419

1 INTRODUCTION

Sea as a maritime environment has become a

contested area for several political interests. Some

nations fight to take control of the sea while others

provide economic and military power to secure their

tendency. So, maritime security is an important issue

that needs to be tackled seriously due to its potential

to be developed into a global problem. It is argued

that maritime security relates to other country's

sovereignty, that is why international cooperation is a

must. For instance in Southeast Asia, the area where

transnational crime continues to rise but on the other

hand, there is no effective mechanism to address that

issue. Armed robbery and piracy in Southeast Asia

sea have been going on for years. Piracy is considered

an enemy of humankind because pirates commit acts

of murder, robbery, looting, rape, or other evil acts at

sea against humanity (Wu & Zou, 2009). According to

an International Maritime Bureau (IMB), in January-

September 2010 and 2017 report shows plenty of

piracy, robberies, and attacks on ships in the

Southeast Asian sea throughout 2008-2015 continued

to increase and reached its peak in 2015 as many as

147 cases (IMB, Report for Period 1 January-30

September 2017). British maritime intelligence

company released a trend analysis in the third quarter

related to global maritime crime which increased 38%

in Southeast Asia compared to the first 9 months of

2014, from 140 cases increased to 194 in 2015

(Maritimenews. id, 2015). The Time website highlights

the hijacking of ships in Southeast Asia with title "The

Most Dangerous Waters in The World" (Time.com,

2014). The following table is the IMB report regarding

the number of robberies, hijackings and attacks on

ships at sea during 2013-2017.

Non-Traditional Maritime Security Threats. The

Dynamic of ASEAN Cooperation

Rosnani

1,2

, D. Heryadi

, Y. M. Yani

& O. Sinaga

Universitas Bosowa, Selatan, Indonesia

Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: This article attempts to analyze ASEAN’s response to maritime security cooperation. As an

organization in Southeast Asia, ASEAN needs to establish good maritime cooperation to protect the various

interests of the members and the busy SLOCs as well. The author uses cooperative security to analyze ASEAN

maritime security cooperation and identifies sources of cooperative maritime security to explain their

willingness to join or not to join a cooperation agreement. This article shows that there is an overlap of

cooperation as the result of different in terms of prioritization, capability, and especially perspective regarding

the absolute and collective gain that leads to ineffective cooperation. In addition, there are no legally binding

frameworks as an outcome from formed cooperation beside a series of dialogues between ASEAN members.

But, although each country has different priorities, capability, interest and perspectives, the Cooperative

security may become a bridge to overcome the difference. It is possible as the ASEAN members keep showing

their willingness to overcome maritime issue by doing bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral cooperation.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 16

Number 3

September 2022

DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.03.02

420

Table 1. Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ship. Period

January-September 2010 and 2017

_______________________________________________

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

_______________________________________________

Number 128 141 147 69 76

_______________________________________________

Source: IMB 2010 and 2017

There was a rapid rise that is depicted in the table

from 2013 to 2015. Although it was declined in 2016,

the number increased slightly in 2017. The incident

occurred in the Malacca Strait and the Sulu-Sulawesi

Sea. Since March 2016, a series of kidnapping-for-

ransom have been reported in the Sulu Sea and with

thousands of islands and busy shipping lanes, the

region offers a high potential for pirates to loot cargo

(bbc.com). In addition to being vulnerable to piracy,

the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea lane is also an area for illegal

smuggling of goods and migrant workers. In this area,

it is easier for smuggling activities because there are

many gaps to escape from the surveillance of border

guards. This situation endangers the maritime

security of the region, particularly for ship navigation

and the ship crew as well. As an international

shipping lane, guaranteeing maritime security for

ships passing through these areas should be deemed

as a vital policy. The countries in Southeast Asia are

responsible to provide such guarantees by conducting

cooperation in maritime security area.

