Advances in Social Science and Culture ISSN 2640-9682 (Print) ISSN 2640-9674 (Online) Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc 1 Original Paper A Study on the Attainment of Regional Peace: Insinuation of Johan Galtung’s Philosophy of Peace in Southeast Asian Countries Taha Husain 1* 1 60 Decibels, Inc. 205 E 42nd Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10017, USA * Taha Husain, 60 Decibels, Inc. 205 E 42nd Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10017, USA Received: April 8, 2019 Accepted: May 2, 2019 Online Published: May 4, 2019 doi:10.22158/assc.v1n1p1 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/assc.v1n1p1 Abstract The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the insinuation of Galtung’s “positive” and “negative” peace in southeast Asian countries. Applying the qualitative research methodology and a case study approach, this study finds a relation of Galtung’s’ peace theory and peaceful coexistence in contemporary Southeast Asian nations. This study reveals that the southeast Asian nation-states beneath the authority of ASEAN’s regionalism have efficaciously been managed its negative peace since the 1970s. The execution of positive peace, on the other hand, had instigated with the enactment of treaty, accord and agreement since the 1980s. This regional organization has taken numerous strategies, which contributes to speed up its economy, improve social lifespan and develop a culture of peace in this area. The zone which was once well-known for its mutual confrontation, hostility and conflict, has now converted diplomatic. Its non-coercive approaches, soft diplomacy and, nuclear nonproliferation has now turned into a pioneer characteristic for the conflict-prone regions of the world. Keywords negative peace, positive peace, southeast asia, regionalism, soft diplomacy, security community 1. Introduction Galtung, pioneer of peace study in his early age (1964-1971) wrote many theoretical papers based on his structural theory, along themes such as aggression (1964), institutionalized conflict resolution (1965), non-violence (1965), integration (1968), violence, peace and peace research (1969), structural and direct violence (1971), and, imperialism (Galtung, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1971). One prominent idea that comes out of these papers is that an adequate understanding of violence is required in order to www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 2 Published by SCHOLINK INC. understand and define peace. Violence is being “present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realization” (Galtung, 1969). This definition is much wider than violence as being merely somatic or direct, and includes structural violence. This extended definition of violence leads to an extended definition of peace, where peace is not merely and the absence of direct violence (negative peace) but also the absence of structural violence (positive peace). Structural violence stems from violence in the structure of society, rather than the actor-generated personal and direct violence. He further clarifies the idea of negative peace and positive peace in 1990s. He pointed out that there are three types of violence these are direct, structural, and cultural. Negative peace would mean the absence of direct violence, whilst positive peace would mean the absence of indirect violence, such as bliss and contentment of body and mind (Galtung, 1996). However, development of Galtung’s philosophy of peace has similarity with in world politics. The repercussion of the World War II, there came out an upsurge of regional peace movements in different parts of the world (Cortright, 2008). Having witnessed the culmination of notorious wars the surviving countries launched the practicalities of regional reconciliation in lieu of pledging stability, in the finale, there has been some inventiveness similarly in the Southeast Asian region (Acharya, 2014; Ba, 2009; Ruland, 2000; Pempel, 2005). This region, erstwhile to WW-II was colonized by global forces such as Britain, the United States, France and Spain. In the early ages, countries in Southeast Asia were not documented as a region (Turnbull, 1999). Essentially, this region encompassing of Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Colombia is a 1970s derivation which is gradually escalating (Narine, 2002; Stubbs, 2002). Ever since its origination in the 1970s, fashioning regional peace and stability has to turn out to be a crucial point for these nation-states (Nathan, 1988; Thambipillai & Saravanamuttu, 1985; Keeling et al., 2011; Patmanathan, 1980). The regional association ASEAN, supports these countries to make an unrestricted, nonviolent and impartial atmosphere in Southeast Asia supporting all the superpower to circumvent their interference in the region. The member nations acknowledged their commitment to inaugurating an ASEAN Community which emphases on forming a community by means of a free flow of goods, services, investment and capital. Resulting in the justifiable economic enlargement and condense the poverty and socio-economic discrepancies by the year 2020 (Guerrero, 2009). Therefore, these countries under the ASEAN regional order launches joint trade and improve ways and means to preserve security and to preclude the regional disorder (Antolik, 1994; Khoman, 1992). In this backdrop, this study aims to evaluate John Galtung’s peace theory in the context of Southeast Asian countries. This study follows a qualitative research methodology. The comparative historical approach, using case studies, is the approach of qualitative discovery that will be employed. The qualitative, a historical case study approach. