Ethnic Cleansing And Genocide Criminology Essay

Ethnic Cleansing And Genocide Criminology EssayAs enormous as I consider any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the integrity are the rule.-Albert Einstein.For centuries, public has been fighting with his br new(prenominal), all over man-made issues of differences in their status, nationality, race, colour, religion to name a few. In India itself, this differentiation has taken shape in the stool of differences in class, differences between Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs and Christians, recent incidents taking place in Orissa and Kerala are gory examples of the same. In fact, this in essence has too taken place in Maharashtra in 2008 wherein al approximately 20,000 North Indians fled Pune and other such cities, the same revealed by an article in the Indian Express. Statistics in fact have sh take in that man is beingness a threat himself to a nonher man causing his cumulation exodus.Despite the advancem ent in technology man doesnt seem to want to co-exist with another, a deficiency which will lead to its self-destruction kinda or later. This is essentially the concept of heathenishal cleanup position, an international iniquity progressively taking more(prenominal) inappropriate forms as time passes.In principle, an social throng1would be defined as a community of interests whose heritage offers important characteristics in common between its members and which makes them distinct from other communities. There is a boundary, which separates us from them, and the distinction would probably be recognized on both sides of that boundary. Ethnicity is a multi-faceted phenomenon based on visible appearance, subjective identification, heathenal and religious affiliation, stereotyping, and social exclusion.2The phrase heathenish cleanup was originally introduced by reporters coating the Yugoslav wars of disintegration between 1991 and 1995, solely as a course of action it is mu ch honest-to-goodness than that.3By definition, it has been defined as a phenomenon wherein one pagan group expels members of other ethnic groups from a geographic area in order to create ethnically pure enclaves for members of their ethnic group.4However, the complexities involved when it comes to ethnic neaten, is that till date despite the number of occurrences there exists a blur when it comes to differences between racial extermination and ethnic ablutionary.5Also, the number of incidents wherein ethnic clean has taken place makes one question the effectiveness and the authority of the UN and the several(prenominal)(prenominal) other peace keeping bodies.6It is also pertinent to note that part in theory, the purpose of ethnic cleanup is to drive all members of the victimized group tabu of a territory. In practice, ethnic cleansing is nearly synonymous with race murder because mass murder is a common characteristic of both. Though, therefore, there is a thin line betwee n the deuce abhorrences, it is the need of the hour to differentiate between the devil crimes and do away with the pervasive ambiguities. compendiumgenocide and its incidentsIn order, to be able to differentiate between the concepts of genocide and ethnic cleansing it is first important to beneathstand separately of these concepts individually. Ergo, this part will basically centralise on the definition of genocide as arrived at in several landmark judgments and also its main(prenominal) essentials, with the natural corollary of looking at the definition of ethnic cleansing.The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin using the combination of the Greek word genos (race or tribe) and the Latin word cide (killing).7Article II of the Convention on the bar and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 defines the term genocide to include killing, causing serious bodily or intellectual harm, amongst several other things8, which was accepted as being part and parcel of the cus tomary international law or jus cogens in the case of Prose sliceor v. Goran Jelisic.9The case of Advisory Opinon of the International judicature of umpire (ICJ) in Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as followsa crime under international law involving a self-denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, a denial which shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses to human beings, which is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the get together Nations.10Genocide without exceptions made is considered to the most despicable crime when it comes to crimes against humanity, which is why Courts are reluctant in arriving at a conclusion which affirms the existence of genocide. It essentially requires two components for the said crime to take the form of genocide, viz. Actus Reus and Mens Rea. These go hand in hand wherein if any of the acts mentioned above have been attache d with the necessary special(prenominal) intent (dolus specialis).11In the Jelisic12case it was held that the special nature of this intent supposes the discriminatory nature of the act wherein a group is targeted discriminatorily as such and in this context genocide is closely related to the crime against humanity.13The Court again found the existence of this specific intent in the case of Akeysu14wherein the Trial Chamber I held that the rape of Tutsi women in Rwanda in 1994 constituted the crime of genocide.15In the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia it was held