ASEAN AND AI GOVERNANCE IN A MULTIPLEX WORLD: TOWARD A CONSTRUCTIVIST RESEARCH AGENDA IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly become an issue of global governance, raising questions not only about technological development but also about norms, authority, identity, and international order. While much of the existing
debate on AI governance has centred on major powers and institutions, e.g. the United States, China, and the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its member states remain relatively underexplored as regional actors in this field. This article argues that ASEAN’s emerging engagement with AI governance should be approached not merely as a technical or regulatory
response, but as a potential site for examining ASEAN identity and regional agency in a multiplex world. The article develops this argument through a focused conceptual review of scholarship on AI governance, constructivism, and ASEAN regionalism, alongside selected ASEAN policy documents. Drawing on constructivist insights, particularly the ideas of norms, identity, norm localisation, and Acharya’s concept of multiplexity, the article proposes a research agenda for studying how ASEAN and its member states may construct, negotiate, and project their identities through AI governance. Rather than conducting an empirical analysis of ASEAN AI policy documents, the article identifies three possible directions for future research:the identity construction of ASEAN and its member states, the localisation of global AI norms in Southeast Asia, and the interaction between regional and
national AI identities. The article connects multiplexity, norm localisation, and regional and national identity to frame questions about ASEAN's AI governance. These questions can guide future comparisons of ASEAN and member-state policy and help identify where regional guidance and national priorities may diverge.
Article Details

อนุญาตภายใต้เงื่อนไข Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Acharya, A. (2004). How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International organization, 58(2), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024
Acharya, A. (2009). Whose Ideas Matter?: Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Cornell University Press.
Acharya, A. (2018). Constructing Global Order: Agency and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Acharya, A. (2026). Thinking beyond a polarized world: why multiplexity matters. International Affairs, 102(2), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag025
Acharya, A., Estevadeordal, A., & Goodman, L. W. (2023). Multipolar or multiplex? Interaction capacity, global cooperation and world order. International Affairs, 99(6), 2339–2365. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad242
ASEAN Secretariat. (2024). ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics. https://asean.org/book/asean-guide-on-ai-governance-and-ethics/ASEAN Secretariat. (2025). Expanded ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics: Generative AI. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ExpandedASEAN-Guide-on-AI-Governance-and-Ethics-Generative-AI.pdf
Ba, A. D. (2020). (Re) Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford University Press.
Bar-Gil, O. (2026). Examining trends in AI ethics across countries and institutions via quantitative discourse analysis. AI & SOCIETY, 41(4), 3297–3312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02673-4
Benkler, Y. (2019). Don't let industry write the rules for AI. Nature, 569(7754), 161–162. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01413-1
Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512749908719277
Evers, C. (2024). Talking past each other? Navigating discourse on ethical AI: Comparing the discourse on ethical AI policy by Big Tech companies and the European Commission Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3659013
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International organization, 52(4), 887–917.
https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
Fong, K. (2023). ASEAN’s New Dilemma: Managing the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Space. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/ISEAS_Perspective_2023_65.pdf
Fong, K. (2024). From Paper to Practice: Utilizing the ASEAN Guide on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance and Ethics. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Fong, K. (2026). What is shaping artificial intelligence (AI) governance policies in Southeast Asia? ISEAS Perspective, 2026(13). https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articlescommentaries/iseas-perspective/2025-13-what-is-shaping-artificialintelligence-ai-governance-policies-in-southeast-asia-by-kristina-fong
Garba, A. S. (2025). Harmonizing Voices: African Ethical Philosophies and Interreligious Dialogue in AI Governance for Human Dignity. The review of faith & international affairs, 23(3), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2025.2531643
Horowitz, M. C. (2018). Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Texas national security review, 1(3), 37–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15781/T2639KP49
Jain, M. (2025). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Human Dignity, and Technology: Reflections on Benefits and Risks of AI. The review of faith & international affairs, 23(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2025.2531644
Jobin, A. et al. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Keith, A. J. (2024). Governance of artificial intelligence in Southeast Asia. Global Policy, 15(5), 937–954. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13458
Larsson, S. (2020). On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 437–451.
https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.19
Payne, K. (2018). Artificial intelligence: a revolution in strategic affairs? Survival, 60(5), 7–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1518374
Putra, B. A. (2024). Governing AI in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s way forward. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7: 1411838, 1–6.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1411838
Scharffs, B. G., & Brown, A. (2025). Human Dignity as a Tool for Differentiating Between Maleficent and Beneficent Uses of Artificial Intelligence. The review of faith &international affairs, 23(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2025.2531652
Scharffs, B. G., Martens, P., & Sofjan, D. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Human Dignity: An Introduction to the Special Issue. The review of faith & international affairs, 23(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2025.2531653
Singh, J. P. et al. (2026). Diffusion of power and multiplexed governance: evolving networks and clusters for global governance of AI infrastructures. International Affairs, 102(2), 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag024
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., Geith, J., Klamberg, M., & Lundgren, M. (2023). The global governance of artificial intelligence: Next steps for empirical and normative research. International Studies Review, 25(3), viad040. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad040
United Nations. (2024). Governing AI for Humanity: Final Report. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/governing_ai_for_humanity_final_report_en.pdf
Van Norren, D. E. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence, UNESCO and the African Ubuntu perspective. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 21(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-04-2022-0037
Xu, J., Lee, T., & Goggin, G. (2024). AI governance in Asia: policies, praxis and approaches. Communication Research and Practice, 10(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2024.2391204