Localization and mimetic adoption in norm diffusion: ASEAN’s amity and cooperation norm for the Indo-Pacific

Abstract The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific became the foundation of ASEAN’s diffusion of amity and cooperation norms in the wider Indo-Pacific region. However, a gap in the literature indicates a lack of understanding of the process and phases of the norm diffusion process in intra-ASEAN and towards ASEAN’s extra-regional partners. This article addresses this gap in the literature by inquiring how the global norms become adjusted to fit the local context of Southeast Asian concerns and what mimetic adoption can explain regarding the finalization of the norm diffusion process of amity and cooperation within ASEAN. This article is informed by the theoretical framework of “localization” and “mimetic adoption” introduced by Collins (2013), Acharya (2011), and Katsumata (2011) through the adoption of a qualitative research methodology, utilizing primary data attained from official reports (chairman’s statements and declarations) from ASEAN Summits and ASEAN extra-regional forums between 2010–2021. This study reveals; 1) ASEAN’s localization of “free and open Indo-Pacific” global norms through the adoption of politically-neutral and non-aligned terms of “amity and cooperation” to fit the local practices and beliefs of Southeast Asian states and 2) mimetic adoption through the imitation of norm adoption can be traced from the inclusion of the norms in the intra and inter ASEAN forums, as attempts to be perceived being part of the community and deviate from unwelcomed interferences.


Introduction
The Indo-Pacific region continues to become a center of great power rivalry among the world's largest powers.In the past two decades, the region has become highly politicized and militarized as states scatter to secure portions of the world's most strategic sea lane of communication (Saha, 2018;Tertia & Perwita, 2018).The center of great power rivalry can be seen with the growing tensions between the US policy of "freedom of navigation" against China's Nine Dash Line in the South China Sea, both asserting dominance over contested waters (Putra, 2023;Tertia & Perwita, 2018).Besides the tensions between the US and China, other great powers, such as Japan and India, are all developing their respective strategic responses to the tensions in the Indo-Pacific (Guilfoyle, 2019).As the late former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe asserted in 2007, the contestations in the Indo-Pacific region now open the need to develop norms of a free and open Indo-Pacific for international goods (Abe, 2007).
Entrapped in the middle of the great power rivalries in the Indo-Pacific region are the secondary states of Southeast Asia.It has been long known that most Southeast Asian states tend to adopt independent and alignment-free foreign policies (Anwar, 1994).Southeast Asia's regional organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), also adopts policies that champion norms of cooperation, non-interference, and respect for sovereignty (Buszynski, 2003;Haacke, 2003;Snitwongse, 2007).Thus, when confronted with the tensions in the Indo-Pacific, ASEAN would naturally gravitate towards its natural stance of maintaining peace, dialogue, and advancing capacity-building measures.However, this would not be the immediate case, as Southeast Asian states face the dilemma of alignment due to lingering national interests to side with China because of its lucrative economic opportunities (Kurlantzick, 2007;Putra & Read, 2021), but also the need to side with the US as a traditional stance for others (Batongbacal, 2021;Cruz de Castro, 2017).
The ambiguity of Southeast Asian alignment decisions in the Indo-Pacific led them to utilize ASEAN as the primary norm entrepreneur for establishing peaceful regional rules and practices.ASEAN member states are aware of China's Belt Road Initiative (BRI) having the capacity to direct foreign policies to favor China (Hew, 2007).The organization is also aware of the need to not be confrontational to side with either power due to the assertive diplomatic signal it may generate towards the opposing side.This situation is elevated in cases such as the South China Sea, where even though half of the ASEAN members holding legitimate Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims to the seas, they do not showcase a decisive and confrontational policy to keep tensions to a minimum.
