorough analysis th e
content of the book questions the reader; can ASEAN vanquish its operational and theoretical
flaws and deliver fortification with all remedial measures to the sufferers of human rights
exploitations? The writer has adopted a practical approach while writing the textual facts
about the situation. Instead of stressing on the hazardous circumstances and eye-opening facts
and figures, the writer has attempted to assess the functional capacity of ASEAN to add
something valuable for the promising future of human rights in the region.

The writers have noted that the forums of AICHR and UPR can be helpful to resolve
the situation if their limitations are relaxed. The writers propose that through unconditional
practical application of constructivist’s thoughts, harmonized territorial limitations, and
mutual strength adopted by all member states, basic human rights in the region can be
secured and guaranteed. The book offers a comprehensive thought to understand the

6
difference between theoretical sketch and practical approach assumed by ASEAN (Gomez &
Ramcharan, 2020).

Through her book, Human Rights and Participatory Politics in Southeast Asia , the
writer Catherine Renshaw has examined an extraordinary span of circumstances related to
human rights in Southeast Asia. The writer has scrutinized the entire spell of that institution -
building phase since. While examining ASEAN, Renshaw appears to put a question on the
reader and delivers a thought-provoking point how human rights can be guaranteed and
safeguarded in those states where the supportive political thoughts are quite diverse and anti-
democracy. For instance, Laos and Vietnam are Communist countries; Myanmar is
undergoing through a transitional phase from a military domination to democracy yet the
roots of democracy have not deepened enough; Indonesia and the Philippines are
conventional multiparty democracies; whereas the political orientation of other member states
of ASEAN is still not that defined.

Renshaw through her book has cautioned that the position of ASEAN is quite
restricted in terms of its operational ability to steer the actions of its associates since the
adherence to democratic value is missing. Though she has acknowledged the most substantial
practical development in promoting human rights has appeared from a regional organization
such as the ASEAN yet the associated states have a long way to go in order to attain the real
objectives of the organization (Renshaw, 2019).

The writer has observed that a serious difference is still here between the West and
Southeast Asian region about the application of basic human rights. And this reality cannot
be denied that in the perspective of these assorted terrestrial, political and traditional milieus,
the concern of human rights appears to have developed relatively thoughtful. In this book the
writer seeks to question this deadlock. This assertion made by Renshaw is valid that the
inclusion of ASEAN in human rights treaties of United Nations can play a pivotal role to
minimize the gulf between West and East. The research conducted by Renshaw offers an
insightful investigation into this ardently discussed international issue.

Almost every writer whose work has been examined for the purpose of this literature
review has expressed same thoughts on the plight of human rights in ASEAN related states.
Though the gap in the literature about the topic seems inconsistent because the issue of
human rights stayed alive throughout the history and the intellectuals have expressed their
concerns about the issue frequently. As far as the applicability of constructivists thoughts

7
about the problem are concerned, an appreciable number of writers like Bui, Poole, and Hara
have also supported the standards of constructivists’ theology in the perspective of ASEAN’s
issue of poor implementation of human rights. In short, mutual community level
collaboration among all the member states, practice on strengthened democratic values , and
active global involvement in the direction of securing human rights in the region are the best
solution to this transnational issue (Hara, 2019).

Research Design &Methodology

With a view to carry out this qualitative research-oriented exploration, the strategy of
secondary study has been observed. The method of secondary research involves the scrutiny
of all those authentic and reliable data that have previously been compiled and debated and
are easily accessible for learning and reading. In order to outline this research in a proper
manner, an approachable, reliable and genuine way has been followed. The secondary
research method based on its feasibility, genuineness, hypothetical worth and instantaneous
access cannot be overlooked.

Data Sources

The technique of secondary research presents a variety of analytical and critical

thoughts regarding the subject-matter and this process of research proves helpful to track
substantial research-based opinions. The researcher is prone to develop an analytical
approach to perceive things and finally concludes to discern the discussion on a rational way.
Furthermore, the approach of secondary research is fast, informal and embraces provocative
mood. In order to meet the requirements of this study, academically authentic data which is
approachable through online have been consulted and referenced. While easing the process of
research, well-researched authentic books, peer reviewed journal articles and related
academic sources have been accessed.

Consultation of up-to-the-mark academically reputed sources has added a great help

while sketching out the whole text of this study and eventually made it a worth-reading
manuscript. This fact cannot be denied that in the domain of social sciences research, the
secondary research approach complements the research effort with balance, neutrality,
objectivity and transparency while evaluating the whole discussion.

8
Inclusion Criteria of the research: For this research, peer-reviewed journal articles
and scholarly inscribed veritable books with
hypothetical validity have been browsed.

