ГАРМОНИЗАЦИЯ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА И ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКАЯ ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ В АСЕАН: УРОКИ, ИЗВЛЕЧЕННЫЕ ИЗ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА ЕС О КОНКУРЕНЦИИ

УДК 341.48

Abstract

This article examines the role of legal harmonisation in ASEAN’s economic integration process in light of the European Union’s experience in competition law. The purpose of the study is to assess whether selected elements of the EU legal framework may contribute to the further development of legal harmonisation within ASEAN. The research employs comparative legal, doctrinal and systematic methods. It analyses ASEAN’s institutional structure, existing harmonisation mechanisms, regional competition law initiatives and the principal features of the EU competition law framework. Particular attention is devoted to supranational governance, regulatory convergence, mutual recognition mechanisms and cooperation among competition authorities. The article argues that ASEAN is unlikely to adopt the EU’s supranational model because of significant political, economic and institutional differences. Nevertheless, ASEAN may selectively adapt certain EU-inspired mechanisms to improve regulatory coordination and strengthen regional integration. The study concludes that a gradual and context-sensitive approach to legal harmonisation offers the most appropriate pathway for ASEAN while preserving the region’s diversity and consensus-based governance structure.

Аннотация

Статья посвящена исследованию роли правовой гармонизации в процессах экономической интеграции АСЕАН с учетом опыта Европейского союза в сфере конкурентного права. Цель исследования заключается в выявлении возможностей использования отдельных элементов правовой модели ЕС для совершенствования механизмов гармонизации права в АСЕАН. В работе применяются сравнительно-правовой, доктринальный и системный методы исследования. Анализируются особенности институциональной структуры АСЕАН, существующие механизмы правовой гармонизации, развитие конкурентного права государств-членов, а также ключевые элементы правовой системы ЕС, обеспечивающие эффективность экономической интеграции. Особое внимание уделяется вопросам наднационального регулирования, взаимного признания, сближения законодательства и координации деятельности органов по защите конкуренции. По результатам исследования сделан вывод о том, что прямое заимствование наднациональной модели ЕС для АСЕАН является маловероятным, однако отдельные механизмы правовой гармонизации могут быть адаптированы с учетом политических, экономических и институциональных особенностей региона.

Keywords: ASEAN; legal harmonisation; economic integration; European Union.

Ключевые слова: АСЕАН; правовая гармонизация; экономическая интеграция; Европейский союз.

1. Introduction

Regional economic integration increasingly depends on legal harmonisation capable of reducing regulatory fragmentation, facilitating cross-border trade and promoting market efficiency. As ASEAN continues to deepen economic cooperation through the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), legal harmonisation has become a crucial instrument for addressing technical barriers to trade, divergent domestic regulations and inconsistencies in competition law regimes. However, ASEAN faces significant challenges arising from its institutional diversity, varying levels of economic development and strong commitment to state sovereignty and consensus-based governance.

The European Union provides one of the most developed examples of legal harmonisation and economic integration in the world. Through its supranational legal order and sophisticated competition law framework, the EU has achieved a high degree of regulatory convergence and market integration. Although ASEAN differs substantially from the EU in political, economic and institutional terms, the European experience may offer valuable lessons for ASEAN’s ongoing integration process.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between legal harmonisation and economic integration in ASEAN and to assess whether elements of the EU competition law framework may contribute to ASEAN’s future development. The study aims to identify similarities and differences between the two regional models and to formulate recommendations for strengthening legal harmonisation within ASEAN.

2. Materials and Methods

The study is based on international and regional legal instruments, including ASEAN legal documents, the ASEAN Economic Community framework, ASEAN competition policy instruments, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), EU competition law regulations and relevant academic literature concerning regional integration and legal harmonisation.

The research employs comparative legal, doctrinal and systematic methods. The comparative legal method is used to analyse differences and similarities between ASEAN and EU approaches to legal harmonisation and competition law. The doctrinal method is applied to examine legal concepts, academic opinions and institutional developments. The systematic method is used to evaluate the coherence of legal frameworks and to formulate recommendations for strengthening ASEAN’s legal harmonisation process.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. ASEAN and the Challenges of Legal Harmonisation

3.1.1 Regional Economic Integration in ASEAN

Regional economic integration has long constituted one of ASEAN’s principal objectives since its establishment in 1967. Initially conceived as a platform for political stability and regional cooperation rather than economic unification, ASEAN gradually shifted towards economic integration in response to increasing globalisation and regional economic interdependence. The Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998 served as a particularly important turning point, exposing institutional vulnerabilities and encouraging deeper forms of regional cooperation.

The establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) marked a major milestone in ASEAN’s integration agenda. Formally inaugurated in 2015, the AEC aims to transform ASEAN into a more integrated and competitive regional economy through four central objectives: (i) establishing a single market and production base; (ii) creating a highly competitive economic region; (iii) promoting equitable economic development; and (iv) integrating ASEAN more fully into the global economy. These objectives demonstrate ASEAN’s ambition to strengthen regional competitiveness while facilitating trade liberalisation and investment flows.

However, ASEAN’s conception of economic integration differs significantly from the EU model. Unlike the EU, ASEAN has not sought to establish a customs union, monetary union, or supranational political authority. Rather, ASEAN’s integration strategy reflects what scholars frequently describe as an “FTA-plus” or “common market minus” approach. While ASEAN promotes tariff reduction, freer movement of production factors, and regulatory coordination, member states retain substantial autonomy over domestic policy decisions. This reflects ASEAN’s long-standing commitment to national sovereignty, non-interference, and consensus-building.

ASEAN’s diversity further complicates regional integration efforts. Member states exhibit considerable variation in economic development, institutional capacity, industrialisation levels, legal systems, and governance models. Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand possess relatively advanced market institutions, whereas Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar continue to face developmental constraints. Such disparities create uneven regulatory capacity and varying incentives for legal harmonisation.

Geographical fragmentation also distinguishes ASEAN from the EU. Whereas Europe largely consists of a connected landmass, Southeast Asia comprises maritime territories separated by extensive sea routes. These geographic conditions create additional logistical, infrastructural, and regulatory barriers to regional market integration. Consequently, ASEAN’s integration process remains significantly more decentralised and market-driven than that of the EU.

For these reasons, ASEAN economic integration cannot be understood simply as an attempt to replicate the EU Single Market. Rather, ASEAN pursues a context-specific model of regionalism aimed at facilitating economic cooperation without fundamentally compromising national sovereignty. This institutional reality substantially shapes ASEAN’s legal harmonisation strategy.

3.1.2 Legal Framework for Harmonisation in ASEAN

Legal harmonisation constitutes an essential component of ASEAN’s economic integration strategy. As tariff barriers decline, non-tariff measures increasingly emerge as significant impediments to regional trade. Among these, technical barriers to trade (TBTs), divergent domestic regulations, product standards, and inconsistent conformity assessment mechanisms represent major challenges to achieving an integrated regional market.

ASEAN has therefore developed a range of legal instruments designed to facilitate regulatory convergence. The ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) provides a legal framework for reducing trade barriers and facilitating intra-regional commerce. Complementing ATIGA are sector-specific harmonisation initiatives aimed at promoting standardisation and regulatory consistency.

Technical harmonisation in ASEAN primarily concerns the alignment of product standards, safety regulations, labelling requirements, and conformity assessment procedures. Inconsistent domestic regulations may function as de facto trade barriers by increasing compliance costs and limiting cross-border market access. Consequently, ASEAN has increasingly promoted the harmonisation of technical regulations to support the freer movement of goods.

Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) constitute another important legal mechanism supporting harmonisation efforts. MRAs enable ASEAN member states to recognise conformity assessment outcomes conducted in other jurisdictions, thereby reducing duplicative testing requirements and facilitating trade. Through recognition of assessments conducted by accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs), ASEAN seeks to minimise unnecessary regulatory burdens while preserving consumer protection and product safety standards.

At the same time, ASEAN promotes the adoption of harmonised standards based on internationally recognised benchmarks. Regulatory convergence seeks not only to reduce transaction costs but also to improve interoperability, strengthen consumer confidence, and facilitate participation in global value chains. International standards frequently provide a practical reference point for ASEAN harmonisation efforts, reducing the need to develop entirely new regional regulatory frameworks.

Nevertheless, ASEAN’s legal harmonisation process faces persistent institutional constraints. Unlike the EU, ASEAN lacks binding supranational enforcement powers capable of ensuring uniform compliance. Legal implementation remains highly dependent upon domestic political will and national regulatory capacity. Consequently, harmonisation in ASEAN often proceeds through soft-law instruments, voluntary commitments, and intergovernmental coordination rather than binding legal obligations.

