Forced displacement is a deliberate strategy of war; it is a form of ongoing warfare that, through the problems it generates, can at times even surpass the horrors of active conflict.
Forced displacement refers to the coercive transfer of civilians from their places of residence through expulsion or other coercive acts, without any permissible grounds under international law.
In the process of displacement, violence is not limited to physical force. It may also include the threat of force, such as the fear of violence, coercion, detention, psychological pressure, or abuse of power. It describes a situation in which individuals lack a free or genuine choice to remain in or leave their territory.
As established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) during the trial of Milorad Krnojelac, forced displacement is an act carried out against a person’s will or without a genuine choice. In the case of Naletilić and Martinović, the ICTY also confirmed that consent obtained through threats of force cannot be considered genuine: “Fear of violence or psychological pressure, creating an environment in which there is no alternative but to flee, thus rendering the decision to leave to forced displacement.”
In the Prlić case, the ICTY ruled that “even the mere threat of force, or physical, mental, or spiritual violence, can serve as sufficient evidence to classify a displacement as forced.” It is the absence of genuine choice that makes the grounds of the displacement unlawful and forced.
Read also
Additionally, in the case of Milan Simić, the ICTY emphasized that even the threat of criminal conduct can be enough to prove the absence of genuine choice and confirmed that “the shelling of civilian objects, the damaging of cultural heritage and residential buildings, and other crimes—or even the threat of such acts—are carried out to terrify the population and drive them from the area with no hope of return,” which constitutes forced displacement of civilians.
Moreover, even when displacement is facilitated through organized processes, and even when there appears to be consent, such arrangements cannot be considered a person’s genuine choice or consent.
Furthermore, even if civilians have left a territory due to security concerns or military necessity, such displacement still cannot be considered “voluntary” or “lawful.” Even in cases where displaced individuals wished for or even requested to be evacuated, this does not imply that they had a real choice to stay or to leave.
In the landmark Milan Simić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), when determining the nature of displacement, emphasized the importance of focusing on the individual’s “genuine intent,” and affirmed that evidence of violence could be established by “the involuntary nature of the displacement and the absence of real choice for the persons subjected to it.”
Thus, the so-called “voluntary” departure of a person resulting from acts of violence and war crimes is internationally recognized as “forced” displacement, as violence is interpreted here as the “absence of choice”.
Human Rights Defender Union of Nagorno-Karabakh Refugees