Exclusion Criteria of the research: Biased opinions, influenced thoughts, rational

reviews, and assessments by journalists’ reports
and erratic current affairs discussions have been
disregarded for consideration.

Search Strategy

As easy and straight to the point approach does not only add academic excellence to
any research study but this technique also makes the entire intellectual exertion a worthwhile
experience for the reader as well. The technique of consulting available online sources has
been adopted and only those sources have been browsed, read, and quoted which are directly
pertinent to the issue of this debate.

Throughout the entire course of research, accuracy of the referenced content and its
strict relevancy to the topic of discussion has been considered. The writer has tried to stay
consistent with the underlying theme of the topic while answering the research question. For
smooth and uninterrupted research, contemporary means of investigation and examination
have extensively been used. In this regard, some worthy online sources like Springer, Google
Scholar, and Web of Science have been consulted via using keywords as:

• Human Rights and ASEAN

• Constructivism and Human Rights,
• Human Rights, ASEAN and Constructivism,
• Status of Human Rights in ASEAN,
• Influence of Constructivists ideology about Human Rights and ASEAN.

Data Analysis

The studied, assessed, and compiled facts and figures have been scanned from various
intellectual angles and viewpoints while scrutinizing the issue of Human Rights with the
reference of ASEAN in the background of Constructivists ideology. The study targets the
core concern of basic human rights its present status in ASEAN, its challenges, and the
reference of this issue in accordance with the philosophy of Constructivism theory. Resilient

9
enforcement of basic human rights in ASEAN region under the banner of constructivist
thoughts can be a landmark attempt in the region. Accessible evaluations, opinions, ideas,
observations and academically rated discussions have been explored with the purpose of
suggesting some sound and practical answers to the research question.

Limitations

Research has always been an unending phenomenon that keeps going. It is quite
essential to specify the parameters of any study or research in order to make the conclusions
of that exploration comprehensive and weighty. As far as the precincts of this research paper
are concerned, the entire procedure of research has been steered under the direction of
scholarly penned down writings. Instead of relying upon the false state executives’
comments, fake media reports, bigoted analyses, and other fabricated info rmation, the
researcher has outlined his research based on ground realities and open facts.

Theoretical Framework

The norms of Constructivist ideology differ from the philosophical baseline of

liberalism and realism. On the contrary, it is not an actual concept of human rights
intrinsically. The theory of Constructivism offers the readers of International Relations a
different way of discerning about the connection between human standards and their
interests. Quite opposite to the liberal and realist mindset, constructivists hold that debate that
there is no link between the concerns of independent states and the ethical values linked with
the endorsement and fortification of basic human rights. In this regard, the central
hypothetical argument here is about the substantial nature of worldwide political veracity,
especially how states are formed and how these states are formed through mutual standards
and morals (Pfadenhauer & Knoblauch, 2018).

This dynamic offers a tangible ground to comprehend the development of human

rights in ASEAN. This is a proven fact that the international domain is created with different
sets of contradictory anticipations and guidelines as it is done in any social setup. Relatively
opposite to the realist logic of understanding international picture, constructivists are of the
view that this inter-governmental order has been drastically changed due to the emergence of
worldwide political and international values.

In the perspective of ASEAN, the constructivist theory emphasizes that the concrete
and practical fortification of basic human rights must be an essential part of the ethical goal

10
of the all associate states. In order to support their point of view, the Constructivists claim
that if ASEAN states appear to castoff prevalent universal morals utterly, these countries will
have to pay a heavy price. In short, the ideology of constructivism observes the fundamental
human rights as a priority for a modern setup of state without this concept, accomplishment
of a welfare state and attainment of a coordinated international atmosphere is indispensable
(Hashimoto, 2015).

The researcher has come across some key points while outlining this theoretical
framework for the purpose of this research paper. In the domain of International Relations
with the reference to Human Rights in ASEAN’s perspective, the comparative analysis of
Constructivists viewpoint can be summed up in following words:

Key Points

• The stance of Liberals on the issue of human rights is a little different. The liberals
believe that human rights have a vital important part in International Relations and
liberals are in favor of spreading of liberal democracy and the enforcement of an
international human rights system. On the other hand, constructivists are of the view
that preference given to human rights may have a noticeable impact on the formation
of state distinctiveness.
• Constructivists hold that argument that practically state should not take human rights
as a rival to its sovereignty. Proper enforcement of Human rights should not be
considered as an opposing power to state authority, but it should be acknowledged as
an evolving paradigm for valid status of statehood.