China's Nine-Dash Line is a primary contributor to the rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.Some have not responded to Beijing's attempts to control a large portion of the Pacific oceans.For example, the US and its allies in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), consisting of Japan, India, Australia, and the US, have continuously voiced the illegitimate claims of China in those seas (Hui & Hussain, 2018;Kaura, 2020).As mentioned previously, the dilemma is majorly faced by Southeast Asian states that have legitimate claims in parts of the South China Sea based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.Even non-claimant states, such as Indonesia, continue to express their worries about how tensions in the South China Sea may impact states' bilateral relations with China and undermine Southeast Asian peaceful regional order (Darwis & Putra, 2022;Putra, 2022).ASEAN member states struggled to diffuse peaceful norms in the Indo-Pacific, as the South China Sea dispute is at the center of that.ASEAN's past attempts to conclude a Code of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (COC) faced a negotiation stalemate (Mishra, 2017;Ririhena, 2012).ASEAN needed to construct a norm that would steer clear of China's suspicions.
On 23 June 2019, ASEAN, after years of negotiation, finalized and adopted the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP).The document echoes several ASEAN's long-held norms in its conduct of regional politics of Southeast Asia, namely; " . . .centrality, openness, transparency, inclusivity, a rules-based framework, good governance, respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, complementarity with existing cooperation frameworks, equality, mutual respect, mutual trust, mutual benefit and respect for international law (ASEAN, 2019a, p.3)." ASEAN concludes that the norms of amity and cooperation are the fundamental norms in conducting regional politics in the Indo-Pacific.Most of the terms used in the document tend to side with the US's stance of having an open and free Indo-Pacific region (Southgate, 2021).However, in a position paper published by China in 2022, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China concluded that it supported and was willing to work with ASEAN to uphold openness and cooperation (MOFAPRC, 2022).Despite past disagreements and tensions discussing the Indo-Pacific region, ASEAN seems to be able to navigate around those tensions and conclude a document that the great powers could respect entrapped in the Indo-Pacific geopolitical rivalry.
Nevertheless, the internal politics of intra-ASEAN to conclude the AOIP is worthy of investigation.The different stances adopted by Southeast Asian nations concerning their alignments with Southeast Asia's great powers show that the norm diffusion process within ASEAN took on unique dynamics.As was the case with ASEAN's norm diffusion in the case of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in 1987 or Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1971, the external environment and dilemmas faced by Southeast Asian nations affected the norm diffusion process of norms attached to the TAC and ZOPFAN (ASEAN, 2019a;Henderson, 2014).What makes AOIP need to be investigated under the discourse of norm diffusion is that norm socialization did not only occur among ASEAN member states but also among ASEAN partners, most of which are located or involved in the Indo-Pacific great political rivalries.
Borrowing the theoretical framework introduced by Collins in 2013, this article contends that the norm diffusion process of newly introduced norms of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific can be comprehended through the lens of norm diffusion discourses, specifically, through localization and mimetic adoption.This article inquires the following questions; how did the global norms adjust to fit the local context of Southeast Asian concerns?And, what can mimetic adoption explain regarding the finalization of the norm diffusion process of amity and cooperation within ASEAN?This article adopts a qualitative research methodology to answer those questions, utilizing primary data attained from official reports (chairman's statements and declarations) from ASEAN Summits and ASEAN extra-regional forums between 2010-2021.

Norm diffusion in Southeast Asia: a literature review
Divergences of norms adopted by states are a common feature of a globalized world.As shown by the emergence of the liberal world order, states would not abide by norms that diverge from their national interests.As a result, norm diffusion, simply as the process of spreading norms, is determined by whether the norm complies and aligns with the beliefs adopted from local norms or goes against it.Equally important, scholars such as Winston argue that the lack of understanding causes a reason why norms vary from one place to another as to what the norm is (Winston, 2018).Winston argues that norms are not easy to identify, as the character of norms is not static, as they are continuous.As Legro asserts, norms also come in different strengths, thus, complicating the norm diffusion process (Legro, 1997).
Norms in international relations can be defined as the "rules and practices that guide practice" (Collins, 2013, p. 372).Norms themselves are not neutral, as it would tend to circulate the ideas and interests of those that spread the norms to diffuse.As actors found the intended rules and practices diffused, it is normal to argue that understanding the norm itself may vary from one to another.Suppose it is in the context of policymakers attempting to understand the advantages and consequences of a norm.In that case, one is exposed to the fragility of having psychological biases in understanding a norm's meaning (Jervis, 1976).Such a case is due to what Jones argues as bounded rationality, in which actors attempt to satisfice, contrary to optimization (Jones, 2003).It is vital to understand that due to the limitations of actors in understanding norms, or their lack of compatibility in other settings, norm diffusion would eventually lead to the modification of norms to abide by the local context in which it is being implemented.