This institutional arrangement produces both flexibility and limitations. While flexibility enables member states to pursue harmonisation at varying speeds according to domestic priorities, it also contributes to uneven implementation and regulatory fragmentation. As a result, ASEAN’s legal harmonisation remains incremental, selective, and politically negotiated.

3.1.3 ASEAN’s Approach to Competition Law

Competition law has emerged as an increasingly important element of ASEAN’s regional integration agenda. The development of competitive markets is widely recognised as essential for ensuring economic efficiency, promoting innovation, preventing anti-competitive conduct, and facilitating investment. Within the AEC framework, competition policy plays a particularly important role in fostering a predictable business environment conducive to regional integration.

However, ASEAN’s approach to competition law differs fundamentally from that of the EU. Rather than pursuing a uniform supranational competition regime, ASEAN adopts a decentralised and cooperative model grounded primarily in soft-law mechanisms. This approach reflects ASEAN’s institutional commitment to sovereignty and intergovernmentalism.

A key institutional development occurred in 2007 with the establishment of the ASEAN Experts Group on Competition (AEGC), which functions as a regional platform for dialogue, capacity-building, and policy coordination. ASEAN has also adopted important soft-law instruments, including the ASEAN Regional Guidelines on Competition Policy and the Handbook on Competition Policy and Law in ASEAN for Business. These instruments seek to encourage the development of domestic competition regimes while promoting regulatory convergence and institutional cooperation among member states.

Despite notable progress, competition law regimes across ASEAN remain uneven and fragmented. Differences persist regarding substantive legal standards, enforcement mechanisms, institutional independence, and policy priorities. Some member states possess relatively sophisticated competition authorities, while others continue to experience capacity limitations and incomplete legislative frameworks.

Importantly, ASEAN competition law does not seek complete legal uniformity. Instead, harmonisation aims primarily at reducing excessive divergence while preserving national flexibility. This reflects recognition that ASEAN member states pursue different developmental objectives and operate under varying socio-economic conditions. Consequently, competition policy in ASEAN must balance economic efficiency with broader concerns relating to industrial policy, developmental disparities, and market readiness.

This flexible approach may appear institutionally weaker than the EU’s highly centralised model. However, it also reflects ASEAN’s political realities and may represent a more viable path toward gradual regional convergence. The central question, therefore, is not whether ASEAN should replicate the EU model, but rather which aspects of EU competition law and legal harmonisation may be selectively adapted to strengthen ASEAN’s economic integration objectives.

3.2. The EU’s Legal Harmonisation and Competition Law: A Model for ASEAN

3.2.1 Supranational Governance and Legal Harmonisation in the EU

One of the defining characteristics of the EU legal system is its supranational governance structure. Unlike traditional intergovernmental organisations, the EU possesses institutions capable of producing legally binding rules directly applicable within member states. This institutional arrangement distinguishes the EU sharply from ASEAN and constitutes a major explanatory factor behind the effectiveness of European legal harmonisation.

Legal harmonisation in the EU operates through multiple regulatory instruments, including regulations, directives, decisions, and judicial interpretation. Regulations possess direct applicability and immediate legal force across member states, thereby ensuring legal uniformity. Directives, while allowing national flexibility regarding implementation methods, impose binding legal obligations concerning regulatory objectives. This institutional design enables the EU to pursue harmonisation while accommodating varying national legal traditions.

Competition law enforcement particularly illustrates the functioning of supranational governance. The European Commission serves as the central enforcement authority, possessing investigative, adjudicatory, and sanctioning powers in relation to anti-competitive conduct. It may initiate investigations, conduct inspections, impose substantial fines, and order corrective measures against corporations violating EU competition law. Such powers significantly reduce enforcement fragmentation and strengthen legal consistency throughout the Single Market.

At the same time, national competition authorities continue to play important complementary roles through the European Competition Network (ECN). The ECN facilitates coordination, information-sharing, and consistent enforcement among member states while preserving an element of decentralisation. This institutional balance between central authority and national implementation has proven particularly important for maintaining regulatory coherence across a highly diverse regional bloc.

The effectiveness of EU legal harmonisation further derives from the principles of supremacy and direct effect. EU law generally takes precedence over conflicting domestic legislation, while certain treaty provisions may be directly invoked before domestic courts. These doctrines significantly strengthen compliance incentives and reduce implementation disparities among member states.