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 3 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 1.1 Literature Review There is a profusion of literatures which depicts on the topics of regional study, regionalism, regional peace, regional safety and security. Bulut (2012), an expert on regionalism explained the regional movement in Southeast Asia by two integration theories, i.e., the neo-functionalism and inter-governmental. The study of Kurlantzick (2012) also illustrated how neo-functionalism theory applied in Southeast Asia. Countries in this region benefited through regionalization which help managing internal conflict. ASEAN Secretariat in comparison to other regional organization’s secretariat would be more effective for its economic potentiality and help to improve relationships super powers. Sukma on the other hand, presents an analytical overview of regional security in the southeast Asian. Countries in this region succeeded in promoting peace through managing of conflict. It grows a strong sense that war is no longer possible. This issue further explained by professor Michael Leifer (1999). He described the ASEAN peace process as a distinctive activity which refers as regional peacemaking. Regional prerogative managerial role in promoting peace can be experienced as a model for other regions. Diplomatic paralysis in response to a number of acute regional problems has played a positive role in providing a framework for avoiding and managing contention among member states. The mode of activity, informal confidence-building and trust creation, has been directed to mitigate tension and intra-mural problems. It is evident from the literature, that the study on the peace, security and regionalism is not new. A significant number of studies focus on these themes. But no significant academic study on the attainment of John Galtung’ peace theory in regional context has been found, which indicates that this particular area has not yet been adequately focused on. Thus there is created a research gap in this particular field of study. Therefore, this paper seeks to meet the research gap and provide the contextual description of the facts in detail. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 4 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 1.2 Theoretical Framework Figure 1. Johan Galtung’s Peace Theory Source: Galtung, 1996. 2. Methods To accomplish this paper specific cases relevant to ASEAN role in peace is needed, so the principal methodology of this paper is comparative case study. Thus, the methodology is qualitative in nature. The comparative historical approach, using case studies, is the approach of qualitative discovery that is employed. Qualitative methods can be useful when the unit of analysis is categorical rather than numerical. Agenda of this paper contains historical components; themr are philosophical rather than empirical. Samples are insufficient for a large-N study. In this circumstances the qualitative approaches can build, reject, modify, clarify, or fill gaps of the study. As such, the qualitative, a historical case study approach can provide significant utility to the goals of the study. This approach provides valuable contextual and inferential insight as to the causal and sustaining mechanisms of a phenomenon. This study takes four cases of conflict, confrontation and war. Three cases started in pre-ASEAN ages and ended peacefully in post-ASEAN era. Another case of conflict, which started in post-ASEAN era and end up with, expanded ASEAN era. I have selected these cases because there was significance indication of peace creation by ASEAN. Violence Peace Absence of Structural Violence Positive Peace Direct Violence Personal, e.g., Assault, Riot, Terrorism, War Indirect Violence Structural, e.g., Poverty, Hungry, Apartheid, Discrimination, Social Injustices Absence of Personal Violence or Negative Peace www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 5 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 3. Result 3.1 The Road to Peace: Insinuation of John Galtung’s Philosophy of Peace in the Southeast Asian Country Figure 2. Johan Galtung’ Peace Theory in ASEAN Context 3.2 Attainment of Negative Peace Mitigation of interstate conflict by treaty, declaration and concord. ASEAN was formed in 1967, from the beginning there was a dispute among the ASEAN states including Indonesia and Malaysia confrontation (Case study-1) and dispute between Malaysia and the Philippines (Case Study-2) over their claims on the North Borneo territory of Sabah (Sukma, 2010). Declaration of ASEAN Concord and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation worked as a preventive strategy. The conflict-prone states