Ethnic cleansing refers to the forcible transfer of civilians, in the context of a conflict, from areas inhabited by members of one ethnic group to those of another. The concept has emerged as a critical element in international law and policy, yet it remains subject to intense debate and controversy. The underlying reason is that, although it violates international humanitarian law (IHL) and constitutes a gross violation of State responsibility, it has not been legally defined.
The ICTY jurisprudence indicates that the term, which may be translated from French as ‘purification ethnique’ or ’nettoyage ethnique’, may encompass a range of activities from the systematic purge of civilian populations based on certain criteria to the forcible expulsion of specific groups and their destruction of villages and property. Moreover, it does not require that the perpetrators intend the targeted population to be displaced permanently (Milutinovic [Trial Judgment] para. 167; Stakic [Appeal Judgment] paras 307, 317).
Yet some scholars are now advocating that the term should be abandoned. Schar School of Policy and Government assistant professor Meghan Garrity is among them. In a paper published this fall in Political Science Quarterly, she argues that the term is fraught with five critical conceptual issues: discrepancies in core meaning, practice versus policy, lack of boundedness, universe of cases, and subtype classification criteria. As a result, she recommends that social scientists abandon the term in favor of alternatives that would more accurately reflect and delineate the phenomenon.