Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

'Ethnic Cleansing' and Genocide: Similarities and Distinctions

'Ethnic Cleansing' and Genocide: Similarities and Distinctions I. INTRODUCTION On 18 April 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concluded that the crime of genocide had been commit- ted on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.' The determination brings to a conclu- sion much uncertainty in the case law of the International Tribunal. It finally provides an answer to the question: 'Was genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia?' Until recently, there has been little disagreement about using the term 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the campaigns of brutal persecution of ethnic groups during the wars. Finally, it will be said, these practices have been called by their real name, genocide. The ruling is full of implications for two other protracted affairs, the ongoing and seemingly end- less trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the ICTY2 and the stalled and still-pending case filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1993.3 In the early years of the Tribunal's activities, the Prosecutor was extremely cau- tious in presenting indictments for genocide, provided for in Article 4 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,^ opting for the broader and more general qualification of atrocities http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online Brill

'Ethnic Cleansing' and Genocide: Similarities and Distinctions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/ethnic-cleansing-and-genocide-similarities-and-distinctions-pyGaafYNCN

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6117
DOI
10.1163/221161104X00075
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION On 18 April 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concluded that the crime of genocide had been commit- ted on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.' The determination brings to a conclu- sion much uncertainty in the case law of the International Tribunal. It finally provides an answer to the question: 'Was genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia?' Until recently, there has been little disagreement about using the term 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the campaigns of brutal persecution of ethnic groups during the wars. Finally, it will be said, these practices have been called by their real name, genocide. The ruling is full of implications for two other protracted affairs, the ongoing and seemingly end- less trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the ICTY2 and the stalled and still-pending case filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1993.3 In the early years of the Tribunal's activities, the Prosecutor was extremely cau- tious in presenting indictments for genocide, provided for in Article 4 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,^ opting for the broader and more general qualification of atrocities

Journal

European Yearbook of Minority Issues OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.