Critics of the current diplomatic approach argue that the ASEAN consensus model is increasingly ineffective at addressing the realities of the South China Sea dispute. Because the bloc requires unanimous agreement for major decisions, individual members with close ties to external powers can effectively block meaningful action. This structural weakness allows the status quo to persist, leaving smaller claimant nations vulnerable to aggressive maritime tactics that ignore international norms.
Skeptics point out that years of negotiations on a code of conduct have yielded little more than vague promises while the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. They argue that by focusing solely on process, ASEAN is failing to hold actors accountable for activities that undermine the sovereignty of its own members. This perceived inaction risks eroding the credibility of the organization, leading some nations to seek security guarantees outside of the regional bloc.
There is also a growing concern that the focus on consensus prevents the bloc from addressing the power imbalance inherent in the dispute. Without a firm, unified, and legally binding stance, the code of conduct may end up as a toothless document that provides a false sense of security. This could embolden those who seek to change the status quo through force, as they perceive the lack of a strong, united response as a green light for further expansion.
For many observers, the time for purely procedural diplomacy has passed. They argue that unless ASEAN can move beyond its traditional constraints and adopt a more assertive posture, it will continue to be sidelined in its own backyard. The risk is that the bloc becomes a forum for talk rather than a guardian of regional security, leaving the public and businesses to face the consequences of an increasingly volatile maritime environment.