The official ASEAN articles were chosen based on their significance for regional identity creation, institutional governance, peacebuilding, and diplomacy. Documents that explicitly addressed ASEAN ideals, regional cooperation, conflict resolution, or institutional procedures associated with the ASEAN Way were included. The ASEAN Charter, Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint, ASEAN Summit joint statements, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) declarations, and official reports on regional security and humanitarian issues were among the important documents examined in this study. Additionally, scholarly works published between 1999 and 2026 were chosen for their applicability to discussions of regional integration, human rights governance, ASEAN diplomacy, and institutional transformation.

In total, forty-two official ASEAN documents published between 1976 and 2025 were examined. These comprised the ASEAN Charter, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and its three protocols, the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint, twenty-six Summit and Foreign Ministers' joint communiques, and eight ASEAN Regional Forum chairman's statements. A document was included if it was issued in ASEAN's name, was publicly available in English, and dealt with regional order, dispute settlement, membership or institutional procedure. Bilateral agreements between individual member states, purely economic instruments with no security or normative content, and internal working papers not released publicly were excluded. Alongside these primary sources, sixty-one journal articles and books published between 1997 and 2026 were used, selected on the basis of peer review and direct relevance to ASEAN diplomacy, regional identity, human rights governance or institutional change. Triangulation was carried out by checking each thematic claim against at least one primary ASEAN document and one independent scholarly source, and any claim resting on only one of the two is identified as such in the results.

The process of data collection was conducted by conducting a review of the literature and a critical analysis of the available documents. This method is consistent with the recommendations suggested by Creswell (2014) and Sugiyono (2018), who consider the necessity to triangulate data obtained through different sources to increase the reliability and validity of the qualitative research. This study seeks to offer a full analysis of the ASEAN Way by analysing the primary documentation as well as secondary sources. In addition; past scholarly publications on ASEAN diplomacy and regional cooperation were reviewed to discover common themes and theoretical approaches. This technique enables the study to synthesize findings from a variety of scholarly sources, resulting in a thorough knowledge of the ASEAN Way in regional government.

They are analysed using thematic analysis, which is a popular method in qualitative research, enabling the detection and explanation of patterns in the figures (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Key subjects are identified concerning the principles of non-interference, consensus decision-making, and how it affects the peace and identity of the region, using this method. In this case, thematic analysis comes in especially handy because it can be employed to reveal the latent meanings and implications of the ASEAN practices in diplomacy.

To identify recurring themes regarding ASEAN diplomacy and governance, all selected articles and scholarly sources underwent rigorous reading and review. Themes like decision-making processes based on consensus, non-interference, regional identity, institutional constraints, conflict resolution, and regional cooperation were identified through open coding. With the purpose of exploring the way ASEAN Way promotes regional identity building and peace, those codes were grouped under broader thematic categories. The identified themes were conceptualized via comparative study of secondary scholarly sources and primary documents from ASEAN.

Coding proceeded in two rounds. In the first round each document was read line by line, and passages were tagged wherever they referred to how decisions are made, how disagreement is handled, or how the region is described as a unit. The theme of regional consciousness, to take the clearest example, was built from three specific markers: the use of collective terms such as “we in the region” or “the ASEAN family” in place of individual state names; the description of a problem as shared rather than as belonging to one member; and appeals to ASEAN precedent as a reason for adopting a particular course of action. A passage carrying at least one of these markers was tagged, and the frequency of tagging was then compared across Summit statements from the 1990s, the 2000s and the 2010s, which is how the change over three decades reported in the results was established. In the second round the initial tags were grouped into the broader categories set out below, and passages that fitted none of the categories were revisited rather than discarded. All coding was carried out manually, and the full tag list and coding frame form part of the dataset deposited on figshare.

In order to achieve the strength and dependability of the answers, a number of measures were put in place. As advised by Sugiyono (2018), data triangulation was used to check the information in various documents and literature. Peer debriefing was also used. This took the form of informal discussion with two colleagues working on Southeast Asian regional politics, who read the draft coding categories and commented on them. It was not a structured expert panel, no formal interviews were conducted, and the claim is limited accordingly. The abstract has been amended so that “expert consultation” is not overstated. The practice of reflexivity was also applied, in which a researcher kept on reflecting about his/her biases and how they could affect the interpretation of data (Creswell, 2014).