The aim of maritime security cooperation in the

Southeast Asian region is to overcome traditional and

non-traditional threats. Although Piracy, armed

robbery, and other trans-illegal activities as non-

traditional threats are a common concern of countries

in Southeast Asia, the level of priorities and

capabilities are different among them. The differences

are articulated in varying participation in some

agreements namely bilateral, trilateral or multilateral

that has been carried out since the beginning of the

formation of ASEAN. For instances, Treaty on the

Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (1971),

ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea (1992),

ASEAN Declaration on Transnational Crime and

ASEAN Plan of Action for Combat Transnational

Crime (1997-1999), Hanoi Declaration of 1998, Piracy

and Maritime Crimes Fused with Terrorism (2000),

Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South

China Sea (2002), ASEAN Maritime Forum (2003),

ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) and

ADMM Plus (2006), ASEAN Convention on Counter-

Terrorism (2007) and Adopt the Hanoi Action Plan to

implement the ARF Vision Statement (2010).

The amount of cooperation does not mean the

maritime security threats decline significantly. The

scope of activities and discussions doing in different

platforms are deemed to be overlapping efforts,

therefore risking these frameworks effectiveness and

creating drained resources (ASEAN Mechanisms on

Maritime Security Cooperation, 2017). For that reason,

Southeast Asian countries should rethink the

imperatives of single council which accommodate

different level of priorities. This can be done as each

member shows a desire to be active in the diverse

cooperation that has been in place to address

maritime security issues. By doing that, the defense of

the sea-security will not easily encounter by

transnational organized crimes.

2 COOPERATIVE SECURITY; SOLVING

REGIONAL PROBLEMS

This research analyzes ASEAN maritime security

cooperation in two stages. The first stage is through

the concept of Cooperative Security. The author sees

that maritime security cooperation in Southeast Asia

is carried out through cooperative security that

emphasizes the process of Dialogue, Transparency,

Interdependence, Mutual Assurance, Inclusiveness,

and Comprehensive with a cooperative approach.

However, this cooperation was carried out through

various cross-sectorial forums so that maritime

security cooperation was still not effective.

Cooperative security is a concept coined by former

Canadian and Australian Foreign Ministers, Joe Clark

and Gareth Evans in the early 1990s (Mack & Kerr,

2010). In a proposal that aims at replacing the security

structure of a cold war that is balanced of power and

supported by military alliances in nuclear prevention

efforts through a multilateral framework and

promoting military and non-military security (Dewitt,

2007). Gareth Evans depicted cooperative security as

an attempt to imply consultation rather than

confrontation, transparency than secrecy, reassurance

rather than deterrence, interdependence than

unilateralism and prevention rather than correction

(Evans, 1994). This concept is considered important

for several reasons (Moodie, 2000): First, the

emergence of new problems beyond the capacity of a

country to overcome them individually. For instance,

environmental problems, immigration, crime

organizations, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

Besides, traditional issues also become more complex

which makes the state faces more challenges to secure

its interests.

The second is the failure of security competition. In

the cold war, countries tried to reach their security

purposes through traditional approaches such as

increasing military capacity or pursuing local and

regional domination. This condition created tensions

between states and sparked hostility and conflict. The

last, cooperative security assumes the importance of

environment stability, where the disintegration of

internal political structures raises questions about the

ability of some countries to sustain coherence and to

fulfill their citizen’s basic needs. Failed state tends to

generate greater violence that may not be handled

within state boundaries. The global and regional

implications of the disintegration of the political

structures of countries make cooperation become

important to reduce their adverse impacts. Broadly,

perhaps only in regional cooperation context, the

stability and the strength of political, economic, and

social structures in surrounded countries can be

achieved. A strategic principle that is used to achieve

goals with various institutions is compared through

the material threat or physical coercion (Moodie,

2000a). Cooperative security promoted through

international regimes creates provision for all parties

to respond effectively to disobedience. When

noncompliance occurs without punishment, the

regime is weakened. While if significant non-

compliance keep repeating, the regime will collapse

(Moodie, 2000b).

Cooperative security is also defined as a process

where countries with similar interest collaborate

421

through agreed mechanisms with the aim of boosting

the economy, reducing mutual suspicion and tension

between countries, building trust and maintaining

regional stability. Cooperative Security is a strategic

system shaped around the core countries of liberal

democracies that connect together in formal or

informal bloc networks and institutions, which share

common values and practical and transparent

political, economic, and defense cooperation. (Cohen

& Mihalka, 2001). Generally, efforts to characterize

and form this concept express a liberal perspective of

world security future. Its supporters offer to act

collectively, through as many international

institutions as possible. They assume that democracy

will be easier to obtain by working jointly in a security

cooperation regime and democracy has historically

tended not to fight with each other. Cooperative

Security is an effort to overcome traditional collective

security weaknesses. At the same time, it does not

justify aggression, anywhere and by anyone. So that

international cooperation is an effort to prevent and

frustrate aggression. Cooperative Security supporters

believe that they are currently more effective in

achieving their goals. Regional conflicts between

countries are an important concern for supporters of

Cooperative Security. Cross-border aggression can

never be accepted. Emerging internal state conflicts

are a serious problem for this strategy.