that genocide could be committed both at time of peace as well as of armed conflict.16Therefore, a poring over of the aforementioned cases clearly shows there is a need of specific intent in case of indictments for the crime of genocide.17Ethnic Cleansing and its incidentsThe 1990s has had the most number of instances wherein the crime of ethnic cleansing has been recorded. This has been attributed by the UN to heterogeneous political parties which indulge in the same by ruling various States. This power was clearly wielded by the Shiv Sena party in Maharashtra with their jingoistic tactics in emanation Non-Maharashtrians. B neglects Law Dictionary defines ethnic cleansing asThe officially sanctioned forcible and systematic diminution or elimination of targeted ethnic minorities from a geographic area by confiscating real and personal prop, ordering or condoning mass murders and mass rapes and expelling the survivors.Few authors are of the opinion that the crime of ethnic cleansing is a 20th Century phenomenon while most others disagree.18A prototype of ethnic cleansing can be taken from the experience of the Jews during the national socialist Regime, where in order to create Lebensraum, or living space, Hitler, the dictator started an expansionist drive to create a pure Germany. The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, has resulted in a cumulation of atrocities like mass killings as well as rape as a means of creating control over the minorities.19In many of these campaigns, women were targeted for positionly brutal treatment-including systematic rape and enslavement-in part because they were viewed by perpetrators as the carriers, biologically and culturally, of the next generation of their nations. Because many men in victimized races left their families and communities to join resistor groups once violence began, women and children were often defenseless.20Statistics shows that the Bosnia-Herzegovina war envisaged a shocking estimate of 20,000 women who endured sexual assaults in the form of either torture or rape. Serbian political and military leaders systematically planned and strategically executed this policy of ethnic cleansing or genocide with the support of the Serbian and Bosnian Serb armies and paramilitary organization groups to create a Greater Serbia a religiously, culturally, and lingui stically homogenous Serbian nation.521The promulgation of the concept of ethnic cleansing and the practices it represents are a grim, contemporary reminder of the global nature of interethnic and interracial inequality and strife.22The avocation passage taken from an article is proof of the mass destruction and depraved justice that took place during the Bosnia-Herzegovina contendMore than two million people-almost half the population- are still dispossessed of their homes. Some 600,000 of these are refugees afield who have not yet found durable solutions, many of whom face the prospect of compulsory settle 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, living in 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 union of Bosnia and Herzegovina is whether these people can or will return to their homes.23A case study shows that the challenges of post 1980 actor Yugoslavia were exacerbated by the countrys demographic and socio-cultural make-up, comprising several ethnonationalities with different religions, mentalities, histories and levels of development. In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina the authoritarian regimes and their leaders were the main sources of human rights violations. Nationalism and hatred of other peoples and religions were probably the reasons for the brutal break up of the former Yugoslavia. Ethnonationalism was, and has largely remained, widely and deeply entrenched among the constituent groups.24Various authorities indicate that the notion of ethnic cleansing takes place when there is a deportation of mass population on the basis of their ethnic differences in order to create a homogenous ethnic State. While a crime like genocide inevitably results in imposing criminal liability, it has been put ind by several authors that since the term ethnic cleansing does not appear in any of the laws the same is not punishable as long as genocide, rape or other crimes against humanity have not been utilize, which have been banned by several legal instrument.25This argument however is to be rendered untenable26as though, ethnic cleansing per se doesnt consume under the Rome Statute of the International venomous Court, it can be included under crimes against humanity under Article 7 which speaks of Deportation or forcible transfer of population27equivalent to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, a perusal of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia under Article 428also makes the crime of ethnic cleansing punishable.The Trial Chamber29in a particular case was quenched beyond reasonable doubt that the crimes that were committed in the Bosnian Krajina from April 1992 until the end of December 1992, the period pertinent to the Indictment, occurred as a direct result of the over-arching Strategic Plan. The ethnic cleansing was not a spin-off of the criminal activity it was its very aim and thus an integral part of the Strategic Plan.30Therefore, a perusal of the aforementioned authorities helps one understand essentially the concept of ethnic cleansing and the essentials thereof.differences between the twoAndrew Bell-Fialkoff in his