Bama Andika Putra- 1School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- 2Department of International Relations, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
1 Cambodia and the ASEAN way: recent trends
Established in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional organization that upholds the values of non-interference, non-intervention, and consensus-based decision-making (Acharya, 2021). Scholars and observers have termed those values collectively as the “ASEAN Way” (Caballero-Anthony, 2005; Chongkittavorn, 2023; Putra, 2024b; Ravenhill, 2007; Wahyuningrum, 2014). It is the belief that despite the great power political rivalries taking place in the region, the organization would continue to be relevant in guiding its member states to remain neutral and press down negative implications of those contestations (Acharya, 1998, 2014, 2019; Anwar, 2020; Darwis et al., 2020). However, it does so in a way that does not confer supranational authority on the regional organization, as is the case with the European Union and other regional organizations. Doing so has secured the allegiances of ASEAN member states to abide by the ASEAN Way voluntarily, allowing for the continued relevance of ASEAN in regional politics for decades. Nevertheless, with the challenges encountered evolving to include great powers exerting their influence in Southeast Asia, have member states remained true to the ASEAN Way?
Nevertheless, the rise of China in the Asia-Pacific region has presented some dilemmas for Southeast Asian states. On the one hand, they perceive China's rise as an opportunity, as China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—related funding could assist the development of Southeast Asian states (Hu, 2019; World Bank, 2018; Yu, 2024). Nevertheless, they are also aware that China's rise has been accompanied by its growing assertiveness in the political and security domains, such as China's power projections in the South China Sea (Collin, 2016; Fravel, 2011; Putra, 2020, 2023; Putra and Cangara, 2022; Yahuda, 2013). Consequently, ASEAN member states have remained cautious, with the majority of the states adopting what the international relations literature terms as a “hedging” policy vis-à-vis China's ascent (Goh, 2016; Haacke, 2019; Hiep, 2013; Kuik, 2008). A hedging position entails taking both defiance and deference measures (Kuik, 2021a; Kuik and Rozman, 2015) to ensure that ASEAN member states can garner economic benefits while maintaining some distance, avoiding an overly close attachment to China.
However, the newest member of ASEAN, Cambodia, has displayed some puzzling foreign policy gestures in the past several years. In 2012, during Cambodia's chairmanship of ASEAN, the ‘Phnom Penh Fiasco' resulted in the inability of ASEAN heads of state to collectively agree upon a joint communique (Minh Vu, 2019; Pich, 2021). Cambodia's Prime Minister at that time, Hun Sen, could not agree to include any mention of the developments taking place in the South China Sea in the communique (Chheang and Pheakdey, 2019; Jeldres, 2012; Pheakdey, 2012; Pich, 2021). For Cambodia, the South China Sea issue should be resolved and discussed through bilateral platforms, including between China and the Southeast Asian claimant states involved in the dispute. Unfortunately, a similar occurrence was observed at the 2016 ASEAN Summit, where Cambodia boldly expressed the need to refrain from discussing the South China Sea dispute on the regional platform (Bong, 2020; Mit, 2024). Cambodia's 2016 support for China's stance in the South China Sea disputes was met with a USD 600 million commitment from China to aid Cambodia (Po and Primiano, 2020).
Scholars have interpreted the growing alignment of the Cambodian and Chinese interests as “bandwagoning” with China, a position of siding with the ascending giant. There is an increasing presence of China in Cambodia, with BRI projects fueling extensive infrastructural development in Cambodia's cities (Lim, 2023; MOC, 2022; Nikkei, 2021; Ngin, 2022; Xinhua, 2018). As a result, discussions looking at Cambodia's alignment policies have primarily looked at Cambodia's foreign policy within the prism of realism's alignment and liberalism frameworks, concluding the bandwagoning of the country with China's interests due to economic interests (Cheunboran, 2021; Chheang, 2023; Doung et al., 2022; Pheakdey, 2012; Po and Primiano, 2020). Nevertheless, this opinion article argues that a sociological interpretation of Cambodia's actions in ASEAN is necessary to provide an alternative perspective to the alignment literature in international relations, which often misinterprets Cambodia's foreign policy. In doing so, this article bridges the social disorganization theory from sociology and criminology studies, starting from the original conception of the theory (as interpreted by the Chicago School) to recent findings that focus on the structural and communal origins of social disorganization. Through socio-psychological explanations, this opinion article explores the reasons why norm violations occur within ASEAN. The empirical investigation focuses on Cambodia's foreign policies in ASEAN from 2012 to 2022 and questions why Cambodia defied the ASEAN Way during its ASEAN Chairmanships. The following will first explain how the social disorganization theory will be utilized in this study.