Analysis

In the context of ASEAN, the core difference between the terms of “Rights” and
“Human Rights” is that normal rights are applicable conditionally and in terms of certain time
and place and the application of these privileges is restricted, whereas the execution of human
rights is functional during all the times to every individual across the planet. Human rights
are termed “Universal” by any means. In this regard 1 st Article of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that “Every individual on the earth has born liberal and
owns equal rights and personal dignity” (Misra & Chandiramani, 2018).

Though, this assertion is not unchallenged at all, yet it had to face a main censure
from the side of cultural relativism. The believers of cultural relativism are of the view that

11
universal human rights are traditionally hegemonic and neo-imperialistic. The UDHR was
outlined before the expiration of the process of decolonization all over the world so at that
moment when a number of developing countries were pre-occupied to assimilate the
principles proposed in that Declaration with their local lawmaking process owing to the
mounting western impact (Farhan, 2019).

Some intellectuals argue that this fact cannot be denied that the body of the rights
which has been shielded and phrased as “Human Rights” has been strongly persuaded
through the Western thoughts. In this scenario, the societies where the traditional standards
are different, for instance as Asian societies, these Western standards could not fit in properly
as these were expected. The Asian point of view is quite different here. With a view to
support their stance, they argue that the contemporary notion of so -called human rights
standards are the upshot of the liberal culture of West and this western ideology of human
rights does not complement with the morals of right and wrong to the related ASEAN
cultures so Asian societies are reluctant to make this western claim of human rights
universally acknowledged (Poole, "The World is Outraged": Legitimacy in the Making of the
ASEAN Human Rights Body, 2015).

Regrettably, Southeast Asian region has faced several human rights abuses and
infractions on regular basis (Mingst, McKibben, & Arreguín-Toft, 2018). These violations
include harsh crime of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims and other ethnic and religious
minorities living deplorably in Myanmar. On the other hand, countless enforced desertions in
the area, out-of-court assassinations in the Philippines, merciless assaults on the liberty of
media, termination of the legal opposition, and the reduction of civic tolerance and decreased
freedom of speech and expression in the area. The situation of human rights in ASEAN is
deteriorating day by day, but quite ironically all these problems are still unanswered by the
forum of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Though the human
safety-related provisions in Terms of Reference can easily be employed to redress this plight
of people evocatively yet AICHR seems to give in the political preference of associated states
of ASEAN (Pisano, 2016).

Quite sadly, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights adopts to

camouflage behind the non-interventional policy of ASEAN and this so-called principle
shelves the vital principle of democracy, rule of law, and respect for basic human privileges.
Precisely speaking AICHR under the banner of ASEAN is doing least to deliver its services

12
in favor of suppressed people living in the region. This stern neglect while enforcing human
rights in the area is the biggest source to promote distress, anxiety and suspicion on the
forums like ASEAN where their apprehensions are still unheard (Ramcharan & Ramcharan,
2018). In the context of Constructivists theory, the current situation, present attitude of
associated states and the international take on the whole situation reveal that it has become
obvious that collectively and individually, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights, AMS and ASEAN have collapsed to outline and steer a workable human
rights system (Haberkorn, 2019).

The mechanism devised by ASEAN to protect human rights is feeble enough if is

compared with the systems which are functional in Europe, the Americas and even in Af rica
which have the practical jurisdiction and administrative authority to inspect and redress the
complaints of grievances. The associated countries often forward their expectancies and clear
their respective stances about the issues reverentially in front of to these forums , and the
relevant machineries take decisive measures to prevent and discontinue the alleged
defilements. Moreover, these bodies offer redress and adjudicate the matter on the strong
basis of justice, impartiality and accountability, and grieved parties are ensured that such
abuses violations will not be repeated (Yamahata, Sudo, & Matsugi, 2020).

In the scenario of current situation, there is a dire need to revise the current agenda of
Term of Reference for the ASEAN member states. These 10 year-long silences are enough
now. Considering the dynamics of constructivist’s theology and the current situation
prevailing in Southeast Asia, the AICHR must take positive steps now to introduce
institutional changes in their agenda and better collaborative ambiance among all the member
states must be promoted as well (Samonova, 2019).

Conclusion

This is a fact that the ideas, morals, cultural values and assertions made by
constructivism are not inappropriate but for some extent, it cannot seize thoroughly the state
performance in ASEAN regarding the issue of human rights. The reason behind this is the
dearth of authority contexts, dominance of relevant traditional values and control conflicting
tendency to eroding standards of human rights implementation. History reveals and the
available data about the region unfolds that the purpose of the member states of ASEAN is to
maintain territorial independence and sustain the state sovereignty. This power-practicing

13
agenda of all ASEAN member states while maintaining their regional dominance steer them
to perform their powers with least intervention of external interference.

