ALSA 2025 meeting

Indonesia’s anti-terrorism law, Law No. 5 of 2018, was enacted in response to a series of suicide bombings and armed attacks and carries significant implications for the country’s legal system and approach to national security. One of the most critical changes introduced by this law was the inclusion of a ‘motive element’ in the definition of terrorism, specifically an ideological, political, or security disturbance motive. Through a comparative analysis of three jurisdictions that have led the trend towards defining terrorist acts by reference to motivation – the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia – this paper examines the consequences and ongoing controversy of terrorist act motive requirements to reveal key arguments for and against such inclusion. This analysis reveals that the advantages of including a motive element – generally, and particularly in the Indonesian context – are minimal. Conversely, potential problems include legal uncertainty, inconsistencies with international law, and infringements of human rights. More fundamentally, the inclusion of a motive element heightens the risk of terrorist offences being misapplied to prosecute peaceful political protests and politically motivated actions, such as movements for self-determination, amidst Indonesia’s political diversity. On this basis, this paper recommends repealing the motive element from Law No. 5 of 2018.