The ASEAN approach presents a considerable number of shortcomings in terms of the protection of human and socio-economic rights. Possible development may depend on the simultaneous development of some other areas of socio-economic life.

What is the ASEAN way? It is the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states and consensus-based decision-making. This is the principle which has provided the basis for strong economic growth, peace, and stability in the Asian member states—not to mention, it helped many people out of poverty and provided better living conditions. The members’ efforts resulted in the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights, and the inclusion of human rights in the ASEAN Charter. In the chapter "Corporate accountability concerning socio-economic rights in Cambodia," Černič discusses the influence of regional countries on socio-economic rights in Cambodia. In this context, he evaluates the importance of ASEAN and criticizes the fact that no member state has yet developed a National Action Plan under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Moreover, most member states, once they have signed an international agreement on human rights, do not implement such agreement: It is problematic. The criticism is justified. For even though ASEAN has included human rights in its charter, the principle of non-interference in national affairs still stands above it. Thus, while accepting the concept of the universality of human rights, states also acknowledge that different standards of human rights and human rights practices may exist. The applicability of human rights is thereby shifted to the competence and responsibility of the respective country. For example, Singapore's Foreign Minister, Wong Kang Seng, said in 1993 that a worldwide recognition of the universality of human rights could be damaging, as it would deny the diversity of countries. Cambodia's Prime Minister, Hun Sen, shares this view and said that there is no universality, or internationally recognized norms, because each country has its own standards. But as Černič shows with the example of Cambodia, many people still suffer from the prevailing deficiencies in the implementation of human rights. It is therefore very critical that a violation of an article of the Charter be punishable. Currently, the victims lack access to justice and means to safeguard their rights. Even the establishment of national human rights commissions in the region, as Cambodia has been planning to do since 2006, has already been proven to be less than successful. The lack of political support means that they are too weak to monitor and enforce human rights and that they are effectively only of a recommendatory nature. The ASEAN's approach thus reveals considerable shortcomings in terms of protection of human and socio-economic rights. Černič has hope, however. He points out that the member states also publicly advocate the effective protection of human rights. A further development may depend on the simultaneous development of some other areas of socio-economic life. Černič therefore sees the need to continue to promote the protection of human rights and to also help those states that are not members of ASEAN. Whereby in the course of the worldwide positive efforts, an ASEAN Court of Human Rights might not be so unlikely. Everyone would then benefit from this. So, ASEAN can be seen as a process that has the potential to continue to improve.