2 Bridging the social disorganization theory into international relations
It has become a common occurrence to see sociological theories complement interpretations of studies in international relations. Wendt's “Social Theory of International Politics” in 1999 established the foundations by arguing that variables, such as the international system, structure, and anarchy, can be interpreted based on what states make of it (Wendt, 1999). Holsti's National Role Conception Theory also bridged sociological theory's role conception and interpreted how states interact based on the roles they embrace (Holsti, 1970). Constructivism's integration of sociological theories into international relations discourse has provided an alternative lens for interpreting realities, offering a more nuanced understanding (Baylis et al., 2019; Hopf, 1998, 2013; Karen and Tickner, 2020; Steans et al., 2010). Continuing this trend, studies have also attempted to bridge social psychology theories to understand better the foreign policy decisions made by states (Gildea, 2020; Kelman, 1997; Larson, 2017; Putra, 2024c; Rathbun, 2009). This opinion article will attempt to do the same with the social disorganization theory, building upon such trends.
Initially founded in the Chicago School through the works of Shaw and McKay in 1942, the social disorganization theory assesses the inability of communities to achieve common goals due to factors such as economic deprivation, residential mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity (Shaw and McKay, 1942). Explanations of the goals vary, but most scholars have agreed that establishing social controls is among the priorities when it comes to communal values and goals (Jensen, 2015; Sampson, 1985). The presence of the previously outlined factors is further exacerbated by other emerging factors, including industrialization and urbanization, which make it even more difficult for community organizations to assert control and monitor their residents' behaviors (Shaw and McKay, 1942).
A prominent theme within the theory is the development of delinquent behavior or criminal subcultures (Jensen, 2015; Papachristos and Zhao, 2015). As academics have argued, a disorganized society tends to lead to what Reiss explains as “behavior consequent to the failure of personal and social controls” (Reiss, 1951, p. 196). Considering the delinquent behaviors, studies have then attempted to explain the possible measures that can be taken to counter the lack of personal and social controls. Some ideas include establishing containment mechanisms, countering interests of criminal subcultures, and techniques to neutralize those thoughts (Briar and Piliavin, 1965; Matza, 1957; Reckless et al., 1956; Toby, 2017). In its current form, the social disorganization theory has evolved to initially explain crime and delinquency rates, assessing the internal and communal factors of delinquent behaviors (Benson et al., 2004; Browning, 2002; Morgan and Jasinski, 2016).
How, then, can social disorganization theory be bridged to the study of international relations? This study highlights the theory's core elements in concrete behaviors of states within the context of ASEAN. Discussions on delinquent subcultures and going against community values can be interpreted as an ASEAN state not abiding by the ASEAN Way and extending the influence of great powers within the regional group. The lack of social control that leads to delinquency can be attributed to the inability of ASEAN to counter foreign policies of non-neutrality shown by its member states. Meanwhile, the background factors leading to social disorganization, such as economic deprivation, are connected to a state's need for foreign investments, considering the unique contexts of Southeast Asian states as developing nations. The following section will explore these subthemes and bridge to a deeper understanding of the dynamics within ASEAN.
3 The social disorganization theory and Cambodia's ASEAN policies
This section provides a social disorganization theory's interpretation of Cambodia's ASEAN policies. It does not reference a specific thought or assumption within the theory and aims to establish links based on several central arguments made in the theory. This opinion article presents three key arguments: the presence of delinquent subcultures, the lack of social control, and the issue of income inequality, all of which impact Cambodia's ASEAN policies.
On the argument of delinquent subcultures, the sociological theory is that these behaviors lead to criminality. Bridged to Cambodia's ASEAN policies, delinquent subcultures can be interpreted as actions that go against the ASEAN Way. The ASEAN Way, understood as the communal values in place in the Southeast Asian region, was being undermined due to Cambodia's actions. Other Southeast Asian states' echoed the importance of including protests over the South China Sea developments in the 2012 joint communique. Cambodia decided not to mention the tensions and instead advocated for a bilateral approach (Po and Sims, 2022; Železný, 2022). Doing so violates the ASEAN Way in two ways. First, Cambodia's actions led to a lack of consensus-based decision-making processes within the organization. Second, it shows that China's growing influence on Cambodia has affected Cambodia's foreign policy in ASEAN, indicating that ASEAN is no longer immune to the non-interference of foreign powers (Poling et al., 2022; VOA, 2015).
During Cambodia's chairmanship in 2012, Cambodia's actions of defying the importance of including the South China Sea case in the joint communique impeded ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making processes (Po and Sims, 2022; Železný, 2022). In both the 2012 and 2016 incidents, in which Cambodia emphasized the importance of bilateral means of resolving the South China Sea, Cambodia's foreign policy, heavily influenced by China, indicates that ASEAN is no longer immune to the non-interference of foreign powers (Poling et al., 2022; VOA, 2015).