Constructivists have observed AICHR as a detrimental dynamic in the matter of state

socialization. Overall performance, practical engagement and ideological standpoint of
ASEAN towards human rights have been truly characterized by operational disappointment.
This is a proven fact that member countries have made remarkable territorial promises while
domestically violation of human rights is still in practice there. This gulf between promises
and action advocates that the countries which have gathered under the banner of ASEAN
have used the label of “Human Rights” only for their political purpose. Besides that, the
associated states wanted to augment the sense of legitimacy for the appreciations of critics.
These states have not acknowledged the moral values of human rights either.

The strategic exploitation of norms by ASEAN specifies that connotation of Human

Rights as purported by the constructivist ideology has been misunderstood. Regarding the
point of human rights, state clarification is quite essential. It is true that an unblemished
involvement with the concern of human rights by ASEAN states is still missing. Far as the
member countries are concerned, since its conversion to democratic form of government,
steps taken by Indonesia are quite unambiguous and its positive moves in the direction of
protecting domestic human rights are clear. On the other hand, countries like Malaysia,
Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines are still on their “middle position”. But the situation
is deplorable, and plight of people is worst there in Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam
since all these new member states exhibit significant issues with domestically known human
rights.

Precisely analyzing, the ASEAN associated countries could not apply the actual spirit
of Constructivists ideology in terms of practical enforcement of basic human rights in the
region. There is a huge gulf between theory and practice, promise and action, enactment and
its proper implementation by the side of associate countries. In order to fully incorporate the
ideological extracts of constructivists’ viewpoint, ASEAN must bring a rev olutionary
operational change in order to avert this present blunt human rights violation in the region.
International relations experts are of the view that the purpose of ASEAN formation can be
achieved only by securing the fundamental rights of the oppressed people in the region.

14
References

Bui, H. (2016). The ASEAN Human Rights System: A Critical Analysis. Asian Journal of
Comparative Law, 111-140.

Duxbury, A., & Tan, H.-L. (2019). Can ASEAN Take Human Rights Seriously? Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Farhan, A. (2019, April 21). The sad case of human rights in ASEAN. Retrieved May 2, 2020,
from theaseanpost.com: https://theaseanpost.com/article/sad-case-human-rights-asean

Gomez, J., & Ramcharan, R. (2020). National Human Rights Institutions in Southeast Asia:
Selected Case Studies (1st ed.). London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Haberkorn, T. (2019). In Plain Sight: Impunity and Human Rights in Thailand (1st ed.).
Madison, Wisconsin, United States: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hara, A. E. (2019, July 29). The struggle to uphold a regional human rights regime: the
winding role of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 62(1), 1-19.

Hashimoto, H. (2015). The Prospects for a Regional Human Rights Mechanism in East Asia
(1st ed.). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Jetschke, A. (2015). Why Create a Regional Human Rights Regime? The ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission for Human Rights. Governance Transfer by Regional
Organizations, 107-124.

Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguín-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of International

Relations (8th ed.). New York, New York, United States: W. W. Norton & Company.

Misra, G., & Chandiramani, R. (2018). Sexuality, Gender and Rights: Exploring Theory and
Practice in South and Southeast Asia (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, United
States: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Pfadenhauer, M., & Knoblauch, H. (2018). Social Constructivism as Paradigm? (1st ed.).
Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

15
Pisano, A. (2016). Towards an ASEAN human rights mechanism: the ASEAN Commission
on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children. The
International Journal of Human Rights, 20(3), 321-342.

Poole, A. (2015, December). "The World is Outraged": Legitimacy in the Making of the
ASEAN Human Rights Body. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 37(3), 355-380.

Poole, A. (2019). Democracy, Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia (1st ed.). London,
United Kingdom: Palgrave Pivot.

Raju, A. S. (2019). Human Security in South Asia: Concept, Environment and Development
(1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Routledge India.

Ramcharan, R., & Ramcharan, B. (2018). Asia and the Drafting of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (1st ed.). London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Renshaw, C. (2019). Human Rights and Participatory Politics in Southeast Asia.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rosyidin, M. (2017). Why Collective Identity Matters: Constructivism and the Absence of
ASEAN’s Role in the Rohingya Crisis. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(1), 52-
65.

Samonova, E. (2019). Modern Slavery and Bonded Labour in South Asia: A Human Rights -
Based Approach (1st ed.). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge Publishers.

Yamahata, C., Sudo, S., & Matsugi, T. (2020). Rights and Security in India, M yanmar, and
Thailand (1st ed.). London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

16