Abstract
ABSTRACTConventional analyses of terrorism proscription rely on conceptions of policy in terms of bureaucratic institutions and processes functioning according to means-end rationality, and law as an institutionalised body of rules expressive of sovereign power. By contrast, this article argues that the workings of Western terrorism proscription are inseparable from and deeply conditioned by situated interpretations of the contexts and dynamics within which West-led interventions for global stability—equated with liberal order—are pursued. Predicated on a seemingly self-evident division between “liberal” conduct, actors, and practices and illiberal ones which threaten the former, the production of good order requires the strengthening of the former, and the disciplining, transformation, or destruction of the latter. However, categorisations as “liberal” or “non-liberal” are not derived from “objective” criteria, but always mutually dependent on the situated interpretations by (self-recognised) liberals of the contexts within which they are intervening. Taking an interpretive approach that treats state action as situated practice, the article traces Western states’ security engagement with Sri Lanka before, during, and after the armed conflict (1983–2009) to show how changing calculations for liberal peace there governed evolving proscription practices in relation to the LTTE and the Tamil diaspora.
Highlights
On April 1, 2014 the Sri Lankan government proscribed fifteen Tamil diaspora organisations as terrorists, alleging they were “fronts” for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), attempting to revive the movement after its destruction in 2009
Whereas previous advocacy centred on endorsing the LTTE as representatives of Tamil political aspirations, in the post-LTTE context the new diaspora advocacy, while avowedly Tamil nationalist and separatist, engaged Western governments on specific policy issues related to Sri Lanka.[98]
Summary rejections of Sri Lanka’s proscriptions of Tamil diaspora organisations is that the LTTE’s destruction had decisively ended the armed Tamil separatist threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the government offered no evidence that the banned organisations were involved in reviving the LTTE
Summary
On April 1, 2014 the Sri Lankan government proscribed fifteen Tamil diaspora organisations as terrorists, alleging they were “fronts” for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), attempting to revive the movement after its destruction in 2009. Unlawful protests stopped with the war’s end, but diaspora political activity expanded, as new organisations emerged, alongside those hitherto at the forefront of diaspora advocacy.[97] Notably, whereas previous advocacy centred on endorsing the LTTE as representatives of Tamil political aspirations, in the post-LTTE context the new diaspora advocacy, while avowedly Tamil nationalist and separatist, engaged Western governments on specific policy issues related to Sri Lanka.[98] These included mass internment in military-run camps, humanitarian crisis in Tamil areas, and, in particular, accountability for wartime mass atrocities and ongoing rights abuses. When Sirisena assumed the presidency in January 2015, one of his administration’s first moves to rebuild relations with Western states was to announce a “review” of the bans, and later to de-proscribe eight of the organisations.[102]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