Making matters worse is that the delinquent subcultures displayed by Cambodia have evolved to support (in a limited sense) China's allies in Southeast Asia. Many of the claimant states in the South China Sea, located in Southeast Asia, have taken a more decisive stance vis-à-vis China (Blazevic, 2012; Putra, 2022; Qi, 2019; Raymond and Welch, 2022; Singh and Yamamoto, 2017). In contrast, some states that have faced democratic backsliding in past years, such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, have shown a greater leaning toward Beijing (Duangdee, 2021; Kobayashi and King, 2022; Myoe, 2015; Pang, 2017; Po and Primiano, 2020). Considering the ties between China and Myanmar, Cambodia decided to visit Myanmar in 2022 (Alexandra, 2024; HRW, 2022; Putra, 2024a).
The gesture was problematic in Myanmar for two reasons. First, a year before that, Myanmar faced backlash due to the military coup. Second, in 2022, Cambodia was the acting ASEAN chairman. ASEAN took the stance to not recognize Myanmar's military junta rule by issuing the “Five Points Consensus,” aiming to halt aid and demanding democratic changes to take place immediately (Muhammad et al., 2023; Oo and Tonnesson, 2023; Oponio Juris, 2022; Vasisht, 2024; Zaccaro, 2024). With Cambodia's Hun Sen visiting Myanmar in 2022, it gave the wrong impression that Cambodia was acting on behalf of ASEAN in making the official gesture.
The lack of social control to counter delinquent behaviors is equally vital in the social disorganization theory. As Sampson and Groves argued, social controls constrain the ability to generate delinquent behaviors (Sampson, 2012; Sampson and Groves, 1989). Discussion on social control focuses on the external or communal factors contributing to delinquent behaviors. Social control, in the context of Cambodia within ASEAN, refers to the organizational limitations on state actions. Unfortunately, the regional integration of ASEAN differs from that of organizations such as the European Union (EU). ASEAN is not a supranational body with the authority to impose mechanisms and regulations on its member states (Leifer, 1996; Snitwongse, 2007; Southgate, 2021; Yates, 2016). Therefore, ASEAN's ability to maintain the norms of non-interference, non-intervention, and a consensus-based decision-making process is determined by the ASEAN member states' willingness to uphold them.
As seen with Cambodia's actions since 2012, ASEAN did not have much social control over China's hierarchical relations with its member states. The only mechanism in place for ASEAN concerning the South China Sea was the existing negotiations of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (CoC; Mishra, 2017; Thayer, 2012). Besides that, no system within ASEAN is able to halt China's exertion of influence over ASEAN member states. The problem is that Cambodia has grown highly dependent on China's financial funding since the announcement of the BRI in 2013. Several notable transformations within the state can be seen in the reconstructed road and bridges, the establishment of the Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone (SSEZ), inter-city connections (including between the capital, Phnom Penh, and the SSEZ), airports, and harbors (Cheunboran, 2021; Chheang, 2023; Chong, 2017; Vannarith, 2019; Xinhua, 2023).
Therefore, it is not incorrect for existing studies to argue that Cambodia's representation of China's interests on regional platforms, such as ASEAN, constitutes a bandwagoning gesture with China. The sociological interpretation is that ASEAN, which relies on its member states to abide by the ASEAN way voluntarily, lacks social control to counter the impact of the hierarchical relations between China and Cambodia. The solutions, thus, were temporal. In 2012, Indonesia's then Foreign Affairs Minister, Marty Natalegawa, conducted “shuttle diplomacy” so that ASEAN would then issue a separate statement as an alternative to the joint communique (Emmers, 2014; Rattanasevee, 2014; Roberts and Widyaningsih, 2015). Meanwhile, following the 2016 incident, ASEAN's only recourse was to reiterate the importance of mutual trust and respect in accommodating differences in opinions (Parameswaran, 2016; Storey, 2018).
One of the central arguments in the social disorganization theory is that income inequality leads to delinquent behaviors. Scholars have argued that the disparate income categories within society hamper communication across different groups (Chamberlain and Hipp, 2015; Osgood and Chambers, 2000; Sampson, 1985; Wilson, 1987). Perhaps the most significant issue with ASEAN is economic disparity. For example, within ASEAN, this categorization is known as the CMLV (Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam). The CMLV represents the four newer members of ASEAN, which are less developed economically than the original members of the regional organization. The policy consequence is that, regionally, such as in the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, the CMLV would be given particular preference through an extended adaptation period to adapt to the new economic measures in the region.