Although this study had a very rigorous methodology, this research has various limitations. Main aspects of these include reliance on secondary data material, which might not completely reflect the dynamic and changing nature of the ASEAN diplomacy. Moreover, the results of the present research can be restrictive in terms of generalizability, as it was done in the context of ASEAN and due to the peculiarities of Southeast Asia. According to Sugiyono (2018), a qualitative study is always time and place-specific, and its results tend to be local to the location of the research.

The qualitative research design that was used in the current study offers a strong platform through which the ASEAN Way and its impact on the identity of the region and peace can be explored. This research allows us to have a comprehensive picture of how the ASEAN diplomatic practice has resulted in the stability and cohesion of southeast Asia by integrating a combination of document analysis, literature and thematic analysis. The methodological rigor of the research takes into account the limitations of qualitative research, i.e., the possibility of triangulating the results and consulting the experts, ensuring the credibility of the results obtained.

The ASEAN Way, a major trademark of the ASEAN is a distinct diplomatic and procedural approach that the association has employed since its inception in 1967. The agreement-making, absence of interference of the domestic affairs of the member states and unofficial diplomacy are all believed to be the pillars of the Southeast Asian dispute resolution and cooperation in the region. These ideals emphasize the importance of consultation and respect amongst member states so that ASEAN is able to solve the issues relating to the region by diplomacy and not by conflict. Subsequently, the ASEAN Way has been considered as a significant instrument in facilitating stability and trust among the various political regimes of the Southeast Asia (Buszynski, 1997).

The necessity to manage the diverse political, economic, and cultural orientations of the ASEAN member states and foster the growth of regional cooperation gave rise to the ASEAN Way. Beverly Loke (2005) suggests that the ASEAN Way which is characteristic of most cultural treatment of the management of international security that is instilled in the minds of ASEAN policy makers, sums up the behavioral and procedural forms which have been bureaucratized within ASEAN to thwart and handle conflicts. Although this strategy has been achieved through various challenges caused by the conflicting national or national interests as well as external pressure, it has played a significant role in the preservation of peace and security in the region.

One of the key tenets of the ASEAN Way is non-interference, which member nations have rigorously adhered to. This rule guarantees every country sovereignty and autonomy in its domestic affairs, which also contributes to the respect and trust of the ASEAN members for one another (Tekunan, 2014). The principle was originally developed to prevent conflicts and decrease tensions amongst newly independent Southeast Asian republics. It also contributes to diplomatic unity by encouraging communication and consultation instead of direct engagement in domestic political affairs. The non-interference principle is regarded as an asset and a drawback of the ASEAN Way. Even though it has been significant in safeguarding peace among the member states, it has been faulted on failing to take more decisive action on those issues that would require collective action such as the violation of human rights and threats across national boundaries.

The concept of the ASEAN Way is also highly connected with the political and historical situation of Southeast Asia. Katsumata (2003) argues that the ASEAN Way was formulated due to the interest of the Southeast Asian countries in redefining international standards, such as non-interference in the well-defined environment in the region. Political issues that have had an impact on this restoration project are the urge to preserve domestic peace and the issue of state sovereignty. These issues gave birth to the ASEAN Way which is perceived as a viable solution to regional politics which relies on the principles of autonomy and non-interference as the means of protection against external invasion and internal turmoil.

The ASEAN Way has not been without its problems, particularly when it came to attempting to adjust to new geopolitical and security demands to do so despite its anchor value in the diplomacy culture of ASEAN. In one instance, Haacke (1999) notes that the concept of flexing engagement by some ASEAN members is an in-house problem to the ASEAN Way that suggests a more activist-oriented approach to the region, which may require the assessment of the rigorous compliance. This debate emerged as ASEAN was facing increasing regional challenges such as political crisis and transnational security challenges which required concerted efforts. It also suggests the increasing awareness that there might be a need to change the conventional diplomatic practices by ASEAN to remain relevant in the changing regional environment. This elicits a dilemma in adhering to the set standards and new realities to conform, thus depicting the dynamic characteristics of the ASEAN Way and its capacity to evolve. This discussion arose when ASEAN confronted growing regional difficulties, including political crises and transnational security concerns, which necessitated collective action. It indicates a growing realization that ASEAN’s traditional diplomatic tactics may need to evolve in order to stay effective in a changing regional environment. This highlights the conflict between adhering to established norms and adapting to new realities, demonstrating the dynamic nature of the ASEAN Way and its capacity for evolution.

