How can we explain variations in the approaches of regional organizations (ROs) to cross-border security threats, especially those derived from internal conflicts such as civil wars and unconstitutional changes of government? On the one hand, regional security threats appear regularly throughout the world. Pulling in the opposite direction, governments steadfastly insist on their sovereign right to conduct business within their borders as they see fit. In practice, some ROs have intervened more than others in the internal conflicts of their member states. How can we explain the difference? This article argues that ROs are intrusive when their member states share a belief that a state is too fragile to survive without intervention. Such a shared belief about state strength is fostered by historical developments, notably national economic development that strengthens state resources available to a regime, and past willingness of a regime to accept intervention. The argument is developed through a comparative analysis of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Economic Community of West African States, respectively the world’s least and most intrusive ROs.

我们如何解释区域组织（RO）应对跨国安全威胁的方法的变化，特别是那些源于内部冲突（例如内战和政府违宪更迭）的威胁？一方面，区域安全威胁在世界范围内经常出现。政府朝着相反的方向坚定地坚持自己的主权，即在他们认为合适的范围内在其境内开展业务。实际上，一些RO在其成员国的内部冲突中比其他组织参与的干预更多。我们如何解释差异？本文认为，当RO的成员国共享一种国家过于脆弱而无法在没有干预的情况下生存的信念时，它们就是侵入式的。历史发展促进了这种关于国家实力的共同信念，尤其是国家经济发展会加强政权可用的国家资源，以及政权过去接受干预的意愿。该论点是通过对东南亚国家联盟和西非国家经济共同体（分别是世界上最小和侵入性最大的RO）的比较分析得出的。