With the Southeast Asian economic disparity comes the consequence of a lack of communication between the more developed and less developing economies of ASEAN. The differences toward the common stance and communal values of ASEAN are thus the price paid. The importance of the South China Sea issue, for example, is not perceived by Cambodia in the same way as claimant states such as the Philippines and Vietnam (Basawantara, 2020; Chubb, 2022; Ha, 2019; Pemmaraju, 2016; Sangtam, 2021). Cambodia's perspective on the matter is that the representation of China and embracing the “ironclad friendship” (Po and Primiano, 2020) enables Cambodia to secure more substantial funding in the future. In other cases, Myanmar and Laos also exhibit similar attitudes of displaying deference measures toward China, albeit not to the same extent as Cambodia. One key factor is the increasing economic ties that have developed between Myanmar and Laos, which are openly dependent on the economic incentives and opportunities offered by China's BRI (Alatorre, 2024; Dossi and Gabusi, 2023; Kuik, 2021b; Kuik and Rosli, 2023). Out of the CMLV states, only Vietnam displays greater independence in its engagement with ASEAN, perhaps due to its interest in countering China's overlapping maritime claims. Therefore, a problem such as the South China Sea or the democratic backsliding in Myanmar does not fall under Cambodia's foreign policy concerns, leading to Cambodia's delinquent behavior vis-à-vis the ASEAN Way.
Author contributions
BP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Acharya, A. (1998). Culture, security, multilateralism: the “ASEAN way” and regional order. Contemp. Secur. Policy 19, 55–84. doi: 10.1080/13523269808404179
Acharya, A. (2014). “Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order,” in Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, Asean and the Problem of Regional Order, Third edition (New York, NY: Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9781315796673
Acharya, A. (2019). Why ASEAN's Indo-Pacific outlook matters. East Asia Forum. Available online at: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/08/11/why-aseans-indo-pacific-outlook-matters/ (Accessed August 11, 2019)
Acharya, A. (2021). ASEAN and Regional Order Revisiting Security Community in Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alatorre, C. (2024). China's Investments in Myanmar: Analyzing the Status of Projects. Tearline. Available online at: https://www.tearline.mil/public_page/china-investments-in-myanmar (Accessed May 8, 2024).
Alexandra, H. (2024). Advancing Myanmar's Peace Agenda: Initial Updates Under Laos Chairmanship 2024. Available online at: https://www.habibiecenter.or.id/img/publication/251ac4ee003c0327f14aadf82f9c4eed.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2024).
Anwar, D. F. (2020). Indonesia and the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific. Int. Aff. 96, 111–129. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiz223
Basawantara, A. A. G. (2020). Countering China's Paragunboat Diplomacy In The South China Sea: The Responses Of The Philippines, Vietnam, And Indonesia [President University]. Available online at: http://repository.president.ac.id/xmlui/handle/123456789/4770 (Accessed November 5, 2024).
Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P., and Dunne, T. (2019). “The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations,” in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (8th edn) (Issue June 2022) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/hepl/9780198825548.001.0001
Benson, M. L., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A. B., and Fox, G. L. (2004). The correlation between race and domestic violence is confounded with community context. Soc. Probl. 51, 326–342. doi: 10.1525/sp.2004.51.3.326
Blazevic, J. J. (2012). Navigating the security dilemma: China, Vietnam, and the South China Sea. J. Curr. Southeast Asian Aff. 31, 79–108. doi: 10.1177/186810341203100404
Bong, C. (2020). Cambodia's Hedging Foreign Policy between the United States and China: The Role of Domestic Politics, 1999-2019 [Kansas State University]. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341326131_Cambodia's_Hedging_Foreign_Policy_between_the_United_States_and_China_The_Role_of_Domestic_Politics_1999-2019
Briar, S., and Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity. Soc. Probl. 13, 35–45. doi: 10.2307/799304
Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. J. Marriage Fam. 64, 833–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00833.x
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Available online at: https://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg/publication/1547 (Accessed September 23, 2024).
Chamberlain, A. W., and Hipp, J. R. (2015). It's all relative: concentrated disadvantage within and across neighborhoods and communities, and the consequences for neighborhood crime. J. Crim. Justice 43, 431–443. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.08.004
Cheunboran, C. (2021). Cambodia's China Strategy: Security Dilemmas of Embracing the Dragon. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429331534
Chheang, V. (2023). 2022/46 “Cambodia-China Free Trade Agreement: A Cambodian Perspective”. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Available online at: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2022-46-cambodia-china-free-trade-agreement-a-cambodian-perspective-by-vannarith-chheang/ (Accessed June 12, 2023).