However, EU supranationalism also presents challenges. Legal harmonisation frequently generates tensions concerning sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, and national policy autonomy. Critics argue that centralised governance may limit domestic regulatory flexibility and fail to account sufficiently for local socio-economic differences. Political resistance to regulatory centralisation remains visible in areas involving industrial policy, digital regulation, and fiscal governance.

These limitations are particularly important when considering whether the EU model can be applied to ASEAN. ASEAN member states remain strongly committed to sovereignty and consensus-based governance, making direct institutional transplantation highly unlikely. Nevertheless, the EU experience demonstrates that legal harmonisation requires not only regulatory convergence but also institutional coordination, enforcement capacity, and long-term political commitment.

3.2.2 Key Features of the EU Competition Law Framework

The EU competition law framework rests upon several core pillars that collectively support the functioning of the Single Market. These include the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, regulation of dominant market power, merger control, and state aid supervision.

The prohibition of anti-competitive agreements under Article 101 TFEU constitutes one of the most fundamental components of EU competition law. This provision targets cartels, price-fixing arrangements, market-sharing agreements, bid rigging, and other forms of collusive conduct that distort competition. By preventing market coordination among firms, Article 101 seeks to preserve market openness and consumer welfare.

Article 102 TFEU complements this framework by prohibiting abuse of dominant market positions. Importantly, EU law does not prohibit dominance itself; rather, it targets exploitative or exclusionary conduct undertaken by dominant firms. Examples include predatory pricing, tying arrangements, refusal to supply, discriminatory practices, and exclusionary pricing strategies. This approach reflects a broader objective of preserving competitive market structures while allowing firms to achieve legitimate market success.

Merger control represents another important aspect of EU competition governance. Large-scale mergers and acquisitions capable of substantially reducing market competition are subject to regulatory review under the EU Merger Regulation. This preventive approach seeks to address anti-competitive risks before market concentration becomes irreversible.

State aid control further distinguishes the EU framework from many other jurisdictions. Through Articles 107–109 TFEU, the EU restricts state interventions that distort market competition through selective subsidies or advantages granted to domestic enterprises. Although exceptions exist for legitimate public interests, state aid control significantly limits protectionist tendencies among member states and reinforces market neutrality.

Institutionally, the EU competition system emphasises legal certainty, transparency, and predictability. Detailed guidelines, extensive case law, procedural safeguards, and specialised enforcement agencies collectively strengthen regulatory coherence. Businesses operating across member states benefit from relatively consistent legal standards, thereby reducing transaction costs and regulatory uncertainty.

Yet, despite its sophistication, the EU framework remains dynamic rather than fixed. Contemporary reforms increasingly address challenges arising from digital markets, artificial intelligence, platform economies, and transnational data governance. This adaptability may represent one of the EU system’s most important lessons for ASEAN.

3.2.3 The EU Single Market: Lessons for ASEAN

The EU Single Market provides important insights into the relationship between legal harmonisation and regional economic integration. A central lesson concerns the recognition that market integration requires more than trade liberalisation. The removal of tariffs alone is insufficient if divergent regulations, inconsistent standards, and fragmented competition regimes continue to impede market access.

The EU experience demonstrates the importance of regulatory convergence in reducing transaction costs and facilitating cross-border commerce. Harmonised technical standards, mutual recognition principles, and competition enforcement collectively contribute to market predictability and investor confidence. For ASEAN, where regulatory divergence remains substantial, similar mechanisms may strengthen regional market integration.

Another important lesson concerns institutional coordination. The EU has demonstrated that effective legal harmonisation requires robust institutional mechanisms capable of monitoring compliance, resolving disputes, and facilitating cooperation. ASEAN’s reliance upon soft-law coordination may benefit from strengthened institutional platforms for regulatory dialogue and enforcement cooperation, particularly in competition law.

However, ASEAN should avoid viewing the EU model as a blueprint for institutional replication. Significant differences in political structure, historical development, and regional identity limit the transferability of supranational governance mechanisms. Unlike Europe’s relatively strong legal integration project, ASEAN continues to prioritise sovereignty and non-interference.

The more relevant lesson may therefore lie in selective adaptation rather than institutional imitation. ASEAN may draw inspiration from EU experiences concerning competition governance, regulatory convergence, mutual recognition systems, and institutional capacity-building without replicating supranational enforcement structures.