managed to resolve their disputes effectively because they agreed not to pursue their disagreements by force. Thus by the 1990s, ASEAN had managed to incorporate most of its former enemies, i.e., the Vietnam and Laos into the grouping (Sukma, 2010). The “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” was adopted in 2002 to keep way the state parties from resorting force. This declaration, in line with the principles of international law, settled the dispute in south china sea. It was a victory for ASEAN state to get China away from its action. And last but not the least in 2003 regional leaders signed the ASEAN Concord II, which established ASEAN Community parallel to security community (Ameer, 2005). The Straits of Melaka (Case Study-3) was renowned for its pirates, territorial border dispute, waters security, sovereignty, illegal immigrants and illegal fishing among the Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia and these countries with the help of ASEAN platform made the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 6 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Straits of Malacca Cooperation treaty in 2005 and resolved the dispute. This cooperation brings the security of Straits of Malacca is under control. The following table illustrates the treaties southeast Asian countries made and the dispute is resolved. Table 1. Treaty of ASEAN that Contributes to Resolve the Interstate Conflict Name of the Treaty Dispute Resolved Bangkok Treaty Indonesia VS Malaysia Confrontation Declaration of ASEAN Concord Malaysia VS Philippine Land Dispute Treaty of Amity and Cooperation All Member States Settled their Dispute Declaration on the Conduct Of Parties in the South China Sea ASEAN VS China Dispute over Numbers of Islands ASEAN Concord ll Establish De Facto Security Community Strait of Malacca Cooperation Crime and Dispute among Malaysia-Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand Besides the treaties several occasions, diplomacy of ASEAN countries helps to mitigate interstate conflict. For instance, during the Third Indochina War in 1980s, ASEAN states kept the diplomatic pressure up on Hanoi to stop its military invasion in Cambodia. The diplomatic effort of ASEAN led to the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia in 1991 (Case Study-4). The ability to speak with one voice in this conflict brought ASEAN’s international recognition as the most successful regional organization in the establishment of peace (Narine, 2002). Thus, the countries of southeast Asia avoided the use of coercive strategies. As a result, a de facto security community exists among the southeast Asian states where their interactions are similar to those of the members of a secured society. Mitigation of the inter-state conflict were succeeded in southeast Asian region because the regional superpower states were agaist the mindset of forceful intervention. For instance, Indonesia is a largest state in the southeast Asian region, but it has little influence to its small states. Therefore, the power differences between the largest state and the others are not very wide. Secondly, the control of outside intervention. Southeast Asian states incorporated powerful states outside of ASEAN regional gathering through dialogue, discussion and diplomacy and no state in this region are unhappy with such a presence of external actors, i.e., the China, Japan, and USA (Sridharan, 2008a). Diplomatic approach against the Vietnamese invasion in Cambodia drew support from the US and China, working in tandem, ASEAN and these powers were able to end the Cambodian crisis. The culture of cooperation, on the other hand, among the southeast Asian countries has created an environment to resolve their disputes. President Suharto’s role impacted greatly in this regard along with it other leaders from this region emphasized strongly to create a culture of cooperation. The state in this region act like a society and they are willing to grip the practice of cultural cooperation (Sridharan, 2008b). Several case studies will www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 7 Published by SCHOLINK INC. clarify the issue. 3.2.1 Case Study-1: Malaysia Vs. Indonesia Conflict During 1961-1965, the relations between Malaysia and Indonesia were hostilities, conflict, and confrontation. Tunku Abdul Rahman, in the year of 1961, gave the proposal of creating Malaysian Federation, which was aims to amalgamate the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah. After this declaration, conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia erupted. The Sukarno Government said that the Federation of Malaysia is a form of neocolonialism, he desired an absolute independence which will free from all source of external domination where none of the western powers should interfere. So the Sukarno’s confrontation policy towards Malaysian Federation did not only confront with Malaysia but also with Great Britain and the Americans because they have political and strategic interests in that region. As a result of cold war China and the Soviet Union gave strong support to the Indonesian government. Therefore, Sukarno launched the confrontation policy towards Malaysia in September 1963. The internal situation and political structure had also influenced Sukarno to launch the confrontation policy towards Malaysia. His government hoped that they could increase another territorial boundary. (Source: Jones, 2001; Hindley, 1964). 