Chheang, V., and Pheakdey, H. (2019). “Cambodian perspective on the belt and road initiative,” in NIDS ASEAN Workshop 2019 “China's BRI and ASEAN”, ed. NIDS (The National Institute for Defense Studies: Japan), 5–23.
Chong, T. (2017). 2017/59 The Politics behind Cambodia's Embrace of China. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Available online at: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/201759-the-politics-behind-cambodias-embrace-of-china/ (Accessed January 1, 2017).
Chongkittavorn, K. (2023). Combatting Fake News the ASEAN Way. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. Available online at: https://www.eria.org/news-and-views/combatting-fake-news-the-asean-way/ (Accessed June 6, 2023).
Chubb, A. (2022). Dynamics of Assertiveness in the South China Sea: China, the Philippines, and Vietnam, 1970–2015. Available online at: https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/sr99_dynamicsofassertiveness_may2022.pdf
Collin, K. S. L. (2016). The South China Sea's ‘White-Hull' Warfare. The National Interest. Available online at: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-south-china-seas-%E2%80%98white-hull%E2%80%99-warfare-15604 (Accessed March 26, 2016).
Darwis, B., Putra, A., and Cangara, A. R. (2020). Navigating through domestic impediments: Suharto and Indonesia's leadership in ASEAN. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 13, 808–824.
Dossi, S., and Gabusi, G. (2023). Of constraints and opportunities. Dependent asymmetry in China-Myanmar relations, 2011–2021. Pacific Rev. 36, 1306–1336. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2022.2091648
Doung, C., Kang, W., and Kim, J. (2022). Cambodia's foreign policy choice during 2010 to 2020: from strategic hedging to bandwagoning. Korean J. Int. Stud. 20, 55–88. doi: 10.14731/kjis.2022.04.20.1.55
Duangdee, V. (2021). Asia's #MilkTeaAlliance has a new target brewing – the generals behind the Myanmar coup. South China Morning Post. Available online at: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3120526/asias-milkteaalliance-has-new-target-brewing-generals-behind (Accessed February 4, 2021).
Emmers, R. (2014). Indonesia's role in ASEAN: a case of incomplete and sectorial leadership. Pacific Rev. 27, 543–562. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2014.924230
Fravel, M. T. (2011). China's strategy in the South China Sea. Contemp. Southeast Asia 33, 292–319. doi: 10.1355/cs33-3b
Gildea, R. J. (2020). Psychology and aggregation in international relations. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 26, 166–183. doi: 10.1177/1354066120938830
Goh, E. (2016). Southeast Asian Strategies toward the Great Powers: Still Hedging after All These Years?. The Asan Forum. Available online at: https://theasanforum.org/southeast-asian-strategies-toward-the-great-powers-still-hedging-after-all-these-years/ (Accessed September 10, 2024).
Ha, N. T. T. (2019). “Vietnam and the South China Sea,” in The South China Sea: From a Regional Maritime Dispute to Geo-Strategic Competition, eds. L. Buszynski and D. T. Ha (New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Inc.), 77–92. doi: 10.4324/9780429331480-6
Haacke, J. (2019). The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: a critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework. Int. Relat. Asia-Pac. 19, 375–417. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcz010
Hiep, L. H. (2013). Vietnam's hedging strategy against China since normalization. Contemp. Southeast Asia 35, 333–368.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. Int. Stud. Q. 14, 233–309. doi: 10.2307/3013584
Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. Int. Secur. 23:200. doi: 10.1162/isec.23.1.171
Hopf, T. (2013). Common-sense constructivism and hegemony in world politics. Int. Organ. 67, 317–354. doi: 10.1017/S0020818313000040
HRW. (2022). Myanmar: ASEAN's Failed ‘5-Point Consensus' a Year On. Human Rights Watch. Available online at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/22/myanmar-aseans-failed-5-point-consensus-year (Accessed April 22, 2022).
