Negative sanctions embody some of the most pressing dilemmas of contemporary foreign policy and thereby efficiently expose how actors interpret core principles of international relations. This paper demonstrates how historical legacies shape the current beliefs and practices of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the African Union (AU) with regards to sanctions. While both ASEAN and the AU are opposed to using sanctions outside of their own borders, they have developed different philosophies and practices concerning how to exercise normative discipline in their own constituencies. There is little sign that ASEAN will join the expanding number of regional organisations that uses punitive measures against norm-breaching member states. The AU, on the other hand, has constructed a sophisticated sanctions policy against unconstitutional changes of government in its member states.
By systematically analysing the importance of the past for the present in the discourse and practice of sanctions, the paper shows empirically the value of an interpretative approach that is sensitive to both history and agency. This paper argues that differences in interpretations of two shared historical experiences: colonialism and globalisation, help explain the divergent paths of the organisations with regards to negative sanctions. Both integration projects were established to promote peace and consolidate post-colonial state building. However, while the African colonial experience(s) found a common language through pan-Africanism, initially strongly advocated by individual leaders and gradually institutionalized at the continental level, ASEAN does not have a regional identity – and few identity entrepreneurs – that can justify intervention in domestic affairs. Moreover, if the African exposure to globalization has largely been characterized by continuous exploitation; ASEAN has navigated modern economic realities more successfully. This helps explain ASEAN’s prioritisation of economic over political integration, in sharp contrast to the AU which seeks a political answer to the challenges of globalisation.