3.2.2 Case Study-2: Malaysia Vs. Philippine Conflict The Malaysian-Philippines territorial dispute, also known as the North Borneo dispute was a result of the Sulu Sultanate’s division. In colonial period the British government controlled the Northern Borneo, while the remainder of the Sulu land felt under Spanish rule. However, Malaysia was also ruled by Britain and Philippine was under Spanish rule. The problem at hand refers to the state of Sabah, which both parties lay claim on, Malaysia because of the Sabah’s vote on joining the Malaysian federation, and the Philippines, because of their presentation as the successor state of Sulu. Because of the connections between people living on both sides of the border, illegal immigration, incidents of cross-border raiding and kidnappings have become a commonplace (Source: Fernandez, 2007; Storey, 1999; Jie, 1994). 3.2.3 Case Study-3: Strait of Malacca Conflict Oceans dominate the Southeast Asia region and cover almost 80 per cent of its area. Within Southeast Asia, the Strait of Malacca is geographically important and is used as a gateway for many oceans moving commercial, private and military vessels. The Strait lies between the littoral states of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore just north of the Indonesian island of Sumatra and south of Malaysia. It is 600 miles in length and is the main corridor of passage between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Approximately 60,000 ships traverse the strait each year, transporting more than 80 per cent of Northeast Asia’s oil. The Strait of Malacca has been home to a number of types of transnational crime such as piracy. However, in recent years, the region has accounted for nearly 50 per cent of all attacks worldwide, and the waters surrounding Indonesia continue to be the most frequent area for recurrent piracy attacks. Acts of piracy have ranged from stealing a ship while it is anchored to the classic boarding and hijacking of a vessel on the high seas. Piracy attacks, both actual and attempted, vary www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 8 Published by SCHOLINK INC. from year to year in the Strait. At the height of the attacks in 2003, there was 154 and recently in 2006, there was 71 (Source: Leifer & Nelson, 1973; Sittnick, 2005; Raymond, 2009). 3.2.4 Case Study-4: Cambodian Conflict For almost 30 years before 1990s, the people of Cambodia have been the victims of conflicts and violence. Death and devastation have been their constant companions. Civil wars, a foreign invasion, the slaughter of citizens by their own government and gun battles in the streets of the capital have together produced suffering. Cambodian attitudes towards war started from 1975 to 1979. When the Khmer Rouge ruled in Phnom Penh, the Cambodians were assured that the enemy need not come from outside one’s rather they had to wage war against its own people. When the Vietnamese invaded in 1979 and occupied Cambodia, people realized that foreign invaders deserve worse treatment than one’s compatriots hold (Source: McGregor, 1990; Peang-Meth, 1992; Amer, 2007). In this backdrop, the formation of ASEAN is perceived as to handle prevailing and probable inter-state disputes through peaceable measures and minimalize the jeopardy of militarized conflicts. There was a desire to secure a peaceful and co-operative environment in Southeast Asia. During the first half of the 1960s, deep conflicts erupted between Indonesia and Malaysia and between Malaysia and the Philippines (Jones, 2005). If conflict management within ASEAN is examined from the perspective of the prevention of inter-state military conflicts, the record of accomplishment of ASEAN is impressive since no dispute has led to such conflicts between the original member-states since 1967. The period after 1965 was very different in the field of political relations between Indonesia and Malaysia marked by friendship, harmony, and co-operation. The new regime in Indonesia in 1967 reversed the old policy and type of political relationship with Malaysia. The new government under President Suharto took the initiative to end the confrontation with Malaysia, and actively sought co-operation with Malaysia and other neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. The littoral states of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have recently begun to engage in maritime security cooperation in the Malacca Strait in 2004 on a trilateral basis. This runs counter to the norms of the greater Southeast Asian region. By being able to deduce and determine what has allowed for increased cooperation between these states it may point to how they may cooperate more in the future and reduce the instances of piracy in the Strait of Malacca (Teo, 2007). 