Ethnic Cleaning And Genocide Criminology Essay

"As long as I've any choice, I'll stay only in a country where politics liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law will be the rule. "

-Albert Einstein.

For generations, man has been struggling with with his brother, over man-made issues of distinctions in their position, nationality, race, colour, religion to name a few. In India itself, this differentiation has considered shape by means of differences in course, dissimilarities between Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs and Christians, recent situations taking place in Orissa and Kerala are gory types of the same. Actually, this essentially has also occurred in Maharashtra in 2008 wherein almost 20, 000 North Indians fled Pune and other such towns, the same disclosed by articles in the Indian Exhibit. Statistics in simple fact have shown that man has been a risk himself to some other man creating his mass exodus.

Despite the improvement in technology man doesn't appear to want to co-exist with another, a deficit which will lead to its self-destruction ultimately. This is fundamentally the concept of cultural cleansing, an international crime progressively taking more antagonistic varieties as time passes.

In rule, an cultural group would be defined as a community whose heritage offers important characteristics in common between its associates and making them particular from other communities. There's a boundary, which separates 'us' from 'them', and the variation may possibly be accepted on both attributes of this boundary. Ethnicity is a multi-faceted occurrence based on physical appearance, subjective identification, ethnical and spiritual affiliation, stereotyping, and social exclusion.

The phrase ethnic cleansing was at first released by reporters covering the Yugoslav wars of disintegration between 1991 and 1995, but as a plan of action it is much more than that. By meaning, it has been defined as a trend wherein one ethnic group expels people of other cultural communities from a geographic area in order to create ethnically genuine enclaves for members of their cultural group.

However, the complexities involved when it comes to ethnic cleaning, is that till date regardless of the number of occurrences there is a blur when it comes to distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Also, the number of incidents wherein ethnic cleansing has occurred makes one question the success and the authority of the UN and the number of other serenity keeping systems.

It is also essential to notice that while in theory, the purpose of ethnic cleaning is to drive all associates of the victimized group out of an territory. In practice, ethnic cleansing is almost synonymous with genocide because mass murder is a common characteristic of both. Though, therefore, there is a thin line between the two crimes, it's the need of the hour to differentiate between the two offences and do away with the pervasive ambiguities.


genocide and its own incidents:

In order, to be able to differentiate between the principles of genocide and ethnic cleansing it is first important to comprehend each one of these concepts separately. Ergo, this part will basically focus on this is of genocide as attained in several landmark judgments and also its main requirements, with the natural corollary of considering this is of ethnic cleansing.

The term 'genocide' was coined by Raphael Lemkin using the combo of the Greek word genos (contest or tribe) and the Latin term cide (killing). Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Consequence of the Criminal offenses of Genocide, 1948 defines the term genocide to add killing, leading to serious bodily or mental injury, amongst several other things, that was accepted to be part and parcel of the customary international law or jus cogens in the case of Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic.

The case of Advisory Opinon of the International Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) in Reservations to the Convention on the Avoidance and Abuse of the Criminal offenses of Genocide, defines genocide as follows:

"a criminal offense under international law involving a denial of the right of living of entire human organizations, a denial which shocks the conscience of mankind and leads to great loss to mankind, which is contrary to moral law and to the soul and goals of the US. "

Genocide without exceptions made is known as to the most despicable offense when it comes to crimes against humanity, which is why Courts are reluctant in coming to a bottom line which affirms the lifetime of genocide. It essentially requires two components for the said offense to take the proper execution of 'genocide', viz. Actus Reus and Mens Rea. These go hand in hand wherein if any of the acts mentioned above have been devoted with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis).

In the Jelisic case it was held that the special mother nature of this intent supposes the discriminatory aspect of the action wherein a group is targeted discriminatorily consequently and in this context genocide is meticulously related to the criminal offense against mankind. The Court again found the living of the specific intent in the case of Akeysu wherein the Trial Chamber I placed that the rape of Tutsi women in Rwanda in 1994 constituted the criminal offense of genocide. Regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia it happened that genocide could be committed both at time of peace as well by armed conflict.

Therefore, a perusal of the aforementioned cases obviously shows there's a need of specific intent in case there is indictments for the criminal offenses of genocide.

