Editing Population transfer (section)

== Changes in international law==
[[File:Travelling Light 76 F.jpg|thumb|Forced removal under [[apartheid]], Mogopa, [[Western Transvaal]], [[South Africa]], February 1984.]]
According to the political scientist [[Norman Finkelstein]], population transfer was considered as an acceptable solution to the problems of ethnic conflict until around [[World War II]] and even for a time afterward. Transfer was considered a drastic but "often necessary" means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic [[civil war]].<ref>[[Norman Finkelstein|Finkelstein, Norman]] ''Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2nd ed.'' (Verso, 2003) p.xiv – ''also'' [http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=10 ''An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080301041755/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=10 |date=2008-03-01 }}</ref> The feasibility of population transfer was hugely increased by the creation of [[railroad]] networks from the mid-19th century. [[George Orwell]], in his 1946 essay "[[Politics and the English Language]]" (written during the [[World War II evacuation and expulsion]]s in Europe), observed:

:"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things... can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.... Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called ''transfer of population'' or ''rectification of frontiers''."

The view of international law on population transfer underwent considerable evolution during the 20th century. Prior to [[World War II]], many major population transfers were the result of bilateral treaties and had the support of international bodies such as the [[League of Nations]]. The [[expulsion of Germans after World War II]] from Central and Eastern Europe after World War II was sanctioned by the Allies in Article 13 of the Potsdam communiqué, but research has shown that both the British and the American delegations at Potsdam strongly objected to the size of the population transfer that had already taken place and was accelerating in the summer of 1945. The principal drafter of the provision, [[Geoffrey Harrison]], explained that the article was intended not to approve the expulsions but to find a way to transfer the competence to the Control Council in Berlin to regulate the flow.<ref>[[Alfred de Zayas]], ''Nemesis at Potsdam'', Routledge 1979, Appendix pp. 232–234, and ''A Terrible Revenge,'' Macmillan 2006,  pp.86–87</ref>
The tide started to turn when the Charter of the [[Nuremberg Trials]] of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity.<ref>Alfred de Zayas, ''Forced Population Transfer'', in: ''Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law,'' online 2009, with reference to Articles 6b and 6c of the Nuremberg indictment and the relevant parts of the judgment concerning the forced transfer of Poles and Frenchmen by the Nazis</ref> That opinion was progressively adopted and extended through the remainder of the century. Underlying the change was the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of states to make agreements that adversely affect them.

There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: "Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law."<ref>''Denver Journal of International Law and Policy'', Spring 2001, p 116.</ref> No legal distinction is made between one-way and two-way transfers since the rights of each individual are regarded as independent of the experience of others.

[[Wikisource:Fourth Geneva Convention#Article 49|Article 49]] of the [[Fourth Geneva Convention]] (adopted in 1949 and now part of [[customary international law]]) prohibits mass movement of [[protected persons]] out of or into territory under [[belligerent]] [[military occupation]]:<ref>Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.[http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument Commentary on Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories Art. 49] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060505225836/http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument |date=2006-05-05 }} by the [[International Committee of the Red Cross|ICRC]]</ref>
{{Blockquote|Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.}}

An interim report of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1993) says:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/683f547c28ac785880256766004ecdef?OpenDocument|title=unhchr.ch|website=www.unhchr.ch|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051204095935/http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/683f547c28ac785880256766004ecdef?Opendocument|archive-date=2005-12-04}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|Historical cases reflect a now-foregone belief that population transfer may serve as an option for resolving various types of conflict, within a country or between countries. The agreement of recognized States may provide one criterion for the authorization of the final terms of conflict resolution. However, the cardinal principle of "voluntariness" is seldom satisfied, regardless of the objective of the transfer. For the transfer to comply with human rights standards as developed, prospective transferees must have an option to remain in their homes if they prefer.}}
The same report warned of the difficulty of ensuring true voluntariness:
<blockquote>"some historical transfers did not call for forced or compulsory transfers, but included options for the affected populations. Nonetheless, the conditions attending the relevant treaties created strong moral, psychological and economic pressures to move."</blockquote>

The final report of the Sub-Commission (1997)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.1997.23.En?OpenDocument|title=unhchr.ch|website=www.unhchr.ch|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629104332/http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.1997.23.En?OpenDocument|archive-date=2011-06-29}}</ref> invoked numerous legal conventions and treaties to support the position that population transfers contravene international law unless they have the consent of both the moved population and the host population. Moreover, that consent must be given free of direct or indirect negative pressure.

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" is defined as a [[crime against humanity]] by the [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]] (Article 7).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm|title=Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 1 to 33)- Prevent Genocide International|first=Jim|last=Fussell|website=www.preventgenocide.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150513134414/http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm|archive-date=2015-05-13}}</ref> The [[International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]] has indicted and sometimes convicted a number of politicians and military commanders indicted for forced deportations in that region.

[[Ethnic cleansing]] encompasses "deportation or forcible transfer of population" and the force involved may involve other crimes, including crimes against humanity. [[Nationalism|Nationalist]] agitation can harden public support, one way or the other, for or against population transfer as a solution to current or possible future ethnic conflict, and attitudes can be cultivated by supporters of either plan of action with its supportive [[propaganda]] used as a typical political tool by which their goals can be achieved.