3.3 Attainment of Positive Peace 3.3.1 Economic Attainment The rapid growth of industrialization: ASEAN economic committee initiated ASEAN Industrial Projects in Bali conference in the year of1976. The committee decided that every member states will be given specific project allocation that involves investment between USD 250 million to USD 350 million. Under this program, Malaysia and Indonesia were given the responsibility to handle urea fertilizer. The Philippines were given the phosphate sulfur project, soda ash project to Thailand and Singapore was assigned to run the diesel engine thus ASEAN as a regional organ enhanced its industrialization cooperatively in southeast Asian countries (Guerrero, 2009). The creation of the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 9 Published by SCHOLINK INC. ASEAN Free Trade Area: Next initiative was taken by ASEAN at Kuala Lumpur in 1991 where they agreed to establish the ASEAN Free Trade Area. That means all ASEAN goods can be traded to member states with a minimum tariff or without tariff. Priority is given to 11 industries, where no tariff policy implemented thus ASEAN brings the economy of southeast Asian countries in one-step ahead (Guerrero, 2009). The formation of AIA: Another initiative was the framework agreement for ASEAN Investment Area signed in Manila in 1998. AIA was aimed to encourage direct flow from inside and outside ASEAN that make a competitive, open and liberal investment area. At the same time, AIA also targets to build the ASEAN region as a competitive investment area by 1 January 2010. By this policy, ASEAN allowed foreign direct investment and advance their economy (Guerrero, 2009). The initiation of EAEC: The creation of East Asian Economy Caucus and regional economic negotiation council increases the seriousness of economic cooperation between East Asia and ASEAN. When China, Japan, and South Korea agreed to participate in ASEAN+3, the commitment of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries in the economy was established, and this is also a success for ASEAN in the economic area (Guerrero, 2009). 3.3.2 Socialization ASEAN has a Social Charter which defines various commitments that every member state are morally agreed to undertake in their respective countries (ASEAN, TUC, 2015). Despite the charter bilateral commitment on socialization are also prominent. For example, Indonesia-Malaysia bilateral cooperation in the field of education, that has started in 1980s. This cooperation covers various fields such as medical, housing, information-technology and agriculture. On the other hand, the countries in southeast Asian nations socialized itself through SEA Games, aimed to maintain the existing good relationship among regional states and as a platform for a local athlete to increase their capabilities in Olympics. ASEAN also socialized itself by resolving illegal migrant’s problem. For instance, ASEAN used the Amnesty program which administered by the Malaysian government to treat 1.2 million illegal immigrants in 2004. The program helps to return their own country without imposing legal action or allowing them to enter Malaysia legally (Deacon et al., 2007). ASEAN member states agreed to eradicate drug abuse by cooperating with relevant parties. ASEAN also attempted to eliminate border crimes, organized crimes and the eradication of smuggling and termination of crimes in borders between regional countries, so that they can be more socialized and live with peace and tranquillity (Deacon et al., 2007). 3.3.3 Asian Way: An Effective Approach for Promoting Peace Maintain the policy of non-interference: The non-interference policy has become the principle of ASEAN based on the Bangkok Declaration 1967, and Kuala Lumpur Declaration 1971, which produced ZOPFAN and further reinforced with the Cooperation and Friendship Treaty in 1976. Southeast Asian countries believe that interference is the impediment to freedom, independence and sovereignty of SEA countries. For example, Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation portrayed www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 10 Published by SCHOLINK INC. principles for its member countries. The principles include mutual respect of independence, sovereignty, territories and respect national identity. These principles help to get success as a regional organ and promote peace in that region (Acharya, 2003f; Acharya, 2003g). Another principle is the non-intervention in internal affairs of member countries. This principle is the major content of ZOPFAN and TAC, which aims to avoid possible political and military intervention from superpowers (US, China, and Russia) in that region (Acharya, 2003a). With this agreement, the countries agreed that they should not involve in the political arena of superpowers rather maintain a friendly relationship with every country regardless of political ideology so that peace and security in this region are guaranteed. The non-coercion policy, on the other hand, a way to resolve any dispute among members is another vital point. The countries in this region upholds this policy to ensure the preservation of peace (Acharya, 2003e). The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: The southeast Asian countries accelerated its peace and stability by adopting SEANWFZ agreement in the year of 1995. This treaty aims to avoid member countries from