ASEAN members have developed and adopted an action plan to promote the implementation of SEANWFZ. The plan aims to strengthen regional coordination as opposed to nuclear weapons and to strengthen regional participation in relevant international agreements. As part of the action plan, States agree to continue the implementation of IAEA protection agreements and adherence to the Convention on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents and Regional Emergency Plans. In addition, States have agreed to consider adhering to other relevant instruments, such as the CTBT and the Convention on Combating Terrorism in Nuclear Weapons. Ministers also addressed the issue of cross-border crime and welcomed the agreement between ASEAN and China on non-traditional security issues and stressed the need for cooperation in the fight against terrorism, particularly within the framework of the ASEAN-U.S. Counter-Terrorism Work Plan and other related agreements. At the 2nd East Asia Summit, members signed Cebu`s Declaration on East Asian Energy Security and the Agreement, which sets non-binding targets for methods to bring “reliable, appropriate and affordable” energy to the future and to develop alternative energy sources such as biofuels. Discussions focused on deepening integration, which focused mainly on two economic initiatives: the launch of a study on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) and the review of Japan`s proposal for an Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). The EAS also attempted to improve its relations with China by signing an agreement on trade in services. ASEAN national authorities are also traditionally reluctant to share or cede sovereignty to the authorities of other ASEAN members (although ASEAN trade ministries regularly conduct cross-border visits to conduct on-site checks as part of anti-dumping investigations).

Unlike the EU or NAFTA, joint teams to ensure compliance and control of violations have not been widely used. Instead, ASEAN national authorities must rely on the verification and analysis of other ASEAN national authorities to determine whether AFTA`s measures, such as the rule of origin, are being complied with. Differences of opinion may arise between national authorities. Again, the ASEAN secretariat can help resolve a dispute, but it has no right to resolve it. The protocol was almost never called because of THE role of SEOM in the dispute resolution process. THE decisions of the SEOM require a consensus among all ASEAN members and, since both the aggrieved party and the alleged transgressed party participate in THE SEOM, such a consensus cannot be reached. This prevents ASEAN members from availing themselves of the protocol and they often seek to resolve disputes in other countries such as the WTO or even the International Court of Justice. It can also be frustrating for companies involved in an AFTA dispute, as they do not have the right to avail themselves of dispute settlement, but their home government, ASEAN, may not be willing to avail themselves of the protocol.