Home > Sturm College of Law > Denver Journal of International Law & Policy > Vol. 50 (2021-2022) > No. 2 (2022)
Abstract
Since the term "ethnic cleansing" appeared on the world stage in the early 1990s, it has spurred many legal debates. This article engages the debate between those who believe the term is legally distinct from genocide and those who believe it is a euphemism for genocide. Weaving through a linguistic, criminological, and legal analysis, this article supports the latter of those beliefs and demonstrates how journalists, governments, and NGOs use the euphemism to avoid triggering effective responses to genocide. In an effort to thwart further harm to genocide prevention and prosecution, the article class for an end to the term's misuse. Additionally, with respect to other euphemisms for genocide, the article recommends early warning analysts employ the same word-filtering technologies used by anti-trafficking advocates. By harnessing this technology, these analysts can better detect impending and ongoing genocides, while building an evidentiary case that links words to perpetrators and genocidal acts.
Recommended Citation
Jennifer Kirby-McLemore, Settling the Genocide v. Ethnic Cleansing Debate: Ending Misuse of the Euphemism Ethnic Cleansing, 50 DENV. J. INT'l L. & POL'y 109 (Spring 2022).