ABSTRACT
Objections to the use of the term ethnic cleansing are not new. It has been dismissed as too hazy and vague - a product of journalistic verbiage rather than proper legal reflection. The apparently "positive" connotations of cleansing have been considered an inapt and immoral signifier of violence and brutality. Ethnic cleansing represents a rhetorical appellation of greatest advantage to génocidaires keen to avoid being held to full account for their actions and/or for observers who lack the will to confront and stop genocide. The current status of ethnic cleansing within international law - or, rather, its lack of clear status - breeds confusion rather than certainty and is inimical to a just and efficient recognition of genocide. Ethnic cleansing, if properly codified in international law, would provide a useful category for defining a specific set of violent practices that, while perhaps similar to genocide in several respects, differ in terms of both the physical acts and, above all, intentionality.
