Which IR theory, liberalism, realism or constructivism, best explains the interaction between ASEAN and the two superpowers, the US and China?

Abstract

China's rise has prompted a re-evaluation of the geopolitical landscape in Southeast Asia, compelling both the United States (US) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) nations to recalibrate their strategies and engagements. International Relation (IR) theorists from the likes of Kenneth Waltz to Joseph Nye aim to provide unique frameworks to understand how the changing dynamics driven by China’s ascension result in differing outcomes. Realists posited that the competitive aspect of the international system implies that China will challenge the supremacy of the US with its newfound power and influence, potentially leading to security dilemmas and potential conflicts. Meanwhile, liberalists argued that economic ties, international organisations like the ASEAN, and diplomatic efforts are essential for maintaining stability and fostering peaceful coexistence. Lastly, constructivists would focus on the roles of ideas and identities of the stakeholders involved and how they influence their interactions in the region. This divergence motivates the question: Which IR theory, liberalism, realism or constructivism, best explains the interaction between ASEAN and the two superpowers, the US and China? Using the Friedberg (2005) model, this paper takes the South China Sea (SCS) example to determine which theory provides the most cogent description of how ASEAN as an institution navigate its relations with the US and China.