an instrument, in order to balance the powers of the countries against the need for effective cross-border investigation. Regarding the development of a Competition Regulatory Authority, the general infrastructure and other comparative economic advantages of the ASEAN countries appear good; the only important drawback is that the majority of ASEAN countries tend to lack good governance and a rule-based system. Therefore, a combination of sound ASEAN legal and economic systems may be viewed as favourable factors capable of producing a positive effect on ASEAN’s competitiveness in international trade and investment.15 A proposed model would be the network model, as also suggested in the method of enforcement I have put forward. This model relies on the adoption of mutual assistance, co-operation agreements or formal protocols, enforcement networks, information-sharing and networking of substantive competition law.16 Taking into account the diversity of ASEAN’s economic structures, economic history, legal systems, societal goals, culture and differences in national socio-economic infrastructures, I find that the network model would be better suited in its flexibility over the WTO model of international agreement. The WTO model would include an international enforcement system and an international agency or commission responsible for ensuring respect of the international antitrust rules or competition law.17 The network model could work in tandem with legislation structured to narrow the distinctions between national laws while leaving variations of detail to national legislators.18 Given the information asymmetry present in all member countries of ASEAN and other possible barriers to international cooperation such as the underdeveloped infrastructure of some countries, regional cooperation might not occur. This is either due to the fact that the need for competition law is not perceived because of fears of losing sovereignty or even due to the power that wielding dissent would grant.. The new framework would benefit better from a network model of co-operation agreements, which would allow each country to pursue its own economic interest without the interference of a greater authority. In contrast the WTO model would inevitably force all participating countries to comply with its aims. CONCLUDING REMARKS At the moment, the recent years of significant international commercial transactions are being subject to non-binding or Asian Development Bank ‘In Focus: Bangladesh’ accessed 20 June 2011. 2 Competition Commission Singapore ‘Competition Law in Singapore – Recent Developments’ accessed 20 June 2011. 3 Competition Act 2004 4 Competition Act 2004 5 Competition Act 2004 6 R Ian McEwin ‘Competition Law in Singapore’ accessed 20 June 2011. 7 ibid accessed 20 June 2011. 8 ASEAN ‘ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint’ accessed 25 July 2011. 9 ibid accessed 25 July 2011. 10 Dr. Lawan Thanadsillapakul ‘The Harmonisation of ASEAN Competition Laws and Policy from an Economic Integration Perspective’ accessed 25 July 2011. 11 Mohamed Ariff ‘Competition Policy for ASEAN’ < http://www.eria.org/research/images/pdf/PDF%20No.1-2/No.1-2-part2-8.pdf> accessed 25 July 2011. 12 Julian Nowag, ‘Due Process - The Exchange of Information and Risk of Hindering Effective Cross-Border Co-operation in Competition Cases’ (2010) 1 52 Articles so-called soft international rules. This is not an unfeasible path for the development of ASEAN competition law before the actual development of the regional authority as competition law and its enforcement have been increasingly subject to both hard and soft international rules. Many regional and preferential trading agreements include binding commitments on competition laws.19 The recent U.S.Singapore free trade agreement is a case in point which contained an obligation on Singapore to enact and enforce a competition law.20 Thus, in order for a more co-ordinated international enforcement effort between competition agencies, ASEAN would need to play more than just an observational role as it currently does right now. Given the fact that not all members have developed a form of competition law, this could be a potential area to improve and work towards in future. It would perhaps also be easier to agree on the framework and design the regional authority would now take, whilst each nation lacks welldefined competition law. Therefore, the establishment of a regional body to enforce competition law in the near future should certainly be considered as a viable option. 7(1)Comp.L.Rev 105. 13 Dr. Lawan Thanadsillapakul ‘The Harmonisation of ASEAN Competition Laws and Policy from an Economic Integration Perspective’ accessed 25 July 2011. 14 Julian Nowag, ‘Due Process - The Exchange of Information and Risk of Hindering Effective Cross-Border Co-operation in Competition Cases’ (2010) 7(1)Comp.L.Rev 105. 15 Dr. Lawan Thanadsillapakul ‘The Harmonisation of ASEAN Competition Laws and Policy from an Economic Integration Perspective’ accessed 25 July 2011. 16 Dr. Lawan Thanadsillapakul ‘The Harmonisation of ASEAN Competition Laws and Policy from an Economic Integration Perspective’ accessed 25 July 2011. 17 Dr. Lawan Thanadsillapakul ‘The Harmonisation of ASEAN Competition Laws and Policy from an Economic Integration Perspective’ accessed 25 July 2011. 18 ibid accessed 25 July 2011. 19 Simon J. Evenett ‘ “Soft Law” and International Economic Regulation: The Case of Mergers and Acquisitions’ accessed 20 June 2011. 20 ibid accessed 20 June 2011. Lex Loci 2011