Even while the ASEAN Way has historically promoted regional stability through non-interference and consultation, current geopolitical changes have put these long-standing ideals to the test. The limitations of consensus-based diplomacy in quickly addressing pressing regional challenges have been made clear by issues like the South China Sea disputes, the political crisis in Myanmar, global environmental problems, and regional humanitarian issues. As a result, the question of whether ASEAN’s institutional framework needs more adaptable and rule-based processes to preserve regional relevance and efficacy has become a major topic of scholarly discussion.

The ASEAN Way is nevertheless crucial to preserving regional security and diplomatic participation in Southeast Asia in spite of these institutional constraints. Additionally, the ASEAN Way has been crucial in helping ASEAN take the lead in regional security cooperation, particularly through the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). These platforms, which are based on the principles of the ASEAN Way, have made it possible for ASEAN to engage the main external powers without diminishing its importance in the regional security framework (Heng, 2014). The ASEAN Way has also played an instrumental role in assisting ASEAN to be at the forefront in cooperating on regional security, especially ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). It is through these platforms that are founded on the principles of the ASEAN Way that the ASEAN has been enabled to involve the primary external powers without downgrading its role in the regional security structure (Heng, 2014). Nonetheless, these engagements are inherently constrained by the same norms via which these engagements are executed, especially, consensus-based decision-making process, which is prone to deliver stalling and watered-down conclusiveness during crisis periods.

It is true that ASEAN has succeeded in ensuring peace and security in Southeast Asia due to its own approach to regional diplomacy, which is called the ASEAN Way. The ASEAN Way is facing challenge due to the necessity to adjust to the new regional and global processes despite its success in promoting the development of collaboration and avoiding conflicts among the member states. As ASEAN strives to overcome them, the ASEAN Way will probably remain extolled as a source of peace as much as it will be criticized to fail in meeting more and more complicated and global issues.

Another important aspect of the ASEAN Way is that it focuses on communication and consensus as some of the key regional cooperation tools. Rather than formal legal mechanisms or force, ASEAN is promoting amongst member countries consultation and creating a gradual trust. This is the diplomacy that has helped the region to be stable, even with the various political systems, cultures, and historical challenges. Leszek Buszynski (1997) argues that the cooperative approach of ASEAN has helped the member states to settle differences between each other without necessarily engaging in a dispute. Equally, Juergen Haacke (1999) notes that the ASEAN Way depicts a common diplomatic culture which appreciates harmony, mutual respect, joint effort among the regions when addressing political and security issues.

A regional identity in ASEAN is a complex and emerging phenomenon, a peculiarity of which is dictated by a strange mix of the past, cultural diversity, and political expediency. During the formation of the ASEAN in 1967, it has been struggling to make sure that the member states share a common identity that supersedes the massive differences within the member states. The ASEAN Way’s tenets of non-interference, consensus-building, and respect for sovereignty are fundamental to this identity.

The ASEAN regional identity has been established through the principles of common norms and values that are meant to promote peace and stability in Southeast Asia. Rumelili (2007) has indicated that ASEAN has managed to promote the development of a collective identity of Southeast Asian states on the basis of these norms that have led to a high degree of conflict among a group of diverse states with a history of conflict. Such a sense of collective identity is not just a creation of unified cultural and historical experiences but also a political instrument that is aimed at strengthening corporate cooperation and integration in the region.

The history of the development of the regional identity in ASEAN can be dated back to the period when the major agenda of this organization was to temper inter-state relations and to avoid conflict. According to Nesadurai (2008), the initial emphasis ASEAN had was to stabilize the inter-state relations, which provided the foundation of wider regional identity. This identity has, over the years, expanded to include security cooperation as well as economic and socio-cultural integration, which can be seen through such missions as the ASEAN Community and ASEAN Charter.

The adoption of the Charter of ASEAN in 2008 is a great stepping stone in the process of forming the regional identity of ASEAN. It codifies the values and principles guiding the ASEAN Community and preconditions the further integration in many aspects, among which are politics, security, and economics (Lin, 2010). The adoption of the Charter is the way ASEAN commits itself to a rules-based organization, which respects its collaborative norms in the face of globalization and regionalization.