Due to the potential of decision-makers or lack of information impacting the adoption of norms among actors, the study of norm diffusion allows for a better comprehension of what enables the diffusion of norms to be adopted holistically and what leads to its partial adoption.As argued by Winston, norm diffusion "travels and is taken out of their original context and applied to a new context" (Winston, 2018, p. 645).Because of the travels norms undertake, the meaning of norms is exposed to changes to fit the needs and interests of actors internalizing norms (Wiener, 2008).
The meanings of norms, thus, are not a fixed concept.It is constructed by actors internalizing norms.As past scholars have contended, this is where the idea of interpretation comes into play, as diffusing norms leads one to re-interpret the meaning of norms, which can cause a change in a norm's nature (Sandholtz, 2007).This is a common phenomenon when it comes to interpretation.As argued in past studies in favor of the hermeneutic circle, individuals' interpretations are based upon prior understandings, pre-conceptions, and past experiences, suggesting that we will interpret new things to fit our understanding (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010;Grondin, 2015;Maddox, 1983).Besides technical reasons as to why norms may be diffused and changed, one must also consider the importance of domestic structures as primary contributors to understanding why interpretations diverge from one country to another due to the different values being upheld (Cortell & Davis Jr, 2000).
An analysis of the diffusion of norms in international relations is inseparable from the actors that hold the role of spreading a new norm.The names associated with these roles vary in the study of international relations and also diverge in the nature of those actors (individuals, states, international organizations, and non-government organizations).Kingdon, for example, termed the name "policy entrepreneurs" (Kingdon, 1985), and Stone named them "transfer agents" (Stone, 2007).A common term widely used in the literature is "norm entrepreneur" (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998), coined by Finnemore and Sikkink in 1998.Despite the overwhelming literature on norm entrepreneurs being represented by state actors, studies have also started to recognize how non-state actors such as intergovernmental organizations and non-government organizations (NGOs) have the role of introducing new norms.NGOs have become prominent actors studied in this discourse.As argued in past studies, NGOs such as Greenpeace and Red Cross have been the primary organizations responsible for disseminating norms on human rights and environmental awareness and protection (Kapitonenko, 2022).Specific to Southeast Asia, discourses on norm entrepreneurship have been discussed under norm diffusion.Certain norms guide the state behaviors of Southeast Asian states, and the literatures discussing this point is extensive.Leading scholars in the field, Ba and Acharya, argue how Southeast Asian states behave based on historical factors (Ba, 2009) and the construction of community-based behaviors after being exposed to norms of regional integration (Acharya, 2009).Norm diffusion in Southeast Asia is pioneered by studies conducted by Acharya and Katsumata, explaining norm diffusion as a process of "localization," "subsidiarity," and imitation (Acharya, 2004(Acharya, , 2011;;Katsumata, 2011).As Acharya contends, localization of norm diffusion occurs when global norms are adjusted to align with local beliefs.
Meanwhile, subsidiarity argues that the adjustment of global norms is to preserve the autonomy of local actors (Acharya, 2011).As Collins concludes, localization entails accepting global norms into local norms, with adjustments made to fit local beliefs and practices.Meanwhile, mimetic adoption is a concept introduced by Katsumata, arguing that once norms are adopted, states eventually follow the central actors to the issue by mimicking those actors and adopting the norms for purposes of seeking "identity or status as a legitimate member of the community" (Katsumata, 2011, p. 565).
