Time To Revive And Empower ASEAN's High Council

This incident is one of many that threaten to resurface and stir instability among ASEAN nations. Notably, the South China Sea also remains a contested area for several Southeast Asian countries. Although China's gray zone activities have made it the center of attention, territorial disputes between ASEAN nations persist.

One area of particular contention is the Spratly Islands, which are claimed to varying degrees by Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. In November 2024, Malaysia lodged a complaint with Vietnam over its expansion of artificial islands. Further, despite agreeing to cooperate on South China Sea issues, Hanoi sent a letter to Manila in May 2025 disputing its actions at Sandy Cay .

These incidents come in stark contrast to the lofty goals set forth by ACV 2045, which was adopted during the 46th ASEAN Summit and succeeded the 2015 ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together plan.

The ACV 2045 is a blueprint for the prosperity of ASEAN, encompassing four pillars: political security, economics, socio-culture, and connectivity and institutional capacity building. The document builds on past priorities while putting forth a new emphasis on regional leadership in global affairs and a focus on digital and green economies.

Taken together, these initiatives would help achieve ASEAN's stated goal of becoming the fourth-largest economy in the world and enhance its ability to influence regional dynamics. Despite these ambitions, further integration of Southeast Asia to achieve these goals will be impossible if territorial issues continue to plague ASEAN centrality.

Notably, this desire to increase the bloc's ability to resolve territorial disputes is already a key priority to some in ASEAN. For example, during the May 2025 , Malaysia's Deputy Director-General of National Security Hamzah bin Ishak suggeste a five-year timeline for resolving disputes.

Although the idea was deemed overly ambitious by other attendees, their willingness to engage in the discussion shows that regional actors understand the essential nature of resolving these disputes.

However, ASEAN already has a mechanism to do so through the ASEAN High Council . Yet, in practice, the High Council has never been used to resolve any disputes. Instead, countries have either attempted to utilize established bilateral mechanisms or external institutions, namely the ICJ , to resolve these issues.

The recent flare-up between Cambodia and Thailand illustrates that these efforts are insufficient. Not only does this problem erode ASEAN centrality as outside players intervene to resolve issues in Southeast Asia, but the lack of universal recognition among regional states, combined with the absence of a binding mechanism, means many of these issues remain unresolved.

ASEAN should work to better operationalize the High Council. First, the council must resolve the lengthy timeline required to bring the case to a conclusion. These regional disputes often deteriorate rapidly and the risk of escalation is high.

As such, the requirement for a party to give at least 14 days of written notice before invoking the dispute settlement process is too long. Furthermore, the chairperson is only required to convene a meeting within six weeks of receiving written confirmations.

This timeline is excessive and countries will not sit idly by while the council takes weeks to convene. A more streamlined timeline must be implemented to ensure that states with grievances can meet and resolve disputes before escalation occurs.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

The High Council should also seek to strengthen its mandate and the expertise of its members. The ad hoc selection of representatives for the council is inadequate both in meeting the urgency required to resolve disputes promptly and in providing the necessary expertise for practical solutions.

ASEAN has already acknowledged in one instance that to address an issue seriously, permanent officials or envoys are needed; hence, the establishment of a permanent Myanmar envoy . The resolution of territorial disputes should be approached with the same mindset.

The creation of a permanent mediation panel composed of legal experts, regional historians and international scholars would better equip it to handle disputes in a timely and efficient manner. Moreover, the chairperson could be rotated every three years , just like the Myanmar envoy.

With the advent of AVC 2045 and the resurgence of Cambodia-Thailand border tensions, the time is now to reinvigorate the High Council, enabling ASEAN to regain its ability to resolve its own regional disputes.

Failure to act now will prevent ASEAN from effectively addressing its most pressing issues, such as US-China geopolitical competition and maximizing the economic capabilities of its member countries. The bloc holds the procedural solution within its grasp; it now must build confidence in the High Council by committing to refining and empowering it.

Nathaniel Schochet is an associate analyst at CJPA Global Advisors. He previously worked as a program administrator for the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and is a part of the Pacific Forum's Young Leaders Program.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Print