Description
This paper explores how and when the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Committee of the Red Cross invoked the term 'ethnic cleansing' during the Bosnian War (1992-1995). It argues that a discourse analysis of public-facing documents allows us to explore institutional mandates, international frameworks for intervention, and the role that conceptualizations of international law plays in the creation of militarized humanitarian action.
As a new term to describe an old method of warfare, 'ethnic cleansing' became the watchword for the humanitarian response in Bosnia as it symbolized all that the international community was seeking to protect civilians from. Since the cessation of hostilities, Western scholars have focused much of their attention on the failure of the militarized ‘humanitarian intervention’ to stop the worst of the genocidal policies of Radovan Karadžić. This paper takes a step away from the intricacies of on-the-ground humanitarianism and instead employs an analysis of language to better understand the foundation upon which the lead intervention actors understood their roles within the militarily-supported humanitarian action in Bosnia.
Drawing on archival sources alongside rich scholarly debate, this paper explores what we mean, what we lose, and what we gain from using the term 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the violence that armed actors enacted upon civilians in Bosnia. By keeping civilian protection at the centre of the analysis, this paper seeks to highlight the integral role that discourse plays in (re)creating and (re)producing the conditions for international humanitarian intervention.
