What are the roles that international institutions play in today s international relations Which of these roles does ASEAN play as a regional institution

The functions of international institutions have grown increasingly important in today's ever-changing international relations. This article will focus on the significance of international institutions in current international relations, their responsibilities in the global economic and political order, and the function of the regional organizations of ASEAN. This article will analyze the influence of international and regional institutions on global politics and economics by evaluating the functions of international institutions in current international relations.

The notion of international institutions is interpreted as regulations, according to Lisa Martin and Beth Simmons (cite). Despite a variety of interpretations, most researchers view "international institutions" as systems of laws intended to control international activity. (cite ). It specifies who the actors in a given scenario are and how they define their roles, so imposing limitations on conduct. One function that international institutions perform is that it makes it possible for states to commit themselves to levels of cooperation that would not be credible in their absence. For example, United Nation increase political, and economic cooperation among its member countries and reduce international tensions, promote human rights, and decrease the possibility of other large-scale conflicts. Constructivist scholars emphasize that international institutions can alter the identities and interests of states, as a result of their interactions over time within the auspices of a set of rules (Arend 1999; Onuf 1989). To be specific, The international institution facilitates altering and innovating the politics of those international states. For example, The United Nations' function is setting the U.N.'s budget, appointing rotating members to the Security Council, and passing non-binding resolutions that express the opinions of the international community. From that point, it set rules to ensure control between countries. Also Participating in transnational institutions forces countries to comply with rules and norms, and that has political consequences. Moreover, supporting countries to change their domestic policies to match the general trend and helping leaders get started, encouraging interest groups to propose new policies. Due to traditional realists, IIs are described as a state power and interests (Carr 1964). It provided a way for states to overcome problems of collective action, high transaction costs, and information deficits or asymmetries. For instance, the WTO’s activities to engage the benefit is to reduce transaction costs and provide information, and facilitate multilateral cooperation and the formation and implementation of treaties. Also, acting as a custodian of member states' compliance with the treaty and enforcing compliance through bargaining strategies for a long period. Institutions would be effective to the degree that they allowed states to avoid short-term temptations to renege, thus realizing available mutual benefits, helping to focus expectations on a cooperative solution, reducing transaction costs, and providing a greater degree of transparency. In short, institutions could be explained as a solution to the problem of international collective action, providing a response to the puzzle posed by realism. And make mutual concessions between nations easier. Negotiation between states is more favorable because international institutions can be seen as part of the arrangement. The development of international organizations creates an institution capable of deciding and influencing the governance of member states. In this trend, no member state is out of cooperation.

Today, almost every country in the world is represented in the United Nations, including the United States. Being described as a regional organization, ASEAN is abbreviated as “The Association of Southeast Asian Nations” (cite 1). This organization was established for the mutual benefit of 11 distinct states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam in Asia. To be specific, these countries gather to enhance economic and security cooperation (cite1). But the influence stayed on the boundary because the members are only 11, which is a huge gap to the United Nations. ASEAN is headed by a chair—a position that rotates annually among member states—and is assisted by a secretariat based in Jakarta, Indonesia. Important decisions are usually reached through consultation and consensus guided by the principles of non-interference in internal affairs and peaceful resolution of conflicts. As Kishore Mahbubani mentions ASEAN has huge potential to increasingly enhance the relations with our harsh regional ones before.)(cite 1). moreover, The group has played a central role in Asian economic integration, joining negotiations to form the world’s largest free trade agreement and signing India, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand free trade deals. ASEAN has made some progress toward economic integration and free trade as I mentioned before. To be specific, in 1992, members created the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) with the goals of creating a single market, increasing intra-ASEAN trade and investments, and attracting foreign investment. In 1996, the average tariff rate across the bloc was around 7 percent [PDF]. And Today, intra-ASEAN tariffs are effectively zero. The bloc has prioritized eleven sectors for integration, including electronics, automotive, rubber-based products, textiles and apparel, agro-based products, and tourism. Besides cooperating with their neighbor, ASEAN also cooperates with the United States and it is ASEAN’s fourth-largest trading partner in terms of goods, trailing China, the European Union, and Japan. Merchandise trade between the two sides reached more than $307 billion in 2020. The United States has launched sub-regional and bilateral initiatives to boost ties, including the Mekong-U.S. Partnership, which aims to deepen cooperation between the United States and Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam on issues related to the environment, health, education, and infrastructure development. U.S. presidents have also met Southeast Asian leaders during the annual East Asia Summit, which is hosted by ASEAN and also attended by the heads of state of Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and South Korea.

Every country wants to join an international institution to open their relationship and trade through this. Also because they don’t want their country to always be concerned about wars and conflict can rush in anytime and threaten their safety. And as mentioned before, the United Nations was established to ensure the rights of their countries members. But contrary to that expectation, the UN has often not been able to stop conflicts or successfully resolve them. The UN’s lack of effectiveness in preventing many major wars is a significant reason it is bad. Throughout the UN’s history, there have been many conflicts that it has been unable to stop. The Vietnam War raged for 19 years and cost the lives of two million people. However, the UN proved powerless to stop it. The United Nations' inability to stop wars is a major reason why it is bad for the world. By being ineffective at bringing peace, the UN ultimately allows conflicts to continue. Moreover, A regular complaint about the United Nations is that it has no real power. This is seen as one of its most significant negative points. The UN has 193 member states. Although it can pass resolutions, make international law, and deploy peacekeeping missions, it doesn’t actually have any direct power over member countries. The UN is bad because it can’t make countries do the right thing… and many choose not to. This means that countries can easily defy the United Nations. Once many countries have seen the UN has no power to stop them, they take this as tacit international approval for their actions, or at least that no one will really prevent them. Essentially, this means the United Nations stands by whilst countries break the laws it lays down. Examples include international aggression or crimes against humanity, such as Russian involvement in Ukraine or the Rwandan Genocide. In these cases, the UN was unable or unwilling to take any meaningful action. This shows how the UN can be inadequate. The United Nations is bad for the world because it provides the illusion of upholding international laws and norms, whilst actually being almost completely unable to stop nations from acting as they wish.