＂Institutionalization＂ can be understood as a process of norm and law setting to regulate and control individual attitudes. An institutionalized area could be more stable and ordered, then the relationships between ...＂Institutionalization＂ can be understood as a process of norm and law setting to regulate and control individual attitudes. An institutionalized area could be more stable and ordered, then the relationships between the factors can be identified by the predicted signals. Institutions can help to provide a key form of such frameworks, through which all states, but especially the stronger states, can use rules and other normative expectations of conduct in the international relation. Weaker states, in return, gain limits on the action of the leading states and access to the political process, in which they can press their interests. This article analyzes the disputes in the South China Sea~, particularly between China and ASEAN countries to prove the argument. It is argued that ASEAN, in the situation of power asymmetry between dominant （power-holders） and dominated groups, has used ＂institution＂ and ＂institutionalization＂ as a countermeasure to constrain the powerful China in the two ways： （1） trying to lock-in China in a rule-based order, in order to restrict its power, and （2） by institutionalizing the way in which the disputes in the South China Sea should be resolved, ASEAN countries want to create a frameworks for setting rules of games, which are shaped by principles and norms instead of balance-of-power.展开更多
文摘＂Institutionalization＂ can be understood as a process of norm and law setting to regulate and control individual attitudes. An institutionalized area could be more stable and ordered, then the relationships between the factors can be identified by the predicted signals. Institutions can help to provide a key form of such frameworks, through which all states, but especially the stronger states, can use rules and other normative expectations of conduct in the international relation. Weaker states, in return, gain limits on the action of the leading states and access to the political process, in which they can press their interests. This article analyzes the disputes in the South China Sea~, particularly between China and ASEAN countries to prove the argument. It is argued that ASEAN, in the situation of power asymmetry between dominant （power-holders） and dominated groups, has used ＂institution＂ and ＂institutionalization＂ as a countermeasure to constrain the powerful China in the two ways： （1） trying to lock-in China in a rule-based order, in order to restrict its power, and （2） by institutionalizing the way in which the disputes in the South China Sea should be resolved, ASEAN countries want to create a frameworks for setting rules of games, which are shaped by principles and norms instead of balance-of-power.