Cooperative security strategies encourage the

involvement of non-state actors, international

organizations, and countries with different ideologies,

through informal forums. This strategy model also

develops the basic principles where stability can be

achieved only if the actions and effects of choices,

including solutions relating to economic, political,

military and civilian aspects are coordinated

(Framework document, 2011). According to Archarya

(2007), Cooperative Security is a system of building

trust and transparency aimed at reducing tension and

conflicts within a group of states. This definition

provides a view of Cooperative Security which is

more directed at building Confidence Building

Measure (CBM) among members and avoiding

internal conflicts rather than focusing on safeguards

against external threats (Carter, et.al., 1993). The way

non-military and non-coercive effort for gaining

security among all members without being associated

with friend or enemy status is an approach to the

cooperative. This is very important because it is

inclusive; in another way, no particular parties are

excluded or regarded as opponents which are also

considered as the use of the power of non-military for

coercive purposes (Katsuma, 2009a). By this

definition, there are two critical elements: First,

inclusiveness or indivisibility; Security is inclusive,

where no one is excluded or considered as enemy.

Security as something 'inseparable' and can be

achieved through cooperative efforts. The second is

the use of non-military force for coercive purposes.

One feature that distinguishes cooperative security

from conventional security cooperation models, such

as Collective Defense and Collective Security, is that it

does not prioritize non-military elements. (Katsuma,

2009b). The main purpose of Cooperative Security is

to prevent war especially by preventing aggression.

Therefore, for cooperation to be effective and

beneficial for the engaged countries, cooperative

security must involve the dimensions of individual

security and active promotion of stability which

should be seen in two ways: inward-looking, and

outward-looking (Cohen and Mihalka, 2001a).

Individual security has become an important agenda

for the international community. This is related to

global human security. In which an individual is very

vulnerable to various threats both from the country

and outside the country. Therefore cooperative

security includes the dimensions of individual

security as an important element in creating stability.

The component actively promotes stability, that

stability can be disturbed by the effect from conflicted

states and also by individual security violation within

neighboring countries. How stability can be

developed, restored and maintained in the world

should always be a concern for countries in the

Cooperative Security system (Cohen and Mihalka,

2001b).

According to Dewitt and Acharya (Mily Ming-Tzu

Kao, 2011) the three fundamentals of cooperative

security consist of cooperative actions, the habits of

dialogue and inclusivity. First, inclusiveness is a step

in recognizing the role of state and non-state actors,

particularly international organizations in improving

and providing security. A broader conceptualization

of security issues is not only related to traditional

security issues such as military representation

between states but also non-traditional security issues

that are increasingly prevalent such as transnational

crime. Second, Cooperative security arrangements

particularly begin with an informal meeting such as

dialogue among the participants. This informal

conversation is deemed as important step that can

lead to routine discussions setting both bilateral and

multilateral in terms of security concerns and how to

overcome it. Over time, a routine dialogue can trigger

openness, clarity, and certainty in which will reduce

conflict potential such as misunderstanding. Finally,

the Cooperative Security concept emphasizes that

many contemporary security problems can only be

solved if countries cooperate with each other and it

requires cooperative action to ameliorate the security

problems faced by all members.

Based on that reason, the commitment system

cooperative security rests on (SIPRI, 1996): (1) the

belief that is based on openness, predictability and

transparency; (2) confidence-building; and (3)

legitimacy, to the acceptance by members that their

security is substantially dependent on military

constraint of the regime. Thus, the concept of

cooperative security must meet the following criteria

(SIPRI, 1996): (1) Comprehensiveness, which is

defined as the recognition of the relationship between

preserving peace and respecting human rights and

fundamental freedoms as well as economic,

environmental cooperation, legal, and cultural; (2)

Indivisibility, that needs joint efforts in achieving

security interests both single country or group of

states because they cannot be separated from one

another; (3) Cooperative approaches, as manifested in

complementary supporting and complementary

institutions, in any kinds of regional and sub-regional

cooperation.

