The two-decade-long occupation of East Timor by Indonesia has long been the focus of debate within genocide studies, with scholars on one side arguing for its recognition as “genocide” and, on the other, insisting on its exclusion from acknowledgment as such due to its inability to satisfy certain legal criteria. Our article revisits this conflict and the surrounding debate in order to stake out a larger claim about the logic of the legal form in contemporary global order. Following a growing critical scholarship in genocide studies, we argue that the concept of genocide itself entrenches harmful understandings of global order and contributes to structures which encourage the mass violence it nominally aims to identify and prevent. Far from being singular, it further represents fundamental limitations regarding the legal form as a mechanism of justice and resistance. To support this claim, we use the failure of various justice and reconciliation mechanisms to prosecute genocide in East Timor to illustrate the ways in which a legal system predicated on imperialism shapes both the behavior of a newly minted domestic elite and the larger project of state sovereignty itself.
Pulley et al. (Mon,) studied this question.