Ethnic cleansing consists of the forcible transfer to another area of persons defined by ethnicity or religion and is intrinsically linked to the notion of a homogeneous Nation-State. Thus, it has been argued that the expression could function as a euphemism for genocide (Mazowiecki Third Report I, point 27). The term has since been widely condemned and is included in the ambit of the responsibility to protect. Nevertheless, despite the wide condemnation it is important to recall that there is no internationally accepted legal definition of ethnic cleansing. Rather, international jurisprudence has been based on a series of ad-hoc condemnations and references to ‘ethnic cleansing’ are usually made in connection with deliberations over genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
As a result, the term is often misinterpreted and may lead to false assumptions about what constitutes ‘ethnic cleansing’. As the ICTY’s jurisprudence indicates it may encompass a broad range of measures including: the deportation or forcible transfer of members of a particular group from an area to make way for members of another; the destruction of villages, buildings and property; rape; the suppression of minority language use; the prohibition of ethnic associations and religious practices; the removal of elected representatives; and other indirect discriminatory means that do not necessarily involve violence (Preece [1998] 822).
It is also essential to remember that unlike evacuations as temporary measures which might exceptionally be considered justifiable, it would not appear possible to justify forcibly removing members of a particular group from their homeland with the intention of rendering an area ethnically homogenous. This requirement would seem to preclude the use of any form of removal that does not involve force or intimidation.
About the Author