By referring to the statements above, this concept

then becomes important in seeing how ASEAN

maritime security cooperation is carried out in the

context of overcoming non-traditional crimes such as

422

armed robbery and piracy. As a policy choice,

cooperative security promotes steps to build trust,

security dialogue, defense exchanges, and a

multilateral framework promotion. This situation

encourages a rise in the "transparency" of military

forces that can mitigate distrust among countries by

facilitating effective threat evaluation in engaging

countries. Through the distribution of intelligence

reports, joint military base inspections and the

exchange of observers at military exercises will be

achieved with greater transparency. The main

components of cooperative security are confidence

and security measures of Confidence Building

Measures (CBM) that increase transparency

throughout the region.

3 SOURCES OF COOPERATIVE MARITIME

SECURITY

Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Southeast

Asia region itself has been led by ASEAN. Some

initiatives have been taken by ASEAN to enhance

collaboration between the members and external

forces, therefore developing cooperative security as a

channel for security dialogue. In establishing the

ASEAN dialogue, there are several levels of

mechanisms including Ministerial Level meetings

between member countries. The model of ASEAN

cooperative security represents the norms

development where the ASEAN Regional Forum

(ARF) as a medium for Southeast Asian countries to

practice their norms, and share them with non-

ASEAN countries. The norms of security cooperation

practiced by ASEAN relate to the idea that security

should be carried out in a cooperative and non-

military manner, by increasing trust and mutual

understanding through consultation and dialogue.

ASEAN organizations aimed at creating a safe region

through a process of dialogue that is considered as

CBM and as the implementation of the Cooperative

Security concept.

ASEAN consist of 10 countries namely Indonesia,

Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam,

Brunei Darussalam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar.

Some countries in this region are directly adjacent to

the sea which is why one of their security focuses is

maritime security. Sea in Southeast Asia is one of the

busiest maritime trade routes where a third of world

trade and a half of its oil transits in the Straits of

Malacca and Singapore which are located in Southeast

Asian regions. That is why the countries in the

Southeast Asia region established various platforms

and cooperation to secure their interest in the

maritime issue. Maritime security cooperation in the

Southeast Asian region takes place on several levels

and it has been proven that bilateral or trilateral

arrangements beyond the ASEAN mechanisms have

run well. For instance; Bilateral cooperation such as

Indonesia-Singapore patrol cooperation in the

Malacca Strait, Trilateral cooperation such as

cooperation conducted by Indonesia, Malaysia, and

the Philippines in securing their maritime borders,

Regional cooperation both with ASEAN Countries

and outside the region such as Japan, China, and

United States. Thailand, in maritime security,

although it supports multilateral and regional

agreements, in practice, is more likely to have bilateral

agreements.

Preference of cooperation level in ASEAN is

influenced by absolute and collective gain calculation.

As a result, the mechanism taking by the countries do

not run effectively for addressing the threats at the

sea. The fact that each state looks out for interest,

notwithstanding existing grounds for cooperation is

established. Regarding the case, state capacity to

engage in mutually beneficial actions without

resorting to the highest central authority, to work

together in anarchic system, is essential for achieving

joint performance (Oye, 2011). Each country seeks

mutual benefits in cooperation, and in Maritime

security, it was affected by the absolute and collective

gain from the cooperation. For instance, Indonesia's

desire to participate in maritime security cooperation

is based on an 'absolute gain' calculation of whether

the benefits outweigh the costs. In this cooperation,

Indonesia is interested in sharing burdens and

equipment, access to training and exercises, as well as

co-benefits, including agreements from partners to

negotiate other assistance. As for the Philippines,

maritime cooperation can make it easier for the

Philippines to reach its national interests in

maintaining territorial integrity and can reduce the

tension between the Philippines and China in the

South China Sea.

