Is ASEM simply an exercise in summitry, or is it an exercise in region building? Is ASEM a forum diplomatic niceties, or is it an institution for regime creation? ASEM is more than a summit also more than just a process. Though it is far from developing into a formal organization,] acquired a certain structure. This article explains three theoretical frameworks that can be discuss ASEM and provides three scenarios for ASEM's future as viewed by the realists, the liberal-institutionalists and the social-constructivists. For the realists, ASEM is seen primarily as a res changes in the distribution of power and the interest calculations of key actors in the ASEM, pro Liberal-institutionalists, on the other hand, are inclined to see ASEM as part of the rising regionalism and the increasing reliance on inter-regional forums to cope with the challenge globalization. Finally, some scholars argued that the East Asia used ASEM as an instrument regional integration or building a regional identity. This social-constructivist approach emphasis the process of identity-formation through inter-regional interaction. It also offers a reflection possible developments of ASEM, taking into account the nature of current concerns and the future uncertainties surrounding it. ASEM is very much a work in progress. Its future is not yet certain and its development will certainly be influenced by the clusters of factors.