This article employs the framework of Collins (2013), arguing that the norm of amity and cooperation diffusion can be traced through the following processes; localization and mimetic adoption, and putting aside Collin's adoption of "subsidiarity" as it is incompatible with this study.The AOIP is a manifestation of global norms related to peaceful relations and cooperation that is localized to the context of Southeast Asia that wishes to regulate the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific (being located in the center of the region).Through those processes, we can comprehend the adoption of norms in regional organizations, such as ASEAN, in diffusing a global norm to one that is regionally modified to fit the interests of Southeast Asian nations.The following sections are structured as follows; first, it looks at the process of localizing the norms of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific after being modified to coincide with the concerns of Southeast Asian states.Second, it examines the mimetic adoption of member states' amity and cooperation norms (inter and intra ASEAN) in adopting the AOIP.

Aoip's amity and cooperation norms and the localization of the 'free and open Indo-Pacific' in Southeast Asia
Identifying the localization of the amity and cooperation norms diffused by ASEAN requires first answering why ASEAN would be involved in the Indo-Pacific norm construction.In the past, ASEAN has shown that it has the capacity to establish peaceful rules and regulations of regional politics in Southeast Asia.ASEAN has successfully enforced its norms on Southeast Asian states, despite the inherent diversities they share (Harper, 2015).As mentioned previously, adopting TAC and ZOPFAN during the Cold War could bypass the different state systems that were upheld in Southeast Asia and adopt common norms to advance Southeast Asia's relevance in world politics.
ASEAN's neighboring states then respected ASEAN's vision to diffuse norms of non-interference, respect over sovereignty, and autonomy over external pressures.ASEAN norms established the benchmark of political conduct for Southeast Asian states, which were then slowly adopted by countries in East Asia, South Asia, and even the world's great powers during the Cold War.This process of diffusing norms to intra and inter-ASEAN countries allows us to conclude that ASEAN norm diffusion is aimed not limited at its member states but at states that wish to engage with the region and its strategic partners diplomatically.The TAC, for example, extended its reach to all states wishing to engage with ASEAN by allowing other states to sign the treaty initially determined for Southeast Asian states alone (Koga, 2014).
The geopolitical rivalries in the Indo-Pacific impact the Southeast Asian states tremendously, prompting an ASEAN norm construction to assist in regulating tensions.After seeing ASEAN's intentions to construct norms in Southeast Asia and beyond, it seems natural that ASEAN is gravitating to regulate the extended region of Southeast Asia, the Indo-Pacific.As stipulated in the AOIP, ASEAN aims to broaden its norms of cooperation, openness, transparency, and adherence to International law to the Indo-Pacific.
Discussions on ASEAN's norm diffusion roles would thus need to inquire as to what exact norms are being diffused.The AOIP document lists several norms that need to be upheld in the Indo-Pacific regional order; transparency, rules-based framework, openness, respect for international law, etc.This article argues that the norms diffused through AOIP are amity and cooperation, the core norms that ASEAN introduced during the Cold War and continues to be the main cited norms in ASEAN's summits and extra-regional forums (Beng-Huat, 2010;Hansson et al., 2020)."Cooperation" is mentioned multiple times in the AOIP text.Meanwhile, despite "amity" is not explicitly mentioned multiple times, the term is represented by the numerous minor norms listed in the AOIP, representing the need to uphold friendly relations between states in the Indo-Pacific region.
The localization of the amity and cooperation norms started with the emergence of non-amity trends in the region, which also incorporates or affects Southeast Asian states.Besides security threats in the South China Sea impacting the policies of the claimant states to the disputed waters, economic concerns also strived.Some academics have labeled China's BRI as "predatory lending" or "predatory investment" (Banks, 2020;Goodman, 2017).as secondary states struggle to return high amounts of debts taken.But arguably, the emergence of security threats became the primary driver of ASEAN's concerns and pushed the need to diffuse amity and cooperation norms in the wider Indo-Pacific region.
Southeast Asian concerns also accelerated due to the regional powers that have expressed concern over the region's developments.India, for example, feels that the Indo-Pacific is a center of concern due to its opportunities and the diplomatic challenges it generates.The concerns have led India to adopt the "Act East" policy as Modi attempts to re-emphasize the importance of engaging with the Indo-Pacific region (Saint-Mézard, 2016).Coupled with the US-led Quad and how regional powers such as Japan and India are siding with the Western-led stance of an open and free Indo-Pacific geopolitical architecture, China has responded to this with growing assertiveness in the region (Putra & Cangara, 2022).With the developments, ASEAN needed to resurge its importance as the leading organization that can control geopolitical tensions that affect the Southeast Asian region, as they have shown during the Cold War and in the early 21 st century.