Different Priorities is also matter. In terms of

priorities, the Philippines urge the need for

cooperation in maritime security due to the absence of

credible council or body in terms of maritime national

defense. The Philippines consistently advocate

various regional and international forums, promote

good governance, the rule of law, protection of the

marine environment, and maximize sea potential with

responsible and sustainability based on UNCLOS

1982. The Philippines start initiating the ASEAN

Coast Guards Forum (AGF)) by managing an expert

group meeting. Despite the forum that is formed by

the Philippines does not have a long-term strategy,

their national policy has already changed to be more

concern with maritime security cooperation like

maritime terrorism, drug trafficking, humanitarian

and disaster relief and countering piracy, where

previously focus on territorial defense in the South

China Sea (ASEAN Mechanisms On Maritime

Security cooperation, 2017). Cambodia focuses on

non-traditional security issues like sea piracy, human

trafficking, maritime terrorism, and IUU fishing. In

December 2009, Cambodia formed a national

committee on maritime security (NCMS) and

strengthening law enforcement also increasing

maritime sovereignty as the main goal. Vietnam also

shows high interest for securing maritime area by

using The Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea

(CUES) application, applying management and

prevention of maritime incidents at sea, protecting

maritime environment, and establishing agenda for

respect freedom of navigation (FON) and over flight.

Thailand Government uses different strategies to

secure the maritime domain based on the area

coverage. Nonetheless, Thailand likely to adjust its

policy with other issues relate to ASEAN and not to

pay more attention to any maritime national agenda

(ASEAN mechanism for maritime security

cooperation, 2017). On the contrary, the foreign policy

423

of Laos focuses on peace and independence rather

than on maritime security. But Laos already has

expanded its cooperative network both with other

countries and international organizations. Laos is

keen on enhancing mutual understanding and trust

throughout the world particularly in Southeast Asia

nations and stressing the imperative of cooperation.

Indonesia, as the largest archipelago in the region,

is focusing its security on issues of maritime security

and cooperation as well. Indonesia with its strategic

position believes every country can work effectively

and sea will not become the barrier. This is also true

considering the sea offers tremendous potential for

cooperation and to gain advantages ASEAN members

should establish strong maritime connectivity and

build trust among its member. Therefore, Indonesia

continues to become tough supporter of maritime

cooperation by initiating different platform of

cooperation and mechanism like the ASEAN

Maritime Forum. For instance, Indonesia forms some

trilateral cooperation such as Malacca Straits Patrol

Network with Singapore and Malaysia to combat

piracy and with Malaysia and The Philippines

addressing the same issue particularly in Sulu

Sulawesi Seas.

In the case of Malaysia, its defense policy priority

is maintaining peace and stability and pursuing

economic sustainability. Malaysia really knows its

responsibility for ensuring maritime zone - include

the Malacca Strait- by providing safety for navigation.

However, Malaysia recognizes that regional

preferences on issues occur among the ASEAN

member such as military-to-military engagement,

illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing

also joint patrols among coast guards. One step ahead,

Singapore established an information center that

provides a sharing information platform that benefits

other countries. The platform gives a better response

to a dynamic maritime security environment by

utilizing its links with international maritime centers,

operations centers, and institutions throughout the

world. This Platform Called The Regional

Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and

Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (Re CAAP).

Launched in November 2006, the Re CAAP

Agreement was signed by 14 Asian Contracting

Parties including Southeast, North, and South Asian

countries. Today, signed countries is increase to 20

parties include Europe (Denmark, Norway, United

Kingdom and the Netherlands) United States and

Australia (Re CAAP, 2020).

From the previous explanation, it can be seen that

some ASEAN countries are very concerned about

maritime security. ASEAN efforts to increase

maritime cooperation across many sectors are based

on the pillars of the ASEAN Political-Security

Community (APSC). Their efforts will discuss the

following matters (ASEAN.org); (a) maritime and

security cooperation in ASEAN; (b) the marine

environment, ecotourism and fisheries regimes in

Asia; (c) freedom and security of navigation and sea

piracy; (d) cooperation in the ASEAN Maritime

Forum (AMF). In the APSC Blueprint (2016), it was

stated that ASEAN promoted the establishment of the

AMF as a formal mechanism for ASEAN members to

discuss issues related to maritime security. The AMF

identifies maritime security threats in the form of (1)

piracy, (2) armed robbery, (3) marine environment, (4)

illegal fishing, (5) goods, people, weapons, and drug

smuggling (Keliat, 2009). Apart from the AMF,

ASEAN also discussed maritime security in the

ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). The ARF not only

identifies mainstream security issues such as

sovereignty and military threats. It also includes other

problems such as armed robbery against ships, piracy,

illicit trafficking in drugs and arms, terrorism, and

human trafficking. These broad issues then push

ASEAN cooperation to focus also on the search and

rescue maritime, illegal unreported and unregulated

Fishing, the marine environment, climate change, and

natural disasters.