book, has remarked that the crime of ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually monovular from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be tacit as the expulsion of a population from a given territory.31Different authors have different opinions regarding the differences between these two, while some state such a difference exists only in theory while other claim it to exist a lot as well.From a peru sal of the above, genocide and ethnic cleansing can be differentiated in three ways(1) Need of intent Genocide could be a means to commit ethnic cleansing, but the purpose of such a crime then would not be murder but would be otherwise. Furthermore, in contrast to genocide, there is no need for special intent under the crime of ethnic cleansing, making it easier for parties to establish a crime of ethnic cleansing in comparison to a charge of genocide leveled against a particular party to the dispute.32It has been found under various texts that the requirement of specific intent is not found under ethnic cleansing, making it easier to prove before the International Courts in comparison to the crime of genocide.33(2) The purpose The purpose under genocide is the physical destruction of an ethnical, racial or a religious group, while that of ethnic cleansing is the founding of ethnically homogeneous lands. The means used for the latter could also be genocide.34(3) Ends achieved While genocide results in physical destruction of a particular minority groups, ethnic cleansing results in the flight of a community not necessarily mass killing.35As found in the previously, it may not always be feasible to point out differences between the two. In fact, this clear cut distinction has been reduced by various subsequent measures taken by the authoritative bodies. In 1992 concerning the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly36clearly stated that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide.37To worsen the situation, in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstic,38, the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), expressly diverging from the wider interpretation of the notion of intent to destroy by the unite Nations made a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide.an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own id entity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide.Similarly, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) the International Court of Justice39have also upheld the above judgment based on the same reasoning.40Various scholars also have given views similar to that found in the above cases wherein a distinction has been made between the two offences.41Therefore, there remains doubt in this unchattered territory, but courts generally refrain from holding a state or an official responsible for the offence of genocide in comparison to that of ethnic cleansing.ConclusionFrom an analysis of the above judgments, we find that there exists a very thin line between the concepts of genocide and that of ethnic cleansing. There is a need to attain consistency with regard to the various opinions on the same, consistency being an essential or cannon of any law. The basic bone of contention is in fact this lack of uniformity in interpreting the law by the courts.That apart, a need is felt that stricter international norms be laid downcast in order to ensure that a crime like ethnic cleansing taking the form of international crimes like rape, genocide does not take place at the force that it has been since the 1990s.42It should be realized by the UN and various other monitoring bodies that it is imperative that a clear cut distinction be made between the two, agreed, a strait-jacket formula cannot be applied, but it should lay down certain parameters for determining when ethnic cleansing takes place. As of now, the definition of the said terms remains suspicious in international law.States should realize that even the magna carta Universal Declaration of Human Rights43ordains equality on each and every human being, which would immediately render the offence of ethnic cleansing purposeless.44It is to be nec essarily understood that, As long as the criminals are divided into ours and theirs as long as ethnic dissimilarity is not replaced with moral and professional criteria as long as already initiated democratic processes do not take roots there will be little chance of reconciliation, economic development and take to be for the human rights and freedoms.45Therefore, an attempt has been made by virtue of this project to understand the basic differences between these two types of crimes which are basically instigated against other human beings and the same conclusion has been arrived at with the help of leadings judgments and opinions of various authors on the same.Ethnic cleansing results in the division of a particular country into several fragments, there more the disputes the more these fragments will break and finally there shall be nothing for one to offer.This has been aptly illustrated in the following paragraphIn Germany they first came for the communists and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a communist. and then they came for the Jews and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Jew. past they came for the trade unionists and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Catholic. Then they came for me and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.Martin Niemoller