Difference between European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN)

European Union (EU) and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) are arguably
amongst one of the most successful organization of modern times. Though, both share the initial
goals of building stability and amity in the region, they have quite different historical backgrounds
and experiences which reflect in the approaches and institutions of EU and ASEAN.

The following are some of the important differences between the EU and ASEAN, viz:

1. Creation, its purpose and approach:

EU, having witnessed extreme form of nationalism and subsequent large scale devastation
of World War II, resolved to tie European nations to recover from the damage caused by the
Second World War. Members of EU, a supranational organization, have agreed, in certain areas,
i.e. trade, to pool their sovereignties. On the other hand, ASEAN, an inter-governmental
organization was formed to promote political and economic cooperation and regional
stability. ASEAN’s objective was cooperation. Decision making is done in non-legalistic, informal
manner through complex informal meetings and working assemblies.1

2. Economic Integration:

ASEAN and EU vary conspicuously in relation to economic size. The EU is the largest
economy in the world. With more than 500 million population, it is the world’s most productive
consumer market. ASEAN on the other hand, has a total land area of about 4,300 square kilometers
and around 620 million people.2

1
Soderbaum, F. (2009), “Comparative Regional Integration and Regionalism” in T. Landman and N.
Robinson (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics: London: Sage: p. 485
2
Asian Development Bank Institute (2014). ASEAN 2030: Toward a Borderless Economic Community,
Tokyo: ADBI: p 11

Page 1 of 5
 A major differentiating characteristic between UE and ASEAN is the vigor of economic
integration.3

ASEAN pursued regional cooperation selectively, distinct from the EU’s preference for
intense integration. EU exemplifies a high level of institutionalism and policy commitment. At
international forums, EU stands as one entity and speaks one voice. The institutions of EU give
prominence to free market economy and as well as social welfare. Interference in national
economies is accepted in the form of state aids, which are rigorously regulated by their
Commission. In ASEAN, however, the state governments play a key role in improving their
economics – industrial policies, interest or exchange rates are used to adjust economic trends and
foster development. 4

The EU introduced the single currency Euro in 2002, while ASEAN does not have a
common currency. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, ASEAN,
together with China, Japan and South Korea, launched the so-called Chiang Mai Initiative. The
project brings together the 13 finance ministers and central bank governors. Their agenda is to
promote greater financial cooperation among the 13 countries.

3. Political Integration

In terms of political integration, the EU and ASEAN differs significantly. The EU has
developed institutions that surpass national borders and support supranationalism. On the hand,
ASEAN rest on a relation based approach to governance in the region.5

The EU has four main institutions: (1) Council of Ministers, (2) European Commission,
(3) European Parliament, and (4) Court of Justice.

Council of Ministers is a decision making institution of the EU. It meets once a month at
the level of foreign ministers and twice a year at the level of head of the state/government. It is in

3
O’ Callaghan, B. A. and F Nicholas (2007), “Are the Economics of ASEAN and the EU Complementary?”
ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 24 (2): p. 206
4
Poli, E. (2014), “Is the European Model Relevant for ASEAN?”, Instituto affari internazionali, 14 (13) p. 19
5
David, PJ. (2009) “The role of Law in Governing Regionalism in Asia” in N. Thomas (ed) Governance and
Regionalism in Asia, US and Canada: Routledge: p. 228

Page 2 of 5
charge intergovernmental teamwork in the EU, i.e. justice and home affairs and common foreign
and security policy. There is corresponding institution in ASEAN but its ministers meet only once
annually. This council formulates collective stance among the members but does not have a
legislative role.

The European Commission act as the executive wing of the communities, to commence
the community plans and to watch the interest of community in the Council. ASEAN does not
have an institution comparable to the Commission.

European Parliament is the third institution in the EU. There are no national units, only
European political groupings. There is no institution equivalent to Parliament in ASEAN.

Finally, the Court of Justice as instituted to rule on the clarification or evaluate the
legitimacy of the EU Law. There exists no ASEAN court for adjudication on regional issues.

The establishing treaty of ASEAN refers to only the idea of creating a high council, whose
participants would be ministers of the member countries. Its functioning is restricted to ad hoc
resolutions of disputes.6

4. Rules of Membership

Lastly, the rules of membership are another point of difference between the EU and
ASEAN. The Copenhagen criteria clearly states the prerequisites for membership in EU are:
market economy, democracy and the complete reception in the national system of the body of the
EU laws and regulations. In ASEAN, there exists no explicit set of guidelines on the subject of
membership: generally decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis by political leaders.7

6
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/lecture18.htmlm last accessed on 31 August 2018
7
http://development.asia/issue03/cover-04.asp, last accessed on 31 August 2018

Page 3 of 5
 How to Improve ASEAN Relations

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional grouping that

promotes economic, political, and security cooperation among its ten members: Brunei,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and
Vietnam.

The ASEAN, though considered to be one of the most successful organizations of modern
times has its own flaws. Even after fifty years of its existence, the association is still struggling to
integrate, reflects major letdown to enhance unity in the region.

ASEAN has not been effective to involve itself in the crucial assignment of establishing
regional unity. ASEAN is seen by states as an instrument to pursue national interest rather than
forum which aims to promote peace, friendship and cooperation to build solidarity. Also, the
principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of other nations has been held by ASEAN like a
regional protocol.8 For this reason, it is the time for ASEAN to assimilate new systems that will
improve the relationship among ASEAN nations.

ASEAN can take cue from the preemptive approach the EU followed by in forming
institutions to enhance ASEAN capabilities for regionalism. Hence, ASEAN should also consider
the vision of supra-nationalism, as adopted by the EU other than inter-governmentalism.

It is worth to know that the vision of supra-nationalism provides that a higher authority
was created to supervise the course of integration and further strengthen integration.9 While the
inter-govenmentalism is a series of bargain between the head of government of the state in the
region.

ASEAN needs its own exponents for regionalism who can motivate states to come together
and function as one entity.

8
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/07/01/asean-way-crossroads.html, last accessed 31 August 2018
9
Rosamond, B. (2009), Theories of European integration, New York: St, Martin’s Press: p. 51

Page 4 of 5
 Economically ASEAN can also consider the European experience which illustrates that
trades and investments links matter. These relationships are shaping in a large part the economic
structure of ASEAN economics. Noteworthy that while some of the ASEAN members remain at
an early stage of economic development process, the original five ASEAN countries have seen
tremendous change in their productive structures in general and in trade particular. Hence, if the
whole ASEAN members work together as one vis-à-vis trading and investments, there will be an
assurance of economic and social development among ASEAN members. ASEAN should also
create a common external commercial policy, keeping the real side transaction. This will produce
a truly regional market place, resulting in a more efficient division of labour among countries.

Page 5 of 5