Hu, B. (2019). Belt and road initiative: five years on implementation and reflection. Glob. J. Emerg. Mark. Econ. 11:97491011987137. doi: 10.1177/0974910119871377
Jeldres, J. A. (2012). “Cambodia's relations with China: a steadfast friendship,” in Cambodia: Progress and Challenges Since 1991, Eds. P. Sothirak, G. Wade, and M. Hong (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), 81–95. doi: 10.1355/9789814379830-011
Jensen, G. F. (2015). “Delinquency, Sociology of,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition, eds. J. D. Wright (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 68–74. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45021-X
Karen, S., and Tickner, A. B. (2020). “Introduction: international relations from the global south,” in International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference, eds. A. B. Tickner and K. Smith (New York, NY: Routledge), 1–14. doi: 10.4324/9781315756233-1
Kelman, H. C. (1997). “Social-psychological dimensions of international conflict,” in Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, eds. W. Zartman and J. L. Rasmussen (United States Institute of Peace Press), 191–238. Available online at: https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/kelman-social
Kobayashi, Y., and King, J. (2022). Myanmar's strategy in the China–Myanmar economic corridor: a failure in hedging? Int. Aff. 98, 1013–1032. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiac049
Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore's response to a rising China. Contemp. Southeast Asia 30, 159–185. doi: 10.1355/CS30-2A
Kuik, C. C. (2021a). Getting hedging right: a small-state perspective. China Int. Strat. Rev. 3, 300–315. doi: 10.1007/s42533-021-00089-5
Kuik, C. C. (2021b). Laos's enthusiastic embrace of China's belt and road initiative. Asian Perspect. 45, 735–759. doi: 10.1353/apr.2021.0042
Kuik, C. C., and Rosli, Z. (2023). Laos-China infrastructure cooperation: legitimation and the limits of host-country agency. J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 12, 32–58. doi: 10.1080/24761028.2023.2274236
Kuik, C. C., and Rozman, G. (2015). Light or Heavy Hedging: Positioning Between China and the United States. Washington, DC: Korea Economic Institute of America.
Larson, D. W. (2017). Social Identity Theory: Status and Identity in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Oxford University Press.
Leifer, M. (1996). The ASEAN Regional Forum : Extending ASEAN's Model of Regional Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Lim, C. (2023). 2023/101 “Reviewing China's Elite-Centric Approach in its Relations with Cambodia”. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Available online at https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2023-101-reviewing-chinas-elite-centric-approach-in-its-relations-with-cambodia-by-chhay-lim/ (Accessed December 22, 2023).
Minh Vu, B. A. (2019). Explaining Cambodia's Foreign Policy: The Importance Of Domestic Factors And Sino-Cambodia Relations On ASEAN. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Mishra, R. (2017). Code of conduct in the South China sea: more discord than accord. Maritime Affairs 13, 62–75. doi: 10.1080/09733159.2017.1412098
Mit, M. (2024). China's Continuing Influence Over Cambodia's economy. East Asia Forum. Available online at: https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/05/01/chinas-continuing-influence-over-cambodias-economy/ (Accessed May 1, 2024). doi: 10.59425/eabc.1714557600
MOC. (2022). China- Cambodian FTA Will Come into Effect on January 1, 2022. Ministry of Commerce, Republic of China. Available online at: https://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/enarticle/chinacambodiaen/chinacambodiaennews/202112/46486_1.html (Accessed November 24, 2022).
Morgan, R. E., and Jasinski, J. L. (2016). Tracking violence: using structural-level characteristics in the analysis of domestic violence in Chicago and the state of Illinois. Crime Delinq. 63, 391–411. doi: 10.1177/0011128715625082
Muhammad, M., Aulia, L., and Mada, K. (2023). Troika ASEAN untuk Penyelesaian Isu Myanmar. Kompas. Available online at: https://www.kompas.id/baca/internasional/2023/09/05/troika-asean-untuk-penyelesaian-isu-myanmar (Accessed September 6, 2023).
Myoe, M. A. (2015). Myanmar's China policy since 2011: determinants and directions. J. Curr. Southeast Asian Aff. 34, 21–54. doi: 10.1177/186810341503400202
Ngin, C. (2022). Easy Highway, Troubled City: How China Wins and Loses Cambodians' Hearts. FULCRUM. Available online at: https://fulcrum.sg/easy-highway-troubled-city-how-china-wins-and-loses-cambodians-hearts/ (Accessed November 8, 2022).
Nikkei. (2021). Cambodia's Hun Sen: “If I don't rely on China, who will I rely on?”. Nikkei Asia. Available online at: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Future-of-Asia/The-Future-of-Asia-2021/Cambodia-s-Hun-Sen-If-I-don-t-rely-on-China-who-will-I-rely-on (Accessed May 20, 2021).
Oo, M. Z., and Tonnesson, S. (2023). Counting Myanmar's Dead: Reported Civilian Casualties since the 2021 Military Coup. Available online at: https://www.prio.org/publications/13516 (Accessed September 25, 2024).
Oponio Juris. (2022). Symposium on the Current Crisis in Myanmar: An Update on the Situation of Myanmar's Rohingya - Opinio Juris. Oponio Juris.Available online at: https://opiniojuris.org/2021/10/01/symposium-on-the-current-crisis-in-myanmar-an-update-on-the-situation-of-myanmars-rohingya/ (Accessed September 23, 2024).