Ultimately, the EU experience illustrates that successful legal harmonisation is not achieved through uniformity alone but through gradual institutional trust-building, political compromise, and regulatory coordination. This incremental approach may offer ASEAN the most realistic pathway toward deeper economic integration under the AEC framework.

3.3. Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for ASEAN’s Legal Harmonisation

3.3.1 Comparative Analysis: ASEAN vs. EU Approaches

Although ASEAN and the EU share a common aspiration toward regional economic integration, their legal harmonisation strategies differ significantly in institutional structure, governance philosophy, legal enforcement, and competition law architecture. Understanding these differences is essential to determining whether and to what extent the EU model may provide meaningful lessons for ASEAN.

At the institutional level, the most fundamental distinction concerns the nature of governance. The EU operates through a supranational institutional framework characterised by legally binding obligations, delegated authority, and centralised enforcement. EU member states have accepted limitations on national sovereignty by empowering institutions such as the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to formulate, interpret, and enforce regional legal rules. This institutional arrangement enables relatively uniform legal implementation across member states and strengthens regulatory predictability.

By contrast, ASEAN remains an intergovernmental organisation grounded in consensus-building, sovereignty, and non-interference. The so-called “ASEAN Way” prioritises political accommodation, voluntary cooperation, and incremental consensus over binding legal authority. Consequently, ASEAN institutions possess limited enforcement capacity, and regional legal commitments frequently rely on domestic implementation by member states. This distinction substantially shapes ASEAN’s legal harmonisation process, making comprehensive regulatory uniformity considerably more difficult to achieve.

A second major difference concerns the legal nature of harmonisation instruments. The EU employs legally binding regulations and directives that create enforceable obligations for member states. Regulations apply directly across jurisdictions, while directives require domestic implementation subject to oversight and judicial review. Such mechanisms significantly reduce legal fragmentation and strengthen market integration.

ASEAN, in contrast, primarily relies upon soft-law instruments, regional frameworks, guidelines, memoranda of understanding, and voluntary commitments. While this flexibility allows member states to adapt regional commitments to domestic conditions, it also contributes to implementation asymmetry and regulatory inconsistency. Legal harmonisation in ASEAN therefore tends to proceed incrementally and selectively rather than comprehensively.

Competition law further illustrates these institutional divergences. The EU has developed a highly integrated competition regime supported by robust enforcement institutions and relatively consistent legal standards. Centralised oversight by the European Commission ensures coordinated action against cartels, abuse of dominance, anti-competitive mergers, and distortive state aid. The EU framework also benefits from a sophisticated body of jurisprudence developed by the CJEU, which contributes to legal certainty and regulatory coherence.

ASEAN’s competition law regime, by comparison, remains fragmented and decentralised. Although most ASEAN member states have adopted domestic competition laws, important differences remain regarding enforcement capacity, legal scope, procedural safeguards, and substantive standards. ASEAN institutions currently serve primarily coordinating and advisory functions rather than supranational enforcement roles. Consequently, regional competition governance remains uneven across member states.

Nevertheless, important similarities should not be overlooked. Both ASEAN and the EU recognise that economic integration requires some degree of regulatory convergence to reduce market fragmentation and facilitate cross-border economic activity. Both regional organisations also rely upon technical harmonisation, mutual recognition systems, and institutional coordination to address regulatory divergence. In this sense, ASEAN and the EU differ less in ultimate objectives than in institutional pathways and legal intensity.

A comparative assessment therefore suggests that ASEAN should not seek institutional convergence with the EU in a formal sense. Rather, the more productive question concerns which aspects of the EU model may be adapted in a manner compatible with ASEAN’s political and institutional realities.

3.3.2 Gaps and Opportunities for ASEAN’s Legal Harmonisation

Despite substantial progress toward regional integration, ASEAN continues to face significant legal and institutional gaps that constrain the effectiveness of harmonisation efforts. One major challenge concerns regulatory fragmentation across member states. Divergent domestic standards, inconsistent competition rules, and uneven institutional capacities create barriers to cross-border business activities and reduce market predictability for investors.

The absence of binding supranational enforcement mechanisms further complicates harmonisation. Unlike the EU, ASEAN lacks institutions capable of ensuring consistent implementation or imposing sanctions for non-compliance. As a result, regional legal commitments often depend heavily upon political will and administrative capacity at the domestic level. This creates uneven implementation outcomes and limits regulatory certainty.

