Ethnic cleansing, in its most prevalent form, involves the forcible removal from a territory of members of a defined ethnic group. The resulting demographic change may be intended to create a territorially homogeneous geographic area. It is most often carried out by belligerents as a wartime strategy to rid themselves of “troublesome minorities” considered, on the basis of selectively interpreting historical and recent evidence, to pose threats to internal stability and external security or to haveten military surrender.
In the case of the current conflict in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, this goal is clear. Ethnic cleansing has been taking place at breakneck speed, with virtually all of the enclave’s civilian population now having fled west toward Armenia.
This eviction, accompanied by widespread violence and destruction of buildings, homes, and cemeteries, is designed to eradicate all physical vestiges of the targeted groups. It is an attempt to erase them as a group in their own territory, albeit with a few members remaining as hostages.
As a result, forcible transfer of populations may also be an act of genocide. This is true even if perpetrators do not prove intent to destroy an entire group, which is required to be guilty of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Tribunals have struggled to establish the legal standard for genocidal intent, and it is often decades before a specific atrocity is recognized as such.
Nonetheless, forcibly transferred populations may also pose risks for regional political stability, particularly if they are radicalised by ethno-nationalist ideologues and become more easily insurgency-prone. The European experience of the twentieth century suggests that weighing costs and benefits, including the possible trade-offs in internal stability and external security, is important in assessing whether ethnic cleansing should be tolerated or prevented.