Osgood, D. W., and Chambers, J. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: an analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology 38, 81–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00884.x
Pang, E. (2017). 2017/66 “Same-Same but Different”: Laos and Cambodia's Political Embrace of China. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Available online at: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/201766-samesame-but-different-laos-and-cambodias-political-embrace-of-china/ (Accessed September 25, 2024).
Papachristos, A. V., and Zhao, S. Y. (2015). “Crime: organized,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 170–175. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45015-4
Parameswaran, P. (2016). China's Hollow South China Sea Consensus With ASEAN Laggards. The Diplomat. Available online at: https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/chinas-hollow-south-china-sea-consensus-with-asean-laggards/ (Accessed April 25, 2016).
Pemmaraju, S. R. (2016). The South China Sea arbitration (The Philippines v. China): assessment of the award on jurisdiction and admissibility. Chin. J. Int. Law 15, 265–307. doi: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019
Pheakdey, H. (2012). Cambodia-China relations: a positive-sum game? J. Curr. Southeast Asian Aff. 31, 57–85. doi: 10.1177/186810341203100203
Pich, C. (2021). “Cambodia's Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2022: What to Expect?,” in Facilitating Multilateralism: EU - Cambodia ASEAN Dialogue, ed. CICP (Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace), 69–72. Available online at: https://cicp.org.kh/publications/facilitating-multilateralism-eu-cambodia-asean-dialogue/
Po, S., and Primiano, C. B. (2020). An “ironclad friend”: explaining Cambodia's bandwagoning policy towards China. J. Curr. Southeast Asian Aff. 39, 444–464. doi: 10.1177/1868103420901879
Po, S., and Sims, K. (2022). The myth of non-interference: chinese foreign policy in Cambodia. Asian Stud. Rev. 46, 36–54. doi: 10.1080/10357823.2021.1887813
Poling, G. B., Dunst, C., and Hudes, S. T. (2022). Pariah or Partner? Clarifying the U.S. Approach to Cambodia. CSIS. Available online at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/pariah-or-partner-clarifying-us-approach-cambodia (Accessed June 14, 2022).
Putra, B. A. (2020). Extending the discourse of environmental securitization: Indonesia's securitization of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and China's belligerence at sea. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 575:12242. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012242
Putra, B. A. (2022). Gauging contemporary maritime tensions in the North Natuna Seas: deciphering China's maritime diplomatic strategies. Int. J. Interdiscip. Civ. Polit. Stud. 17, 85–99. doi: 10.18848/2327-0071/CGP/v17i02/85-99
Putra, B. A. (2023). The golden age of white hulls: deciphering the Philippines' maritime diplomatic strategies in the South China Sea. Soc. Sci. 12, 1–15. doi: 10.3390/socsci12060337
Putra, B. A. (2024a). Digital activism in Southeast Asia: the #MilkTeaAlliance and prospects for social resistance. Front. Sociol. 9, 1–4. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1478630
Putra, B. A. (2024b). Governing AI in Southeast Asia: ASEAN's way forward. Front. Artif. Intell. 7, 1–4. doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1411838
Putra, B. A. (2024c). Self-control of states: bridging social psychology to international relations discourses. Front. Sociol.9, 1–4. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1426476
Putra, B. A., and Cangara, A. R. (2022). Deficiencies of coercive maritime diplomacy for middle powers amid Indo-Pacific geopolitics: an Indonesian perspective. Int. J. Interdiscip. Glob. Stud. 17, 9–19. doi: 10.18848/2324-755X/CGP/v17i02/9-19
Qi, H. (2019). Joint development in the South China sea: China's incentives and policy choices. J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 8, 220–239. doi: 10.1080/24761028.2019.1685427
Rathbun, B. C. (2009). It takes all types: social psychology, trust, and the international relations paradigm in our minds. Int. Theory 1, 345–380. doi: 10.1017/S1752971909990121
Rattanasevee, P. (2014). Leadership in ASEAN: the role of Indonesia reconsidered. Asian J. Polit. Sci. 22, 113–127. doi: 10.1080/02185377.2014.895912
Ravenhill, J. (2007). Adjusting to the ASEAN way: thirty years of Australia's relations with ASEAN. 11, 267–289. doi: 10.1080/09512749808719257
Raymond, M., and Welch, D. A. (2022). What's really going on in the South China sea? J. Curr. Southeast Asian Aff. 41, 214–239. doi: 10.1177/18681034221086291
Reckless, W. C., Dinitz, S., and Murray, E. (1956). Self concept as an insulator against delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 21:746. doi: 10.2307/2088428
Reiss, A. J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. Am. Sociol. Rev. 16, 196–207. doi: 10.2307/2087693