Competition law represents another area characterised by substantial divergence. Although ASEAN has made notable progress in encouraging member states to adopt competition legislation, disparities remain concerning legal sophistication, institutional independence, enforcement resources, and political commitment. In several jurisdictions, competition authorities continue to face practical challenges related to expertise, funding, and political interference.

Moreover, ASEAN’s legal harmonisation efforts frequently encounter tensions between economic integration objectives and developmental priorities. Some member states remain concerned that strict competition rules may constrain industrial policy or disadvantage emerging domestic industries. Consequently, legal convergence in ASEAN often proceeds cautiously and pragmatically.

However, these challenges also create opportunities for institutional innovation. ASEAN’s flexible governance model may enable forms of legal harmonisation better suited to regional diversity than rigid supranational uniformity. Rather than pursuing comprehensive legal standardisation, ASEAN may focus on functional convergence in strategically important sectors.

Several opportunities deserve particular attention.

First, ASEAN may strengthen competition law cooperation through enhanced institutional networking among national competition authorities. Expanded information-sharing, joint investigations, technical cooperation, and peer-learning mechanisms may improve regulatory consistency without requiring supranational enforcement.

Second, ASEAN may further develop mutual recognition mechanisms beyond technical standards and conformity assessments. Greater reliance upon regulatory equivalence may reduce compliance costs while respecting domestic legal diversity.

Third, regional guidelines concerning competition law and market governance may gradually evolve into stronger forms of regulatory coordination. Although soft-law mechanisms lack formal binding force, repeated implementation may generate regulatory convergence over time.

Fourth, ASEAN may benefit from greater investment in institutional capacity-building, particularly in less-developed member states. Harmonisation efforts are unlikely to succeed if significant disparities in regulatory capability persist.

Importantly, ASEAN should view legal harmonisation as a long-term and evolutionary process rather than an immediate institutional objective. The EU experience demonstrates that deep integration develops gradually through political compromise, institutional learning, and cumulative legal adaptation. ASEAN’s own trajectory may similarly depend upon sustained incremental progress rather than transformative legal centralisation.

3.3.3 Recommendations for ASEAN

In light of the comparative analysis above, several policy recommendations may strengthen ASEAN’s legal harmonisation efforts while remaining compatible with the region’s institutional realities.

- Strengthening Regional Competition Governance

ASEAN should strengthen regional cooperation among competition authorities through more formalised coordination mechanisms. While a supranational competition authority may be politically unrealistic, ASEAN could establish enhanced regional platforms for information-sharing, case coordination, technical cooperation, and best-practice exchange.

The role of the ASEAN Experts Group on Competition (AEGC) should therefore be expanded beyond consultative functions toward greater regulatory coordination. Developing regional procedural standards may also help reduce enforcement disparities across jurisdictions.

- Enhancing Regulatory Convergence through Soft Harmonisation

Rather than imposing uniform legal standards, ASEAN should continue prioritising “soft harmonisation” mechanisms that encourage gradual convergence while preserving national flexibility. Regional guidelines, model laws, sector-specific frameworks, and voluntary implementation mechanisms may provide politically feasible pathways toward greater legal consistency.

Particular attention should be devoted to sectors closely linked to regional trade and investment, including digital commerce, logistics, telecommunications, consumer protection, and competition-sensitive industries.

- Expanding Mutual Recognition Mechanisms

ASEAN should further institutionalise Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) to reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication and facilitate market access. Expanding mutual recognition arrangements into new sectors would help lower compliance costs and improve business certainty without requiring complete legal standardisation.

A stronger emphasis on internationally recognised technical standards may similarly improve regional interoperability and facilitate ASEAN’s participation in global value chains.

- Investing in Institutional Capacity-Building

Legal harmonisation depends heavily upon domestic institutional capacity. ASEAN should therefore prioritise technical assistance, regulatory training, legal education, and administrative modernisation to reduce implementation disparities among member states.

Special support mechanisms may be necessary for less-developed ASEAN economies where competition institutions remain relatively underdeveloped.

- Promoting Incremental and Context-Sensitive Harmonisation

Finally, ASEAN should avoid attempting to replicate the EU model wholesale. Legal transplantation without sufficient regard for institutional context risks producing ineffective or politically unsustainable outcomes. Instead, ASEAN should adopt a context-sensitive strategy of selective adaptation that draws lessons from the EU while remaining responsive to regional political realities.

