{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017899761336515514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011933174224343676, 'mean_word_length': 5.7894736842105265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ASEAN's Quest for Security: A Theoretical Explanation

The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) role in managing southeast Asian security has been analysed by different scholars from diverse theoretical perspectives. A careful scrutiny of these makes it clear that Realism1 which once dominated the discourse on south-east Asian security is no longer the sole perspective.2 Within mainstream international relations theory, the predominance of Realism has come under sharp attack from Neo-Liberal Institutionalism. Although both Realism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism differ on how anarchy in the international system is to be managed, these two perspectives share many commonalties including rationalism as an approach to the understanding of international politics. Moreover, both Realism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism emphasize the role of material factors in explaining the notion of security and behaviour of states in the international system. Also, Realism has come under serious assault from the postPositivist perspectives, most notably Constructivism. Constructivisms strength lies primarily in its challenge to Realisms epistemological foundations. The salience of ideational factors in explaining state behaviour in the south-east Asian region is an issue of contention between the Realist and Constructivist scholars. By detecting the limitations of Realisms material determinism, Constructivism has put forward cultural and ideational factors like norms and identities as the fundamental determinants of security and politics in south-east Asia. This article makes an attempt to focus upon the debate between the Realist and the Constuctivist