Chapter 5 analyzes the evolving security structures in East Asia since the end of World War II. What counts as security for the countries in the region and beyond, and the policy choices made accordingly, have made East Asian security the way it is today. Evolution shapes every component of international security, specifically the nation, the nature of politics, and epistemology. Conventional security theories such as the security dilemma and alliance apply to East Asia partly because Western practice and theory have become parts of East Asian practice and theoretical thinking. At the same time, East Asia had a much longer history, and was not a blank canvas for outside influence. The mixture of the old and new explains why East Asian security concepts and practices seem partly familiar and partly strange, which is characteristic of East Asian international relations.

Chapter 4 builds upon the legalization assessment by focusing on the latest (and current) iteration of the AIR: the 2009 ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA). What is distinct about the ASEAN investment project – and potentially transformative – is the evolution in objectives surrounding the role of treaty disciplines. By the time of the ACIA, those treaty constraints would no longer be used as part of a simple BIT-style project of delivering investment protection with the hope that this would somehow translate into greater flows of foreign investment. Instead, the ASEAN members now seek to strategically position their region as an integrated production base for foreign investment, thereby leveraging one of the fastest and most dynamic aspects of the global economy. Yet, clearly, the AIR continues to exhibit a low degree of legalization measured against conventional benchmark indicators. Chapter 4 seeks to contextualize and explain this low degree of legalization through both the ASEAN Way and negative social learning. The adaptation and reimagination embedded into the AIR calls into question universalist assumptions underpinning the concept of legalization and highlights the idiographic nature of legalization from a comparative law perspective. We argue instead that delegalization can be an independent and entirely legitimate mode of legalization.

Chapter 2 critiques various state-orientated theories – such as neorealism or neoliberal institutionalism – entrenched in the rationalist tradition. Our guiding premise in this book is to construct ASEAN’s identity qua organization using different insights from constructivism to probe ASEAN’s institutional evolution for the past several decades. Although ASEAN encompasses multiple economic and political dimensions, Chapter 2 focuses on the initial formation of ASEAN’s identity – in the 1987 ASEAN Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Foreign Investment – as it concerns the intra-regional investment regime. To the extent that this investment regime is an important factor driving economic integration among the ASEAN states, scrutinizing ASEAN’s identity formation in this particular area offers a unique way of understanding ASEAN’s institutional development.

Economic regionalism in ASEAN features a dynamic legal interaction of centripetal force (represented by global economic norms) and its centrifugal counterpart (defined by ASEAN’s unique historical and cultural traits). The main goal of this book is not to present and defend a narrowly articulated thesis that focuses on a single doctrinal or conceptual point or development within ASEAN. This book instead paints a broader canvass of evolution in law-making by uncovering unique patterns of innovation in legal tailoring while identifying also a central paradox – the wide gap in the degree of openness and commitments between intra-ASEAN vis-à-vis extra-ASEAN sources of investment. This final chapter provides a summary and recount of the main observations and arguments in previous chapters from the standpoint of regionalist dynamics in ASEAN investment regulation. It also offers several policy proposals to harness the potential of the AIR and achieve the mega goal of “ASEAN Centrality.”

With the adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, the ASEAN member states articulated their vision of an economic community. This ambitious vision tracks economic reality around ASEAN. The ASEAN region has recently been one of the most popular destinations for FDI across the globe. Despite a temporary decline due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the region’s share of global FDI rose from 11.9 percent to 13.7 percent that year. Against this auspicious background, this book calls for a new framework through which we can conceptually embrace the ontological autonomy of the ASEAN Investment Regime (AIR), beyond an aggregation of the interests of its individual member states. A sociology-led approach, especially constructivism, emphasizes ideational factors, such as culture and norms, that guide state actions from within. The main goal of the book is to explore the manner in which ASEAN’s history and culture has fundamentally shaped its foreign investment policies, leading to outcomes that often depart from the external structure and script of Global Investment Law.

The chapter explores the legalization of the ASEAN Economic Community. It offers insight into the major characteristics of the new AEC Blueprint 2025 and the changing nature of the ASEAN way that have collectively shaped Asian integration. Furthermore, it analyzes ASEAN’s evolving legal framework that governs trade in goods, trade in services, investment protection and liberalization and dispute settlement. Emerging areas such as banking services, electronic commerce (e-commerce) and development assistance will also be discussed. Importantly, ASEAN’s economic integration trajectory is distinct from the neoliberal approach premised on the Washington Consensus. The chapter explains why and how the ASEAN approach guided by pragmatic incrementalism could benefit the development of the Global South. Finally, the chapter examines the externalization of the ASEAN way under ASEAN’s external agreements that underpin the regional economic architecture.