Such an approach recognises that successful legal harmonisation does not require identical legal systems but rather sufficient regulatory compatibility to facilitate economic integration.

Conclusion

Legal harmonisation has become an essential element of regional economic integration, particularly in areas such as competition law, technical regulation, and market governance. Although both ASEAN and the EU seek deeper economic integration, their institutional structures differ significantly. The EU relies on a supranational legal order supported by binding rules, centralised enforcement, and judicial oversight, whereas ASEAN remains based on intergovernmental cooperation, consensus, and respect for national sovereignty. Therefore, directly transplanting the EU model to ASEAN is neither politically realistic nor institutionally appropriate. Nevertheless, the EU experience offers useful lessons for ASEAN. It shows that economic integration requires not only tariff liberalisation but also legal and regulatory coordination to reduce market fragmentation and enhance legal certainty. ASEAN should therefore selectively adapt suitable mechanisms, such as strengthening competition governance, expanding mutual recognition, promoting regulatory convergence, and improving institutional capacity. Ultimately, ASEAN’s legal harmonisation should be viewed as a gradual and context-sensitive process. Rather than imitating the EU model, ASEAN should pursue pragmatic legal adaptation that balances national autonomy with the shared objective of deeper regional economic integration.

References:

1. ASEAN promotion centre on Trade, Investment and Tourism, Global value chains in ASEAN: A Regional Perspective (Paper 1 Revised, 2019), P. 16. ASEAN promotion centre on Trade, Investment and Tourism, 2019.
2. Osborne, Carol. Carol Osborne, ‘The Role of the ASEAN Guidelines on Competition Policy in the Economic Integration of the ASEAN Countries’ (HoustonKemp, April 2015) <> accessed 18 September 2022 – URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/534dc926e4b0a1bf05ab48dc/t/55486940e4b0df39e8318601/1430808896525/Competition+Guidelines+and+the+AEC.pdf . (accessed 19.06.2026)
3. Moon, Chung-in. Chung-in Moon, ‘ASEAN international organization’ (Britannica)< > accessed 16 September 2022 // Britannica. – URL: https://www.britannica.com/event/Asian-financial-crisis. (accessed 19.06.2026)
4. Michael G. Plummer, ‘The ASEAN Economic Community and the European Experience’ (2006) 1 ADB < > accessed 17 September 2022 – URL: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28458/wp01-plummer.pdf. (accessed 19.06.2026)
5. Bordo, Michael; Jonung, Lars; Markiewicz, Agnieszka. Michael Bordo, Lars Jonung and Agnieszka Markiewicz, ‘A fiscal union for the euro: Some lessons from history’ (Vox EU, CEPR, 21 September 2011) < > accessed 18 September 2022 // Vox EU, CEPR. – URL: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/fiscal-union-euro-some-lessons-history . (accessed 19.06.2026)
6. Kimura, Fukunari. Fukunari Kimura, ‘Reconstructing the Concept of “Single Market and Production Base” for ASEAN beyond 2015’ (2013) ERIA < > accessed 18 September 2022 // ERIA. – URL: https://www.eria.org/ERIA-DP-2013-25.pdf. (accessed 19.06.2026)
7. Hill, Hal Menon and Jayant, ‘ASEAN Economic Integration: Features, Fulfillments, Failures and the Future’ (2010).
8. The ASEAN Guidelines for Accreditations and Conformity Assessment.
9. Lezotre, Pierre-Louis. Pierre-Louis Lezotre, ‘Value and Influencing Factors of the Cooperation, Convergence, and Harmonization in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection (Netherlands, 17 January 2014) 172⁠–⁠175. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2014.
10. Vanderberg, Paul. Paul Vanderberg, ‘The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and the global economy crisis’ (2009) <> accessed 19 September 2022 – URL: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_108413.pdf. (accessed 19.06.2026)
11. ERIA, ‘The Harmonization of Standards in the ASEAN’, in Scoles, S.D (ed.), Harmonization of Standards and Mutual Recognition Agreements on Conformity Assessment in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Viet Nam. ERIA Research Project Report 2015⁠–⁠14, <> P. 5⁠–⁠7 // Harmonization of Standards and Mutual Recognition Agreements on Conformity Assessment in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Viet Nam. – URL: http://www.eria.org/RPR_FY2015_No.15_Chapter_3.pdf.  (accessed 19.06.2026)