In tracing the norm diffusion of ASEAN, special attention is required to identify the diffusion dynamics through its member states.Unlike NGOs, for example, which can act in a unitary fashion as a norm diffuser to countries, intergovernmental organizations such as ASEAN highly depend upon their member states to conduct the process of diffusing norms.ASEAN Secretariat does not have the autonomy and mandate to diffuse norms.Instead, its roles are dominated by administrative tasks (Severino, 2008).Considering that, this article references Indonesia's past efforts in diffusing the norms, as Indonesia was the stakeholder that crafted the draft of the AOIP for 18 months prior to its adoption in 2019 (Anwar, 2020).
Indonesia has always used ASEAN to drive norm diffusion tasks.In the past, Indonesia was vocal in enforcing better democratic and human rights norms to be adopted in ASEAN.It also led efforts for ASEAN to adopt a neutral stance during great power rivalries during the Cold War.In the case of AOIP, it was also Indonesia that utilized ASEAN as the primary tool to diffuse the norms of amity and cooperation, localized to the context of Southeast Asia.Indonesia's initial introduction came when Jokowi announced at the 32 nd ASEAN Summit in 2018 that the Indo-Pacific region could benefit from enforcing peaceful norms in conflict resolution and the importance of non-coercive maneuvers (Sani, 2018).However, ASEAN perceived that Indonesia's Indo-Pacific conception had strong connections to the developments of the South China Sea.Thus, the localization of ASEAN's norm diffusion first occurred when member states expressed the importance of implementing a document that would not be specific to security threats faced by Southeast Asian states in the Indo-Pacific.
As argued by Collins and Acharya, localization is an inward-looking process, as global norms are adjusted to fit with the local beliefs and practices of Southeast Asian states (Acharya, 2011;Collins, 2013).Arguably, the global norms referred to in the context of the Indo-Pacific is the US free and Open Indo-Pacific vision, as stipulated in its 2022 "Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States," and a stance consistently embraced since Obama's administration (WH, 2022).ASEAN is wary that adoption of an Indo-Pacific outlook as a means to diffuse the norms of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific should; 1) not reference norms that could conflict with China's concerns in the South China Sea (refraining from conflict-based resolution norms), and 2) not contain terms of "free" and "open" to steer far from allegations that the norms diffused echoes the stance of the US.ASEAN's past norm diffusions show that being neutral is a priority.The localized version of the global norm of a free and open Indo-Pacific is the ASEAN-centered amity and cooperation norms.Such norms can be justified by ASEAN, as amity and cooperation have been diffused by ASEAN since several decades ago, thus, China would not perceive a re-emphasis of its norms as an attempt to control tensions in the sensitive disputed waters.Furthermore, the localized norms still represent the US's Indo-Pacific vision, as amity and cooperation constitute the US vision to construct cooperation and connections in the Indo-Pacific (WH, 2022).
ASEAN was able to incorporate the concerns of the great powers in the process of the norm diffusion of its amity and cooperation norms to the broader Indo-Pacific region.Its inward-looking orientation can be seen by ASEAN member states' concerns about addressing the growing regional tensions without generating a clear alignment signal.Such a stance is Southeast Asia's measure of localizing global norms, which is a priority to be vague, non-aligned, and uphold cooperation in diffusing global norms into a local Southeast Asian context (Chen & Yang, 2013;Emmerson, 1984).
As part of the amity and cooperation norm diffusion, ASEAN has also made it clear in the AOIP on the policy manifestations of the norm.ASEAN emphasized that it will push agendas concerning maritime cooperation, maritime connectivity, and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (ASEAN, 2019b).The clarification of policy manifestations holds with it the intention to not be ambiguous about the results of the diffused norms.As a result, both global powers, the US and China, have expressed their support to assist ASEAN in achieving the goals outlined in the AOIP document (MOFAPRC, 2022;WH, 2022).By reducing the ambiguities, ASEAN is achieving its inward-looking priority of a non-aligned stance in the construction and diffusion of norms for the Indo-Pacific region, centered by Southeast Asia.