possessing, placing and utilizing nuclear weapons. Thus, the ASEAN countries are prohibited from owning, manufacturing, transporting and using a nuclear weapon (Acharya, 2003b). Practicing soft and track two diplomacies is another way that the states of southeast Asia has been implied so far. Track 2 diplomacy means informal method of generating confidence between countries. It involves informal visits, closed-door meetings, keep away the media, and bilateral agreement that enhances confidence among country members (Acharya, 2003c). However, the Political Cooperation for the southeast Asian nations intensified soon after the Declaration of Singapore in the year of 1992. It paved way ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) as the principal entrance to promote political and security issues between ASEAN and the Asia Pacific. Thus, the ARF has become a centre stage to solve dispute, security threat, and nuclear threat in a peaceful manner (Acharya, 2003d). 4. Conclusion This study finds that ASEAN from its initiation sidestepped sensitive disputes from its agenda and emphasis on economic collaboration. Though, it does not mean that ASEAN overlooked the dogmatic and security complications between member states. States in this region preferred a bilateral approach rather than a multilateral through soft diplomacy. They preferred informality in managing conflict, confrontation and hostility thus the informality turn out to be more effective when influential countries developed closer individual ties. The leaders of this region has been continued to adopt a steady attitude to stockpile the collaboration between them. The peaceful mitigations of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia, Vietnam and Laos’s crisis, Third Indochina War, Vietnamese troops over Cambodia proves that the southeast Asian country manage to establish negative peace. Additionally, the Cambodian conflict, Island crisis in south China sea as well as problem in the Straits of Melaka such as pirates, border dispute, water security, border invasion, sovereignty, illegal immigrants and illegal fishing also resolved peacefully. On the part of positive peace this paper finds that by taking innovative www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 11 Published by SCHOLINK INC. economic policy, political norms and values, and pro-active socialization process these countries able to establish steadiness. The role of ZOPFAN, ARF and SEANWFZ in security management, collaborative economic advancement, soft diplomacy and informality are also helped these countries to attain positive peace. Reference Acharya, A. (2003a). China’s charm offensive in Southeast Asia. International Herald Tribune, 8. Acharya, A. (2003b). Democratization and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2), 375-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659032000074646 Acharya, A. (2003c). Regional institutions and Asian security order: Norms, power, and prospects for peaceful change. Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features, 210-240. Acharya, A. (2003d). Regionalism and Multilateralism: Essays on Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific. Marshall Cavendish International. Acharya, A. (2003e). Seeking security in the dragon’s shadow: China and Southeast Asia in the emerging Asian order. Acharya, A. (2003f). The Bush Doctrine and Asian Regional Order: The Perils and Pitfalls of Preemption. Asian Perspective, 217-247. Acharya, A. (2003g). Southeast Asian Security after September, 11. Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796673 Amer, R. (2000). The Management of the Border Disputes between China and Vietnam and its Regional Implications. European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS). Amer, R. (2007). The Resolution of the Cambodian Conflict: Assessing the Explanatory Value of Zartman’s Ripeness Theory’. Journal of Peace Research, 44(6), 729-742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307082070 Antolik, M. (1994). The ASEAN Regional Forum: The spirit of constructive engagement. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1355/CS16-2A Ba, A. D. (2009). (Re) Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford University Press. Bulut, E. A. (2012). Community-Building in ASEAN?: A Theoretical Approach to Regional Institutionalization in Southeast Asia. Turkish Journal of Politics, 3(1), 53. Cortright, D. (2008). Peace: A history of movements and ideas. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812675 Deacon, B., Ortiz, I., & Zelenev, S. (2007). Regional social policy. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1001491 Fernandez, E. S. (2007). Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 7(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.3860/apssr.v7i2.498 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 12 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Galtung, J. (1964). A structural theory of aggression. Journal of peace research, 1(2), 95-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336400100203 Galtung, J. (1965). Institutionalized conflict resolution: A theoretical paradigm. Journal of Peace Research, 2(4), 348-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200404 Galtung, J. (1965). On the meaning of nonviolence. Journal of Peace Research, 2(3), 228-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200303 Galtung, J. (1967a). Theories of peace: A synthetic approach to peace thinking. International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, 2(6). Galtung, J. (1967b). Theory and methods of social research (No. 1). Columbia University Press. Galtung, J. (1968). A structural theory of integration. Journal of Peace Research, 5(4), 375-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336800500404 Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research, 6(3), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336800500404 Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of peace research, 8(2), 81-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234337100800201 Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of peace research, 27(3), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005 Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means. London: Sage. Guerrero, R. B. (2008). Regional integration: The ASEAN vision in 2020. IFC Bulletin, 32, 52-58. Hindley, D. (1964). Indonesia’s confrontation with Malaysia: A search for motives. Asian Survey, 904-913. https://doi.org/10.2307/3023528 Jie, C. (1994). China’s Spratly policy: With special reference to the Philippines and Malaysia. Asian Survey, 34(10), 893-903. https://doi.org/10.2307/2644968 Jones, M. (2001). Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia, 1961-1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia. Cambridge University Press. Jones, M. (2005). Conflict and Confrontation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1965; Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia. Cambridge University Press. Khoman, T. (1992). Conception and Evolution. The ASEAN Reader. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), xvii-xxii. Kiernan, B. (2002a). Introduction: conflict in Cambodia, 1945-2002. Critical Asian Studies, 34(4), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/1467271022000035893 Kiernan, B. (2002b). The Pol Pot regime: Race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979. Yale University Press. Kurlantzick, J. (2012). South China Sea: From Bad to Worse?. Council on Foreign. Leifer, M., & Nelson, D. (1973). Conflict of Interest in the Straits of Malacca. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 49(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2614043 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 13 Published by SCHOLINK INC. McGregor, C. (1990). China, Vietnam, and the Cambodian conflict: Beijing’s endgame strategy. Asian Survey, 30(3), 266-283. https://doi.org/10.2307/2644565 Narine, S. (2002). Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Nathan, K. S. (1988). Malaysia: Reinventing the Nation. In M. Alagappa (Ed.), Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational. New York: Stanford University Press. Patmanathan, M. (1980). Reading in Malaysia foreign policy. Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press. Peang-Meth, A. (1992). The United Nations peace plan, the Cambodian conflict, and the future of Cambodia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1355/CS14-1C Pempel, T. J. (Ed.). (2005). Remapping East Asia: The construction of a region. Cornell University Press. Raymond, C. Z. (2009). Piracy and armed robbery in the Malacca Strait: A problem solved. Kings Coll London (United Kingdom) Corbett Center for Maritime Policy Studies. Rüland, J. (2000). ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism. The Pacific Review, 13(3), 421-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740050147942 Sittnick, T. M. (2005). State responsibility and maritime terrorism in the Strait of Malacca: Persuading Indonesia and Malaysia to take additional steps to secure the Strait. Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J., 14, 743. Sridharan, K. (2008a). India and Southeast Asia in the context of India’s rise. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789812308009-010 Sridharan, K. (2008b). Regional Organizations and Conflict Management: Comparing ASEAN and SAARC. Crisis States Research Centre. Storey, I. J. (1999). Creeping Assertiveness: China, the Philippines and the South China Sea Dispute. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1355/CS21-1E Stubbs, R. (2002). ASEAN plus three: Emerging East Asian regionalism?. Asian Survey, 42(3), 440-455. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2002.42.3.440 Sukma, R. (2010). ASEAN and Regional Security in East Asia. Journal of Security Politics in Asia and Europe, 109-120 Teo, Y. Y. (2007). Target Malacca Straits: Maritime Terrorism in Southeast Asia. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 30(6), 541-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100701329568 Thambipillai, P., & Saravanamuttu, J. (1985). ASEAN Negotiations: Two Insights. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Turnbull, C. M. (1999). Formal and Informal Empire in East Asia. The Oxford History of the British Empire, 5, 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205661.003.0025