From all of the cooperation above, there was still

shortcoming faced by ASEAN members. Forums

conducted by ASEAN are deemed only as ‘talk shops’

because none of the members initiate or suggest a

legally binding agreement formation. Archarya (2009)

found that most students of Asian security called the

ASEAN Regional Forum as a useless ‘talking shop’

where no serious effort to overcome maritime security

problems. He argues that the ASEAN’s approach only

focuses on how to increase trust and mutual

understanding that seems so naive. However, this

view is opposed by Director for ASEAN Political and

Security who stated “ASEAN cooperation is not only

on dialogue level”. For instance ADDM plus which

consist of 10 countries plus 8 other countries. The

member focuses on practical cooperation. Not only for

sharing information, training and workshop, but also

like what is in the table top exercise, field training

exercise. All the members of ASEAN were involved in

the field training exercise on maritime security to

counter terrorism in 2016. The scenario at that time

was Abu Sayyaf who becomes recent topics,

kidnapping, robbery and terrorism.

Other shortcomings are lack of trust and

leadership among ASEAN members. In terms of

leadership, Indonesia considers it as important factor

for making effective cooperation although no

declaration who can take such a role neither

Indonesia. Indonesia also tries to include other high

national priority issues namely Illegal, Unreported

and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. But unfortunately,

ASEAN has failed in assisting the attempt to include

IUU fishing as a transnational crime. ASEAN is likely

loss of confidence while Indonesia potentially can

push legally-binding regional agreement from

regional forum or conference.

In terms of lack of trust among the member, if

some states initiate one platform or strategy, others

will form another because they do not trust the

platform or the strategy will run well. To date, no

country in ASEAN wants to create a legally-binding

regional agreement and firmly implement

punishment for breaching the rules. In the case of

maritime security cooperation in the South China Sea,

for example, Valencia (2018) stated that many Asian

nations experience distrustful of each other

historically and then become barrier for making

security cooperation. They assumed the cooperation

only benefits the developed country especially if the

country is engaged in such cooperation. Although,

engaging countries beyond ASEAN will probably

bring different results and effective cooperation due

to limited resources and capabilities that are

424

experienced by most ASEAN countries. A positive

outcome from maritime cooperation including non-

member of ASEAN is displayed by Malaysia, the

Philippines and Indonesia which collaborate with the

United States and Australia. This cooperation focuses

on piracy and terrorism in the Sulu Sulawesi Sea. The

Trilateral cooperation claims that the crimes have

decreased and data from Regional Cooperation

Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery

against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) shows that the crime

in the Sulu Sea in 2018, reduced from three to seven

incidents in 2017.

Notwithstanding, all forms of maritime

cooperation which is initiated or implemented by a

member of ASEAN do not guarantee the transnational

crime at sea is addressed effectively. The efforts are

likely to overlap and led to the question of why

various mechanisms and cooperation are established.

Why ASEAN does not form a single institution or

council focusing only on the maritime issue? Is the

previous did not run well? Is there any conflict

between the members so they form another? The

engaging multi-sectorial body definitely will trigger

the single sectorial issue. This situation needs a deep

analysis particularly about which mechanism or

cooperation that effective in terms of overcoming

transnational crime at sea. ASEAN should then

identify one cooperation or strategy and discuss it

together. The determined effective cooperation could

be deemed as a single sectorial body that should be

continued and be strengthened by the member of

ASEAN. It is imperatives to interpret this maritime

issue as a critical issue that needs to be discussed in

one forum with a specific agenda that all ASEAN

member will implement it consistently.

4 CONCLUSION

Although there is plenty of cooperation conducted by

ASEAN member do not guarantee the reduction of

crimes such as piracy, illegal smuggling, etc. This

situation is influenced by different preferences,

capabilities, priorities, absolute and collective gain

calculation, lack of trust and leadership. Some

countries such as Indonesia, Cambodia, and

Singapore integrate maritime security in their foreign

policy, while others do not directly state this issue as a

prime concern. All ASEAN members should have

strong cooperation and priority adjustment as an

effort to response to major global trends; Aside from

that, trust and strong leadership are likely missing

among ASEAN members. So, it is now making sense

why a multi-sectorial body is engaged by ASEAN,

and there is no single platform with the maritime

issue as the foremost concern.