To fully comprehend the ASEAN's norm diffusion process through the AOIP, we also need to investigate initial rejections that helped to re-formulate a localized global norm to the free and open Indo-Pacific.Technically, additional effort is required in order to adopt new norms and regulations for organizations such as ASEAN.ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making demands Southeast Asian states to compromise their interests to adopt measures that can be holistically agreed upon by all member states of ASEAN.ASEAN has witnessed a number of difficulties in the past in localizing global norms and diffusing them to fit a Southeast Asian local context.
External pressures started to mount as ASEAN continued to be silent in responding to the human atrocities committed by its member states in the past two decades.Among the demands was for ASEAN to localize global human rights norms to sustain better protection of human rights in Southeast Asia (Kraft, 2012).In 2009, ASEAN established the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).AICHR is mandated to promote and protect human rights in Southeast Asia, tasks that would prove challenging to achieve.ASEAN's norm diffusion of human rights norms was difficult to localize, as the diversities of Southeast Asian states meant that there were different levels of human rights appreciation in the region.With different constitutions, state paradigms, and civil laws, ASEAN could not fully localize the global human rights norm into a Southeast Asian context, especially in fulfilling the mandate to protect human rights (Arendshorst, 2009).Challenges to localizing global norms also occurred in the context of the norms of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.
During the negotiation process of the AOIP in 2018, Singapore expressed hesitancy towards the ASEAN-led norm of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific (Kausikan, 2018).Singapore's skepticism can be associated with its close relations with the US, similar to the dilemmas faced by other Southeast Asian states such as Thailand and the Philippines.Singapore feared that ASEAN's intentions to localize global norms into the context of Southeast Asia would not be efficient and even cause disruptions (Kausikan, 2018).This is a common dynamic when it comes to norm diffusion in ASEAN, in which ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making systems forces ASEAN to include concerns that its member states have raised.ASEAN's norm diffusion of the norms eventually consisted of the process of "peer pressure" between ASEAN member states.Furthermore, as Finnemore and Sikkink argued, states have this tendency to abide by new norms because they want to "avoid deviating from group judgments" (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998).Thus, after negotiation, Singapore dropped its concerns as long as the demands of adopting a non-casebased rhetoric in its localized norm could be upheld in the final AOIP document.
Localization of global norms into the context that fits Southeast Asia's local beliefs and practices eventually faced initial challenges.Thus, this process of norm diffusion was filled with an adjustment of terms used to ensure non-alignment and to ward off any possible misinterpretations through an outline of policy manifestations to the amity and cooperation norms introduced for the Indo-Pacific geopolitics.Another phase of norm diffusion that can be traced is mimetic adoption.

Finalizing the deal: mimetic adoption among ASEAN members and the Indo-Pacific regional powers
The last aspect of ASEAN's norm diffusion of the ASEAN-centered norms of amity and cooperation is mimetic adoption.As argued by Collins and Katsumata, norm diffusion consists of a process of imitation (Collins, 2013;Katsumata, 2011), which this article identifies is also the case for the AOIP norm diffusion.A central argument to past studies on mimetic adoption is the process of a norm adopted by the central actors to the norms, which is then imitated by other states as other members wish to be viewed as part of the community of the new norm.Arguing in the context of regional intergovernmental organizations, this study contends that actors central to the norm consist of ASEAN's norm entrepreneurs on the Indo-Pacific norm construction (Indonesia and the founding members of ASEAN), continued by other ASEAN members (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Brunei).Eventually, the act of imitation is extended to members of the external partners of ASEAN; East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Plus Three (ASEAN +3), and ASEAN summits with regional powers such as Japan and India.
