English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article explores how the war on terror influenced the politics of international legitimacy and domestic military action in the case of Indonesia’s armed conflict with separatist group, Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM, 2003–05). It does so by examining how the Indonesian government justified their military operation to Australian and US audiences. I offer two findings on the role of the war on terror in the politics of international legitimacy. First, context mediated how Indonesian leaders used the language of terror to legitimise their conflict to foreign audiences. Indonesian leaders were not able to hail GAM into the role of “terrorist”, but they were able to invoke the spectre of terrorist hotspots by portraying GAM as a threat to regional stability. Second, Indonesia’s justifications show that they perceived an obligation to other rules and norms. While the war on terror was influential, it did not monopolise the politics of international legitimacy. The article adopts a constructivist approach to legitimacy to provide a theoretically informed account of these dynamics.

The long way round: how the war on terror influenced the politics of international legitimacy and Indonesia’s military action in Aceh