Roberts, C. B., and Widyaningsih, E. (2015). “Indonesian leadership in ASEAN: mediation, agency and extra-regional diplomacy,” in Indonesia's Ascent. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmilan, 264–286. doi: 10.1057/9781137397416_13
Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: the structural determinants of personal victimization. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 22, 7–40. doi: 10.1177/0022427885022001002
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226733883.001.0001
Sampson, R. J., and Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94, 774–802. doi: 10.1086/229068
Sangtam, A. (2021). Vietnam's strategic engagement in the South China Sea. Maritime Affairs 17, 41–57. doi: 10.1080/09733159.2021.1939868
Shaw, C. R., and McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.2307/1334446
Singh, S., and Yamamoto, L. (2017). China's artificial islands in the South China sea: geopolitics versus rule of law. Revista de Direito Econômico e Socioambiental 8:4. doi: 10.7213/rev.dir.econ.soc.v8i1.7451
Snitwongse, K. (2007). ASEAN's security cooperation: searching for a regional order. Pac. Rev. 8, 508–530. doi: 10.1080/09512749508719154
Southgate, L. (2021). ASEAN: still the zone of peace, freedom and neutrality? Polit. Sci. 73, 31–47. doi: 10.1080/00323187.2021.1967762
Steans, J., Pettiford, L., Diez, T., and El-Anis, I. (2010). An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Storey, I. (2018). “ASEAN's failing grade in the South China Sea,” in International Relations and Asia's Southern Tier (Springer: Singapore), 111–124. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3171-7_8
Thayer, C. A. (2012). ASEAN's code of conduct in the South China Sea: a litmus test for community-building? Asia-Pac. J. 10, 1–22. doi: 10.1017/S1557466012032998
Toby, J. (2017). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Soc. Control & Self-Control Theor. Crime Deviance 48, 15–20. doi: 10.2307/1140161
Vannarith, C. (2019). The Political Economy of Chinese Investment in Cambodia. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Vasisht, C. (2024). Can ASEAN Achieve Peace in Myanmar? - A Review of the Five Point Consensus. Vivekananda International Foundation. Available online at: https://www.vifindia.org/article/2024/may/14/Can-ASEAN-Achieve-Peace-in-Myanmar (Accessed May 14, 2024).
VOA. (2015). Cambodia Publicly Endorses China Position on South China Sea. Voice of America. Available online at: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/cambodia-publicly-endorses-china-position-south-china-sea (Accessed March 25, 2015).
Wahyuningrum, Y. (2014). The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: Origins, Evolution and the Way Forward. Available online at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/the-asean-intergovernmental-commission-on-human-rights-origins-evolution-and-the-way-forward.pdf (Accessed September 10, 2024).
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612183
Wilson, W. J. (1987). “The truly disadvantaged,” in The Truly Disadvantaged (Issue 2) (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
World Bank. (2018). Belt and Road Initiative. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/belt-and-road-initiativex (Accessed September 23, 2024).
Xinhua. (2018). China key partner for Cambodia in infrastructure development: Cambodian officials. China Daily. Available online at: http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/08/WS5a530632a31008cf16da5beb.html (Accessed January 8, 2018).
Xinhua. (2023). Work Begins on 2nd Chinese-Invested Expressway in Cambodia. China Daily. Available online at: https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202306/08/WS648127eea31033ad3f7bb196.html (Accessed June 8, 2023).
Yahuda, M. (2013). China's new assertiveness in the South China Sea. J. Contemp. China 22, 446–459. doi: 10.1080/10670564.2012.748964
Yates, R. (2016). ASEAN as the ‘regional conductor': understanding ASEAN's role in Asia-Pacific order. Pac. Rev. 30, 443–461. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2016.1264458
Yu, H. (2024). Understanding China's Belt and Road Initiative. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-9633-9
Zaccaro, M. (2024). Myanmar's military government enforces conscription law. BBC News. Available online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68261709 (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Keywords: regional organizations, social disorganization theory, sociological approach, social sciences, Cambodia
Citation: Putra BA (2025) Cambodia's disconnection from ASEAN: a social disorganization theory's interpretation. Front. Sociol. 10:1529649. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1529649
Received: 17 November 2024; Accepted: 21 July 2025;
Published: 05 August 2025.
Edited by:
Vannarith Chheang, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeReviewed by:
Pattharapong Rattanasevee, Mahidol University, ThailandCopyright © 2025 Putra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Bama Andika Putra, YmFtYS5wdXRyYUBicmlzdG9sLmFjLnVr; YmFtYUB1bmhhcy5hYy5pZA==