Ethnic Cleansing and its own incidents:

The 1990s has already established the most variety of instances wherein the criminal offenses of ethnic cleansing has been noted. This has been attributed by the UN to various politics parties which indulge in the same by ruling various States. This vitality was obviously wielded by the Shiv Sena get together in Maharashtra with the jingoistic techniques in expelling Non-Maharashtrians. Black's Law Dictionary defines ethnic cleansing as:

"The officially sanctioned forcible and systematic diminution or reduction of targeted cultural minorities from a geographic area by confiscating real and personal property, buying or condoning mass murders and mass rapes and expelling the survivors. "

Few authors are of the thoughts and opinions that the criminal offense of ethnic detoxification is a 20th Century sensation while most others disagree. A prototype of cultural cleansing can be studied from the knowledge of the Jews through the Nazi Program, where in order to build Lebensraum, or "liveable space", Hitler, the dictator started out an expansionist drive to make a pure Germany. The word ethnic detoxification, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian key phrase etnicko ciscenje, has led to a great deal of atrocities like mass killings as well as rape as a way of fabricating supremacy within the minorities.

In several campaigns, women were targeted for especially brutal treatment-including systematic rape and enslavement-in part because they were seen by perpetrators as the "carriers, " biologically and culturally, of another generation of the nations. Because a lot of men in victimized populations left their families and communities to join resistance communities once violence commenced, women and children were often defenseless. Reports demonstrates the Bosnia-Herzegovina warfare envisaged a shocking estimation of 20, 000 women who endured intimate assaults by means of either torture or rape. Serbian politics and military market leaders systematically planned and strategically executed this policy of ethnic cleaning or genocide with the support of the Serbian and Bosnian Serb armies and paramilitary categories to make a "Increased Serbia": a religiously, culturally, and linguistically homogenous Serbian country. 5 The promulgation of the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and the techniques it represents are a grim, modern reminder of the global dynamics of interethnic and interracial inequality and strife.

The following passing taken from an article is proof of the mass damage and depraved justice that took place during the Bosnia-Herzegovina Conflict:

"More than two million people-almost half the inhabitants- remain dispossessed of the homes. Some 600, 000 of these are refugees in another country who have not yet found durable alternatives, many of whom face the prospect of compulsory go back into displacement within Bosnia and Herzegovina in the near future. Another 800, 000 have been internally displaced to areas in the control of their own ethnic group, moving into multiple occupancy situations, in collective centres or in property vacated by the displacement of others, often in situations of acute humanitarian concern. The fundamental issue for the future of the post-war population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is whether these people can or will go back to their homes. "

A case study shows that the problems of post 1980 ex - Yugoslavia were exacerbated by the country's demographic and socio-cultural make-up, comprising several ethnonationalities with different religions, mentalities, histories and levels of development. Within the National Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina the authoritarian regimes and their market leaders were the key sources of human being privileges violations. Nationalism and hatred of other individuals and religions were probably the reasons for the brutal split up of the past Yugoslavia. Ethnonationalism was, and has mainly remained, broadly and deeply entrenched among the constituent organizations.

Various authorities indicate that the notion of ethnic cleansing occurs when there's a deportation of mass population based on their ethnic distinctions in order to make a homogenous ethnic State. While a offense like genocide undoubtedly results in imposing criminal liability, it has been stated by several authors that since the term ethnic detoxification does not are available in the laws the same is not punishable so long as genocide, rape or other crimes against humanity have never been used, which have been banned by several legal instrument.

This debate however is usually to be rendered untenable as though, ethnic cleansing per se doesn't feature under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it could be included under crimes against humanity under Article 7 which talks of 'Deportation or forcible copy of inhabitants' equal to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, a perusal of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia under Article 4 also makes the crime of ethnic cleaning punishable.

The Trial Chamber in a particular circumstance was satisfied beyond realistic doubt that the crimes that were determined in the Bosnian Krajina from Apr 1992 until the end of December 1992, the period relevant to the Indictment, occurred as a direct result of the over-arching Strategic Plan. The cultural cleansing was not a by-product of the legal activity; it was its very aim and thus a fundamental element of the Strategic Plan.