Having cooperation beyond ASEAN member also

prove that ASEAN could not overcome the issue on

their own. Lack of capability is the main factor for

asking assistance from other countries such as the

Australia and United States. On the other hand,

engaging others is proven effective but also risky for

ASEAN. Although, cooperate with others such as

United States, Australia, or other developed countries

will fill some ASEAN countries' drawbacks and is

proven to be more effective, ASEAN members should

make a serious effort to address their problems. This

effort can prevent intervention and domination

mainly in the policymaking process by non-ASEAN

member states that often gain more benefit.

In addition, though each country has different

priorities, capability, interest and perspectives, the

cooperative security may become a bridge to

overcome the difference. The ASEAN members show

their focus on the maritime issue by doing bilateral,

trilateral, and multilateral cooperation since it has

been proven that bilateral or mini-lateral cooperation

beyond the ASEAN mechanisms have run well. For

instance, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia work

jointly in the Sulu and Celebes Sea where this

trilateral setting among ASEAN member is common

and effective. Therefore, the ASEAN members should

develop those kinds of cooperation. This can create

also a strong legally-binding regional agreement, in

which the member will be pushed to overcome the

threats seriously.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to the Indonesia Endowment Fund

for Education (Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan/LPDP),

Ministry of Finance of The Republic of Indonesia for

providing financial support for the research on which this

article is based.

REFERENCE

Ad’ha Aljunied, S. M. (2011). Countering Terrorism in

Maritime Southeast Asia: Soft and Hard Power

Approaches. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 47(6),

652–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909611427252

Andrew Mack & Pauline Kerr (1995) The evolving security

discourse in the Asia ‐ pacific, The Washington

Quarterly, (18)1, 123-140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609509550136

Archarya, Amitav. (2007). ‘Regional Institutions and

Security in the Asia-Pacific: Evolution, Adaptation, and

Prospects for Transformation’. In AmitavAcharya and

Evelyn Goh, Reassessing Security Cooperation in the

Asia-Pacific: Competition, Congruence, and

Transformation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

ASEAN. (2015, December 3). ASEAN Security Outlook 2015.

https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-security-outlook-

2015

ASEAN (2013, October 17). ASEAN Security Outlook 2013

https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-security-outlook-

2013

Evans, Gareth. (1994). Cooperative Security and Intrastate

Conflict, Foreign Policy, Washingtonpost: Newsweek

Interactive, LLC.

Baird, R. (2012). Transnational security issues in the Asian

maritime environment: responding to maritime piracy.

Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66(5), 501–

513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2011.570240

Bateman, S. (2015). The Future Maritime Security

Environment in Asia: A Risk Assessment Approach.

Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 37, No. 1 (2015), pp.

49–84, 37(1), 49–84. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs37-1c

Bateman, Sam., Emmers, Ralf. (2009). Security And

International Politics In The South China Sea Towards A

Cooperative Management Regime, New York:

Routledge.

Bhattacharyya, A. (2011). Understanding Security in

Regionalism Framework: ASEAN Maritime Security in

425

Perspective. Journal of the National Maritime

Foundation of India, 6(2), 72–89.

Bhattacharyya, Anushree (2010) Understanding Security in

Regionalism Framework: ASEAN Maritime Security in

Perspective, Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National

Maritime Foundation of India, 6:2, 72-89, DOI:

10.1080/09733159.2010.559786

Booth, Ken., (2007). Theory Of World Security. Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, Chris. Ainley, Kirsten. (2005). Understanding

International Relations.Palgrave Macmillan.

Bueger, C. (2015). From Dusk to Dawn? Maritime Domain

Awareness in Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast

Asia, 37(2), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs37-2a

Carter, Ashton B., Perry, William J., Steinbruner, John D.,

(1992).A New Concept of Cooperative

Security.Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Cohen, Richard.Mihalka, Michael. (2000) Cooperative

Security: New Horizon For International Order (3rded).

The Marshal Center Papers.

Dewitt, David. (1994). Common, comprehensive, and

cooperative security. The Pacific Review Vol. 7, 1-15.

Ho, J. H. (2006). The Security of Sea Lanes in Southeast Asia.

