Seen Like a State: How Illegitimacy Shapes Terrorism Designation.

Why are only some violent political actors designated as terrorists? To answer this question, I examine formal terrorism designations made by the US government. Conceptualizing terrorism designation as a marker of organizational illegitimacy, I hypothesize that groups that appear more like a state--effective, representative, and secular--are more likely to be seen as legitimate contenders for political power. As a result, these groups have a lower risk of being designated as terrorists. Conversely, groups that target more legitimate states have a higher risk of being designated as terrorists. Empirically, I demonstrate several facts in support of these hypotheses. First, the United States has disproportionately labeled weak and politically non-representative groups as terrorists. Second, it has disproportionately labeled groups in countries with greater state capacity as terrorists. Third, especially in recent years, it has disproportionately labeled Islamist groups as terrorists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]