The central actors in the norm diffusion of amity and cooperation constructed under ASEAN are the founding members, with special reference to Indonesia, which showed perseverance in the norm construction phase.As argued under mimetic adoption, the first phase of state imitation is towards the actors central to the norm.As explained in the previous section, Indonesia is arguably the most crucial actor in demanding an ASEAN-centered Indo-Pacific norm.After initial disagreements with Singapore, the founding members set aside differences to adopt a politically-neutral norm of amity and cooperation to be upheld in the Indo-Pacific.
What followed was the imitation of the other states, commonly termed CMLV plus Brunei.CMLV, a category of states in Southeast Asia; Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, is a categorization of ASEAN's newer members and those that tend to be less developed compared to the founding members of ASEAN (Owens et al., 2019).For the ASEAN norm diffusion to be completed intra-ASEAN, it was pivotal that all the ten member states of ASEAN embrace the ideas of the norms and uphold its points in ASEAN Summits and chairman statements.
Since 2020, a year after adopting the AOIP, ASEAN has shown its commitment to widespread the new norms introduced through the AOIP.ASEAN's views towards the Indo-Pacific would not deviate from their traditional stance of echoing the importance of amity and cooperation.As seen in the ASEAN Summits in 2021-2022, ASEAN continues to re-emphasize the importance of amity and cooperation in the wider Indo-Pacific region.During the 37 th ASEAN Summit, for example, which was hosted by Vietnam, ASEAN reiterated the importance of the newly established norms by arguing the importance of cooperation in the Indo-Pacific (ASEAN, 2020d).In several of the key meetings during this summit, such as the mid-term review of the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint and the ASEAN Chairman's statement, constant reference was made to the need to cooperate and maintain friendly relations in the broader region of Southeast Asia.Eventually, the amity and cooperation norms were incorporated as part of an ASEAN-centered, geopolitical architecture of the Indo-Pacific region, which the overall members of ASEAN support without any exclusions.The same trend re-appeared the following year during the 38 th ASEAN Summit in Brunei Darussalam (ASEAN, 2021d).
All member states of ASEAN, including Brunei and CMLV, which tends to take a different political route due to its strong economic connections to China, decided to bandwagon with the central actors of the norm.The reason for this can be deciphered into several possibilities.However, this article identifies that, as elaborated in Katsumata's past writing, states tend to imitate others for identity or status reasons, to be perceived as a "legitimate member of the community" (Katsumata, 2011, p. 565).Thus, refraining from being incorporated into a newly-developed localized norm would be bad for the reputation of any member.Again, the argument of peer pressure can be reintroduced in the mimetic adoption phase to comprehend why states would go against their national interests to embrace localized norms.But equally important is what Collins contends is agreeing not to be "labeled as a rogue nation" (Collins, 2013, p. 374).
The act of imitation would soon be extended to members of ASEAN's extra-regional forums.The extra-regional forums for this study are the EAS, ASEAN + 3, ASEAN-Japan Summit, and ASEAN-India Summit.In the case of EAS, it has been the primary ASEAN forum that helps to communicate ASEAN's norms to the wider-Southeast Asian region and global powers such as the US, Russia, and China.Meanwhile, the ASEAN + 3 holds decisive importance for ASEAN as it consists of Southeast Asia's immediate neighboring area, including China.Thus, the adoption of certain terms and the echoing of norms would entail an acceptance of those norms among the most influential states that drive the geopolitical dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.
Similar to the patterns found in the two ASEAN Summits in 2020 and 2021, EAS and ASEAN + 3 also adopted the terms introduced by the ASEAN-centered and localized amity and cooperation norms.The 18 members at the 15 th EAS Summit acknowledged the AOIP document and recognized that the Indo-Pacific benefits from stability, freedom, and prosperity (ASEAN, 2020a).Furthermore, ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, and China embraced parts of the localized amity and cooperation norms by echoing the importance of international law and multilateralism in conducting regional politics in the Indo-Pacific region (ASEAN, 2021b).
Japan and India also showed gestures of imitation by echoing the importance of the localized norms to establish peaceful relations in the Indo-Pacific.Through the ASEAN-Japan Summit conducted in 2020 and 2021, Japan noted that ASEAN's localized norm aligns with Japan's formulated "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" strategy due to the convergence of aims to establish cooperation and peace in the region (ASEAN, 2020c(ASEAN, , 2021d(ASEAN, , 2021c)).India, also a significant contributor to the regional dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region, contended that the formulated AOIP aligns with India's "Act East" policy and India's more expansive vision of the Indo-Pacific (ASEAN, 2020b(ASEAN, , 2021a)).