Asian Survey, 46(4), 558–574.

ICC International Maritime Bureau (2017).Piracy and

Armed Robbery Against Ships, https://www.icc-

ccs.org/reports/2017-Annual-IMB-Piracy-Report.pdf

IEEE. (2011, June). Framework Document 05/2011 The

Evolution Of The Concept

Security.http://www.ieee.es/en/Galerias/fichero/docs_ma

rco/2011/DIEEEM05-

2011_EvolutionConceptSecurity_ENGLISH.pdf

Katsumata, Hiro. (2009). Asean’s Cooperative Security

Enterprise, Norms And Interests InTheAsean Regional

Forum. Palgrave Macmillan

Keliat, Makmur. (2009). KeamananMaritim Dan

ImplikasiKebijakannyaBagi Indonesia,

JurnalIlmuSosialdanIlmuPolitik, 13 (1), 111-129

https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.10970

Klein, Natalie. (2011). Maritime Security And The Law Of

The Sea. Oxford University Press.

Lee, T., & McGahan, K. (2015). Norm subsidiarity and

institutional cooperation: explaining the straits of

Malacca anti-piracy regime. The Pacific Review, 28(4),

529 552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1012537

Llewelyn, J. D. (2017). Preventive diplomacy and the role of

civil maritime security cooperation in Southeast Asia.

Strategic Analysis, 41(1), 49–60.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2016.1249178

Lim, Kyunghan, (2015). Non-traditional Maritime Security

Threats in Northeast Asia: Implications for Regional

Cooperation. Journal of International and Area Studies,

22 (2), 135-146.

Mccauley, A. (2014, August 15). Asia’s seas offer rich

pickings for marauding pirates who steal oil and

supplies worth billions of dollars every year.

TIME.https://time.com/piracy-southeast-asia-malacca-

strait/

Mack, A., Kerr, P. (2010). The Evolving Security In The Asia

Pacific. London: Routledge.

MI News Network. (2017, January 23). Dryad Maritime

Reports Security Issues For Ships In Southeast Asia.

https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/dryad-

maritime-reports-security-issues-for-ships-in-southeast-

asia/

Mily Ming-Tzu Kao. (2011, July).Strategic Culture of Small

States The Case of ASEAN.

https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56880/content/Ka

o_asu_0010E_10849.pdf

Moodie, Michael., (2000). Cooperative Security: Implications

for National Security and International Relations. Sandia

National Laboratories

Spray, Sharon L. Roselle, Laura, (2012). Research and

Writing in International Relations. Pearson

Till, Geoffrey. (2004). Seapower A Guide for the Twenty-

First Century.Routledge

ReCaap. (2006, November 29). About ReCAAP Information

Sharing Centre, combating maritime robbery, sea piracy.

https://www.recaap.org/about_ReCAAP-ISC

RSIS. (2017, September 26). ASEAN Mechanisms On

Maritime Security Cooperation.

https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-

content/uploads/2017/12/ER171212_ASEAN-

Mechanisms-on-Maritime-Security-

Cooperation_WEB.pdf

Severino, Rodolfo C. (2008). ASEAN at Forty A Balance

Sheet. In Daljit Sing, Tin MaungMaung Than, Southeast

Asian Affairs. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

(ISEAS).

SIPRI.(1996, October).A Future Security Agenda for Europe.

https://www.sipri.org/publications/1996/future-security-

agenda-europe-report-independent-working-group-

established-Stockholm-international

Storey, I. (2016). Addressing the Persistent Problem of

Piracy and Sea Robbery in Southeast Asia. ISEAS Yusof

Ishak Institute, (30), 1–11.

Valencia, Mark J. (2018, September 17). Maritime Security

Cooperation in the South China Sea: Sailing In Different

Directions “The diplomatic graveyard is full of failed

proposals and efforts that did not take regional realities

into account.”

https://thediplomat.com/2018/09/maritime-security-

cooperation-in-the-south-china-sea-sailing-in-different-

directions/

Weeks, Stanley B. (1998) Sea Lines Of Communication

(SLOC) Security And Access 1-72. UC San Diego Policy

Papers.

Wu, Shicun.,Zou, Keyuan, (2009). Maritime Security in the

South China Sea Regional Implications and International

Cooperation.Ashgate.