Therefore, a perusal of these authorities helps one understand basically the concept of ethnic cleansing and the requirements thereof.

differences between the two:

Andrew Bell-Fialkoff in his book, has remarked that "the criminal offenses of ethnic detoxification defies easy explanation. At one end it is practically indistinguishable from obligated emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At most general level, however, cultural cleaning can be comprehended as the expulsion of an population from confirmed territory. "

Different authors have different ideas regarding the variances between these two, while some point out such a difference exists only theoretically while other case it to can be found almost as well.

From a perusal of the above mentioned, genocide and cultural cleaning can be differentiated in 3 ways:

(1) Need of intent: Genocide could be a means to commit ethnic detoxification, but the reason for such a crime then would not be murder but would be otherwise. Furthermore, in contrast to genocide, there is no need for special purpose under the criminal offenses of ethnic detoxification, so that it is easier for gatherings to determine a criminal offenses of ethnic detoxification compared to a charge of genocide leveled against a specific party to the dispute. It's been found under various text messages that the necessity of specific intention is not found under cultural cleansing, so that it is easier to show before the International Courts compared to the criminal offense of genocide.

(2) The reason: The purpose under genocide is the physical damage associated with an ethnical, racial or a spiritual group, while that of ethnic cleaning is the founding of ethnically homogeneous lands. The means used for the latter may be genocide.

(3) Ends achieved: While genocide leads to physical devastation of a particular minority groups, ethnic cleansing ends in the flight of a community definitely not mass eliminating.

As within the recently, it might not exactly always be feasible to point out differences between the two. In fact, this clear chop distinction has been reduced by various subsequent measures considered by the authoritative body. In 1992 regarding the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly clearly stated that ethnic cleaning is "a form of genocide".

To worsen the problem, regarding Prosecutor v. Krstic, , the Trial Chamber of the International Offender Tribunal for the Past Yugoslavia (ICTY), expressly diverging from the wider interpretation of the notion of "purpose to destroy" by the US made a difference between ethnic detoxification and genocide.

"an organization attacking only the social or sociological characteristics of the human group in order to annihilate these elements which share with that group its identification distinct from all of those other community would not fall under this is of genocide. "

Similarly, regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ("Circumstance concerning the application of the Convention on the Reduction and Punishment of the Criminal offense of Genocide") the International Courtroom of Justice also have upheld the above judgment predicated on the same reasoning. Various scholars also have given views similar to that found in the above instances wherein a variation has been made between your two offences.

Therefore, there remains uncertainty in this unchattered territory, but courts generally refrain from holding circumstances or the official in charge of the offence of genocide compared to that of ethnic cleansing.


From an analysis of the aforementioned judgments, we find that there is a very thin line between the principles of genocide and that of ethnic cleansing. There is a need to achieve consistency with regard to the many opinions on a single, consistency as an essential or cannon of any legislation. The essential bone of contention is actually this lack of uniformity in interpreting regulations by the courts.

That apart, a need is thought that stricter international norms be laid down to be able to ensure that a crime like ethnic cleansing taking the form of international crimes like rape, genocide will not take place at the ferocity that it has been because the 1990s.

It should be recognized by the UN and various other monitoring physiques that it's imperative a clear cut differentiation be made between the two, agreed, a strait-jacket method can't be applied, but it will lay down certain variables for identifying when ethnic detoxification takes place. As of this moment, the definition of the said conditions remains uncertain in international rules.

States should recognize that even the magna carta Universal Declaration of Human Privileges ordains equality on every single individual, which would immediately provide the offence of ethnic purifying purposeless.

It is to be necessarily understood that, "So long as the criminals are split into "ours" and "theirs"; so long as cultural discrimination is not replaced with moral and professional standards; as long as already initiated democratic techniques do not take root base; there will be little chance of reconciliation, economical development and respect for the human being privileges and freedoms.

Therefore, an effort has been created by virtue of this project to understand the basic differences between these two types of offences which are basically instigated against other human beings and the same bottom line has been arrived at with the help of leadings judgments and opinions of varied authors on the same.

Ethnic cleansing ends up with the division of a particular country into several fragments, there more the disputes the greater these fragments will break and lastly there shall be nothing for one to offer.

This has been aptly illustrated in the following paragraph:

"In Germany they first arrived for the communists; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. They emerged for the Jews; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. They came for the Catholics; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me personally - and by that time there was no one remaining to speak up. "

Martin Niemoller

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)