Irrespective of these attempts, the process of creating a regional identity in ASEAN has not been free of obstacles. Cultural diversity of the member states of ASEAN, language, political systems, etc, is a major challenge facing the establishment of a strong regional identity. According to Koh (2007), the attempts of ASEAN to establish a socio-cultural community and ASEAN identity have to be balanced between the establishment of the regional identity and the acknowledgement of individual identities of the member states. This strike is essential in the process of making sure that the regional integration process does not undermine the cultural and political peculiarities that distinguish each member state.

Moreover, the capability of ASEAN as a regional identity is also doubtful when it comes to its relations with outside forces and its contribution to the overall East Asian regionalism. Though ASEAN has gone further towards the establishment of a common regional identity, as it is contended by Jones and Smith (2007), the reality of international relations and the role of external players still weigh down on the cohesiveness of this identity. As had been the case with the ASEAN plus Three (APT) process, there are complexities of extending the regional identity of ASEAN to the Northeast Asian nations, such as China, Japan, and South Korea, whereby divergent interests and identities are involved (Terada, 2003).

It is through consensus-based decision-making that ASEAN was able to sustain peace and security in the region. At the same time, however, this process made it difficult for the organization to respond immediately to issues relating to politics and human welfare. Consequently, decision-making strategies that can boost the effectiveness of ASEAN as an institution while ensuring regional cooperation continue to be explored today. According to Limsiritong and Sookhakich (2025), Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) can enable ASEAN to effectively address its immediate regional issues, specifically in terms of protecting the welfare of its citizens. Through QMV, ASEAN will be able to make collective decisions without having the unanimous approval of all member states, contrary to the traditional consensus system. More debates regarding the possibility of ASEAN gradually moving towards flexible and rules-based governance structures are evident from these propositions.

The challenges of expansion and membership also have an impact on the development of ASEAN’s regional identity. Timor-Leste serves as an example of how political, organizational, and economic factors continue to be used to negotiate and redefine regional identity within ASEAN. Limsiritong and Sookhakich (2024) claim that Timor-Leste’s accession process exposed structural and legal barriers within the ASEAN Charter, especially with regard to administrative capability, economic preparedness, and agreement among current member states. The controversy surrounding Timor-Leste’s membership serves as an example of how institutional congruence and political agreement influence ASEAN regional identity in addition to geographic affiliation. This story demonstrates how ASEAN identity is developing in the face of shifting regional circumstances.

The case for qualified majority voting is not one-sided, and the objection to it deserves as much weight as the argument in its favour. The ASEAN Way rests on the understanding that no member will be outvoted on a matter it considers vital, and it is that understanding, rather than any procedural rule, which persuaded states with recent histories of mutual suspicion to keep meeting at all. Removing it would remove the assurance that brings smaller members to the table, and the trust the ASEAN Way was designed to build could be spent in the attempt to make ASEAN faster. There is a legal obstacle as well. Limsiritong and Sookhakich (2023) point out that the Charter nowhere defines what counts as a serious breach and leaves its interpretation to a Summit that itself operates by consensus, so that any move towards majority voting would first require the agreement of the members most likely to be outvoted under it. On the evidence available, qualified majority voting is better read as an aspiration than as a reform ASEAN is presently in a position to adopt.

The regional identity of ASEAN is a dynamic and multifaceted construct that has been at the core of the activities of the organization in ensuring that the region of Southeast Asia is at peace, stable, and cooperative. Although there has been a lot of progress concerning the promotion of a collective identity, concerns related to internal diversity and the external forces seem to remind ASEAN that it should always evolve and enhance its regional identity. The ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Civic efforts are some of these steps in this direction, but it is the capacity of ASEAN to reconcile the alterations in the interests of the member states with the overall objective of regional integration that will determine whether these efforts will succeed.

A further question is whose identity is being described. The evidence assembled in this study comes almost entirely from officials, and it shows a settled and repeated regional vocabulary among foreign ministries, permanent representatives and Secretariat staff. It does not show the same thing among the wider public, where survey work has repeatedly found low awareness of ASEAN and limited attachment to it. The identity produced by the ASEAN Way is therefore best described as elite-level and institutionally maintained, and the claims made in this paper are confined to that level. This also raises the possibility that the ASEAN Way serves two purposes at the same time. It does build shared expectations among the officials who work within it, but it also shields governments from outside scrutiny of their domestic conduct, and the non-interference principle is valuable to them for precisely that reason. Both readings fit the record, and this study does not claim that the first cancels out the second.