Returning to the analytical framework of mimetic adoption, ASEAN states and partners to the Southeast Asian regional order holistically adopted ASEAN's localized Indo-Pacific norms.It clarifies that states in this phase are willing to bandwagon with the central actors to a norm, which Collins termed as "norm champions" (Collins, 2013, p. 374).ASEAN member states and members of ASEAN's extra-regional forums understand the benefits of bandwagoning to the norm champion, and adopting the norms so that the state can be perceived as belonging to the community, the community of ASEAN regional order.Surprisingly, an additional benefit of adopting ASEAN's amity and cooperation norms for the Indo-Pacific is that the AOIP is supported by both the US and China, thus, states agreeing with the localized norms gives the impression that it aligns with the great powers' vision of the Indo-Pacific, opening flows of benefits.By agreeing, states are fending off the unwanted attention of being a rogue state, which could attract unwelcome interferences.

Conclusion
ASEAN-centered norms of amity and cooperation from the AOIP is how ASEAN envisions the desired future of the Indo-Pacific region.As an extension of ASEAN's past norms on establishing friendly relations and cooperation in regional politics, the success of the AOIP being internalized intra-ASEAN and among ASEAN's extra-regional forum members is worthy of being inquired.Specifically, this article addresses the norm diffusion process of ASEAN's amity and cooperation into the broader regional context of the Indo-Pacific.This article contends that the norm diffusion process of newly introduced norms of amity and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific can be comprehended through norm diffusion discourses, specifically through localization and mimetic adoption.
This study inquires two questions; how did the global norms adjust to fit the local context of Southeast Asian concerns?And, what can mimetic adoption explain regarding the finalization of the norm diffusion process of amity and cooperation within ASEAN?In answering those empirical puzzles, this article adopts the theoretical framework of Collins in 2013, inspired by previous works on "localization" by Acharya and "mimetic adoption" from Katsumata.Localization is a term outlining the process of adjusting a global norm to fit the local rules and practices of a defined area.Meanwhile, mimetic adoption aims to capture the process of the norm being internalized intra-ASEAN and among ASEAN's extra-regional partners, which eventually adopts the norm introduced by the central actors of norm construction.
Localization in ASEAN's norm diffusion can be found through the intra-ASEAN negotiations that aim to modify the global norm of free and open Indo-Pacific to fit the Southeast Asian local contexts.This process is an inward-looking stage of norm diffusion, in which ASEAN, represented through norm entrepreneurs such as Indonesia, modify the terms of the norm that is diffused to be aligned to ASEAN's traditional stance of non-alignment and ward off possible misinterpretations through clear policy manifestations to the amity and cooperation norms.It also observes that initial states that initially expressed hesitancy and doubt over the importance of the norms were catered through nonspecific-referenced norms that could be well received among ASEAN members stares.Thus, the localization of the global norms attached to the Indo-Pacific is manifested through the politicallyneutral terminologies adopted by ASEAN, the norms of amity and cooperation.
The final stage of ASEAN's diffusion of Indo-Pacific norms is mimetic adoption.It highlights the processes and stages of norm adoption imitation in the ASEAN-centered amity and cooperation norms.As a result, Indonesia and the founding ASEAN members acted as the central stakeholders in the norm.The CMLV and Brunei adopted the norms due to "peer pressure" and the need to be viewed as part of the community.Furthermore, mimetic adoption allows us to comprehend the adoption of the norms into the numerous ASEAN forums in 2010 and 2011, including in intra-ASEAN (ASEAN Summit), and in ASEAN extra-regional forums (ASEAN +3, EAS, ASEAN-India Summit, and ASEAN-Japan Summit).Eventually, the bandwagoning to the norm champions allowed Southeast Asian states and partners to reap the benefits of the norm adoption and ward off unwelcomed interferences.