The Challenges of the ASEAN Way in Managing the Transboundary Haze Issue

  • Dona Rofithoh Don Ramli
  • Rugayah Hashim
  • Nasrudin Mohammed
Conference paper


Transboundary haze has become almost an annual environmental issue in the Southeast Asia region, especially for Malaysia due to the Indonesian fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra. Consequently, this has also become one of the main regional concerns for environmental security of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, ASEAN has continually failed to effectively mitigate haze through regional engagement known as the ASEAN Way, which consists of consultation and consensus and upholds sovereign right and non interference policy. Adherence to these principles by member states has undermined the haze mitigation efforts and raised a big question mark as ASEAN has used all diplomatic channels but was not successful in addressing the problem. Since the haze issue does not only affect Indonesia but also neighbouring countries, the ASEAN Way practices need to revamp addressing transnational issues. Therefore, this chapter has reviewed 40 relevant articles and reports with the aim of providing secondary data support that argues the ASEAN Way of regional engagement has become a challenge to various nontraditional security issues with the main focus on transboundary haze pollution.


Transboundary Haze pollution ASEAN way Nontraditional security 


  1. Acharya, A. (2010). Asia is not one. The Journal of Asian Studies, 69(4), 1001–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, V. K., & Chow, J. T. (2010). The perils of consensus: How ASEAN’s meta- regime undermines economic and environmental cooperation. International Political Economy, 17, 262–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASEAN. (2002). Agreement on transboundary haze pollution. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Google Scholar
  4. ASEAN Secretariat. (2002). ASEAN agreement on transboundary haze pollution.Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy, A. J., & Drummond, C. (2011). The responsibility to protect in Southeast Asia: Between non-interference and sovereignty as responsibility. The Pacific Review, 24(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M. (2003). Grave new world: Security challenges in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, L. B. (2005). The political economy of environmental regionalism in Asia. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Remapping East Asia: The construction of a region. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A. (2010). Introduction: What is security studies? In Contemporary security studies. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Dosch, J. (2008). ASEAN’s reluctant liberal turn and the thorny road to democracy promotion. The Pacific Review, 21, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliott, L. (2003). ASEAN and environmental cooperation: Norms, interests and identity. The Pacific Review, 16(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewing, J. J., & McRae, E. (2012). Transboundary haze in southeast Asia: Challenges and pathways forward. NTS Alert.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, R. J. (2004). ASEAN concord II: Policy prospects for participant regional “Development”. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Florano, E. R. (2003). Assessment of the “Strengths” of the new ASEAN agreement on transboundary haze pollution. International Review for Environmental Strategies. International Journal Conference on Chemical Engineering and its Applications (ICCEA’13).Google Scholar
  14. Hamzah, W. P. (2013). Transboundary haze and moving forward for ASEAN. Institute of Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  15. Herawati, H., & Santoso, H. (2011). Tropical forest susceptibility to and risk of fire under changing climate: A review of fire nature, policy and institutions in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(4), 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. iStockAnalyst. (2009). Indonesia’s palm oil contributes 4.5 pct to GDP.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, J. H. (2003). Sovereignty – Modern: A new approach to an outdated concept. Journal of International Law, 97, 782–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jetschke, A., & Ruland, J. (2009). Decoupling rhetoric and practice: The cultural limits of ASEAN cooperation. The Pacific Review, 22(2), 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, D. S. (2006). ASEAN and transboundary haze pollution in Southeast Asia. Asia Europe Journal, 4(3), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, L. (2012). Hazy governance: The politics of environmental securitization in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Studies Symposium.Google Scholar
  21. Keling, M. F., Som, H. M., Saludin, M. N., Shuib, M. S., & Ajis, M. N. (2011). The development of ASEAN from historical approach. Asian Social Science, 7, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keng, R. C. W. (2015). The transboundary haze crisis in Malaysia: A clear transgression of international environmental law. The Malaysian Bar.Google Scholar
  23. Kivimaki, T. (2001). The long peace of ASEAN. Journal of Peace Studies, 38(1). Environmental governance: Examining the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) model. In D. C. Esty, & M. H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global environmental governance: Options & opportunities. Yale: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.Google Scholar
  24. Koh, K. L., & Robinson, N. A. (2002). Regional environmental governance: Examining the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) model. In D. C. Esty & M. H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global environmental governance: Options & opportunities. Yale: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Mabee, B. (2009). The globalization of security: State power, security provision and legitimacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molthof, M. (2012). ASEAN and the principle of non-interference.Google Scholar
  27. Nesadurai, H. (2008). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). New Political Economy, 13, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nguitragool, P. (2011). Negotiating the haze treaty. Asian Survey, 51, 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nurhidayah, L., Lipman, Z., & Alam, S. (2014). Regional environmental governance: An evaluation of the ASEAN legal framework for addressing transboundary haze pollution. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 15, 1–17.Google Scholar
  30. Paige, M. (2013). Can Indonesia increase palm oil output without destroying its forest? Environmentalists doubt the world’s biggest palm oil producer can implement ambitious plans without damaging woodland. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  31. Quah, E. (2002). Transboundary pollution in Southeast Asia: The Indonesian fires. World Development, 30(3), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruland, J. (2011). Southeast Asian regionalism and global governance: “multilateral utility” or “hedging utility”? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(1), 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Satriastanti, F. E. (2011). Government declines Singapore help on haze. Jakarta Globe.Google Scholar
  34. Tamaki, T. (2006). Making sense of ‘ASEAN Way’: A constructivist approach. Annual Conference of the International Political Science Association in Fukuoka, Japan, 9–13 July 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Tan, B. (2005). The norms that weren’t ASEAN’s shortcomings in dealing with trans-boundary air pollution. International Environmental Politics.Google Scholar
  36. Tan, A. K. J. (2014). The ‘Haze’ crisis in Southeast Asia: Assessing Singapore’s transboundary haze pollution act.Google Scholar
  37. Varkkey, H. (2012). The Asean way and haze mitigation efforts. Journal of International Studies, 85, 77–97.Google Scholar
  38. Varkkey, H. (2013). Patronage politics, plantation fires and transboundary haze. Journal Environmental Hazards, 2(3–4), 200–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Bank. (2015). Indonesia’s fire and haze crisis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dona Rofithoh Don Ramli
    • 1
  • Rugayah Hashim
    • 1
  • Nasrudin Mohammed
    • 1
  1. 1.Universiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia

Personalised recommendations