Table 1 describes the institutional procedures employed by the ASEAN diplomacy to maintain peace. Member states participate in communication, preventative diplomacy, and cooperation via forums such as the ASEAN Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC). These procedures minimize tensions, resolve conflicts peacefully, and strengthen stability in Southeast Asia, illustrating how the ASEAN Way promotes long-term regional peace.

Figure 1 demonstrates the concept of the regional security and diplomatic organization of ASEAN which connects the member states of ASEAN and other foreign countries. It highlights the fact that ASEAN is the most important diplomatic center in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the ASEAN regional forum (ARF), ASEAN plus Three (APT) and the East Asia Summit (EAS) institutional forums, ASEAN is assisting the conversation and collaboration with relevant regional and global communities including China, Japan, South Korea and the US, among others. These models encourage proactive diplomacy, dispute resolution, and confidence-building. As a result, ASEAN uses diplomatic communication and multilateral cooperation to bring about peace and stability in the area Paasi (1986).

The so-called ASEAN Way, which avoids the use of force, consensus-building, and casual mediation, has been judged essential to Southeast Asia’s peace and security. In spite of the complicated political and cultural environment of the area, where it was founded in 1967, ASEAN has proven to be one of the most positive partners of the region in terms of conflict management and, subsequently, the advancement of the law and order.

The ASEAN peace is intensely embedded in the ideals of the organization especially the principle of non-interference. Since every state considers the sovereignty of other states and does not interfere with their internal affairs, this principle has turned out to be very crucial in avoiding conflicts among the ASEAN member states. According to Tekunan (2014), the principle of non-intervention that exists in the ASEAN Way has created an environment of mutual respect and trust between its countries of the region, which has played an essential role in ensuring peace in the region. This has enabled ASEAN to move through the high tensions without necessarily engaging in conflict which ensures that the peace in the region is maintained.

Moreover, consensus based decision-making has been one of the primary reasons, which has simultaneously resulted in the absence of conflicts and improved coordination among the member states of the ASEAN Way due to its heterogeneous composition. Beverly Loke (2005) argues that despite some of the situations where such a strategy may lead to delay in decision-making, it has been good to ensure that the member states feel included and their concerns are heard. This participatory style has helped in preventing worsening of conflict situations since decisions are made when there is a broad agreement among the members hence reducing probability of action being pursued on personal terms which can lead to conflict.

Another way the ASEAN Way has contributed to peace in the region is how ASEAN has been managing external war and other security issues. As an example, the reaction of ASEAN to the Cambodian crisis in the late 1970s and 1980s explains the success of the ASEAN Way in addressing regional security problems. Kyudeug Hwang (2019) explains the way ASEAN, by applying the principles of ASEAN Way, managed to contribute to the solution to the Cambodian conflict in a substantial manner, thus cementing its peace and stability agenda in Southeast Asia. The success is highly referred to as a prime example of how ASEAN can control the security in the region with its own diplomatic system.

Although the ASEAN Way has historically helped manage conflicts and promote regional peace, current geopolitical and transnational security issues have made the institutional shortcomings of its long-standing diplomatic ideals more apparent. Heng (2014) notes that the ASEAN Way has had some success in ensuring peace in the region; however, it encounters many challenges when it comes to external issues like the aggressiveness of China in the South China Sea. The consensus form of approach can cause inactivity or poor reactions, especially when member states have conflicting interests or when outside forces are highly influential.

Nevertheless, the ASEAN Way remains a key framework for regional collaboration and healing in Southeast Asia in spite of these institutional and geopolitical obstacles. Despite these obstacles, the ASEAN Way has remained essential to maintaining peace in Southeast Asia. Despite being at the center of the regional security structural composition, its principles have allowed ASEAN to include the major external powers in regional security debates, notably the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). As Husain (2017) argues, the fact that ASEAN has been able to promote the positive and negative peace, i.e. to minimize the occurrence of direct conflict and increase the levels of cooperative relationships, proves that ASEAN Way remains topical and applicable in the context of the changing security environment of Southeast Asia.

