Ethnic cleansing, in its most sweeping form, involves the purposeful displacement by violent and terror-inspiring means of an entire group of people. The term is often used as a synonym for genocide. It has also been criticized as a euphemism that may prevent adequate public recognition of a genocide and hamper decisive action on the part of the international community.
While the forcible transfer of entire groups is a widespread practice throughout history, the modern notion of ethnic cleansing arguably emerged in the 20th century with the rise of nationalism and ethnic nationalism. It has been suggested that ethnic cleansing is inherently linked to the political ideal of a homogeneous nation-state and the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the alleged national and racial ‘other’ (Preece [1998] 822). The inclusion of ethnic cleansing within the ambit of’responsibility to protect’ as a separate category alongside the categories of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide confirms this trend of normative shift.
However, a unified international legal definition of ethnic cleansing does not yet exist. While the ICJ has defined the concept of ethnic cleansing and has indicated that it may be relevant at the actus reus level, it has not clarified what elements are necessary in order to establish such a definition. The ICJ trial chamber in Blagojevic, for example, reiterated the Commission’s definition of ethnic cleansing but only as part of its overall analysis of what the term’s legal significance might be (Blagojevic [Trial Judgment] para 596). Moreover, references to the concept of ethnic cleansing can usually be found in conjunction with deliberations on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
About the Author