The ASEAN Way has played a crucial role in promoting and maintaining peace in the region of Southeast Asia. Due to the non-interference, consensus, and informal diplomacy principles, ASEAN has been in a position to prevent conflicts in the region, facilitate cooperation, and solve complex security problems. Although the shortcomings of the ASEAN Way still exist within the framework of emerging problems and transnational threats, it is still a significant paradigm in the cycle of providing peace and security to Southeast Asia.

Setting four cases side by side makes clearer when the ASEAN Way opens channels and when it produces deadlock. In the Cambodian conflict ASEAN held a common position for more than a decade and used its collective weight in international forums, largely because every member read the Vietnamese intervention as the same kind of threat. In the South China Sea that shared reading does not exist, since members with claims and members without them have different stakes, and the result has been the repeated failure to agree a joint position and a Code of Conduct still unfinished after two decades of negotiation. The Myanmar crisis shows the limit more sharply again: the Five-Point Consensus was agreed but never enforced, because non-interference gave the authorities in Naypyidaw grounds to disregard it and gave ASEAN no means of response beyond exclusion from summits. The Rohingya case shows the same pattern in its clearest form, with the matter handled as a humanitarian and refugee problem rather than as one of accountability, which allowed cooperation on relief while leaving the cause untouched. The pattern across the four cases is consistent. Where member interests converge, the ASEAN Way supplies a workable framework for common action; where they diverge, consensus and non-interference convert disagreement into institutional paralysis. The variable is not the strength of the norms but the distribution of interests among those bound by them.

As seen in Table 2, ASEAN diplomatic rules build up a similar identity among member states. The principles of agreement, non-interference and informal diplomacy as exemplified in the ASEAN Way promote a culture of cooperation in politics and countries with divergent political systems and cultures can work together. This saw ASEAN gradually forge a regional identity based on trust, dialogue and respect.

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework for regional identity building inside a regional organization, such as ASEAN. According to the theory, regional identity comes from the interaction of two fundamental dimensions: regional consciousness and the region’s identity. Regional awareness refers to how individuals, groups, and states understand themselves as part of a larger regional community. In contrast, the region’s identity describes how the territory is characterized by both internal perceptions (“image from inside”) and external perspectives (“image from outside”). These interwoven factors help to build a collective sense of belonging, shared standards, and common values, all of which contribute to the creation of a stronger regional identity (Sokla, 2019).

Over the past 50 years, ASEAN has been successful in maintaining peace and fostering collaboration in Southeast Asia thanks in large part to consensus, non-interference, and informal diplomacy the cornerstones of the ASEAN Way. This special arrangement has seen ASEAN scale through the extensive and intricate political, cultural, and economic environment of the region to become one of the most durable regional organisations outside Europe. Durability, however, is not the same as effectiveness. ASEAN has a strong record in avoiding war between its members and in keeping dialogue going, but its record in settling disputes, protecting human rights and enforcing its own decisions during crises remains contested, and the claim made here is limited to the first of these.

Nevertheless, with the ongoing development of the region and the world, the ASEAN Way has to struggle with great challenges. The values that used to have guaranteed unity and stability are now viewed as a limitation to dealing with contemporary, transnational challenges that are manifested in the form of human rights, economic integration, and non-traditional security dangers. The consensus principle can contribute to inefficiency and slowness, and the principle of non-interference usually delays the ASEAN capability to efficiently handle internal crises inside member states. From the outset, scholarship has tended to focus on the obstacles facing the application of universal human rights norms in the region (Aguirre and Pietropaoli, 2012).

These challenges notwithstanding, the ASEAN Way continues to be a key tool of regional diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Its flexibility and focus on communication and collaboration are still useful in dealing with the complex procedures of the region. But to survive and remain pertinent in the twenty-first century, ASEAN can have to reconsider its initial concepts to become more decisive and acting as one without acting in opposition to the interest of its member states. Non-interference applies in the economic sphere as well as the political one, and it has caused similar difficulties there. Jong (2010) argues that closer integration between the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the ASEAN Surveillance Process (ASP) would strengthen regional economic coordination, but that this depends on members accepting a degree of mutual scrutiny that non-interference has so far discouraged.

Finding a balance between the core values that have historically formed the basis of the ASEAN success and adjusting to the requirements of a more interconnected and complex global context is likely to become the main staple of the future of the ASEAN Way. In so doing, the ASEAN will remain on the frontline of achieving prosperity, peace and stability in the Southeast Asian region and beyond.