Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic cleansing (from the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and Latin suffix cide, meaning killing) describes extreme forms of violence and persecution motivated by racial or ethnic animosities. In the most precise sense, it involves the indiscriminate expulsion or mass murder of members of a particular group in order to alter the population composition in favor of another, often through destroying their religious and cultural monuments, places of worship and cemeteries. Ethnic cleansing can occur during international armed conflicts as well as in times of peace, and can be punished under the Statute of the International Criminal Court if certain preconditions are met.

The term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. He developed it in response to the genocidal policies of the Nazis against Jews during World War II and other examples throughout history, including the destruction of Carthage by the Romans, the massacre of Poles in Volhynia by the Soviets in 1943, and the forced expulsions of the indigenous populations of Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

In 1948, the UN General Assembly passed the Genocide Convention and made it a crime under international law. It has been ratified by 153 States. The ICJ has established that the prohibition on genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens), and States cannot deviate from it. However, the distinction between genocide and other types of mass atrocities is contested by many experts, and has become an issue of ongoing debate.

The Call For Better Cryptocurrency Regulation

The last year has been a tumultuous one for cryptocurrency and digital asset markets, with volatility and scandals contributing to trillions in losses. As such, calls for improved regulatory protections have become a lot louder.

Regulations can help balance innovation with investor and consumer protection, financial transparency, and systemic stability. Governments have begun asserting clearer authority over how crypto is issued, traded, and taxed.

For example, the U.S. recently passed the GENIUS Act and other legislation to provide more robust regulation of stablecoins and digital assets, with requirements for full reserve backing, monthly audits, and anti-money laundering compliance. Meanwhile, the EU’s unified Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation aims to reduce regulatory fragmentation by defining how blockchain assets are treated under relevant securities and commodities laws.

At the state level, New York has established a comprehensive set of regulations for digital assets that provides a friendly environment for market participants, while ensuring customer protection. Other states have passed or proposed more restrictive rules that treat digital assets as property for tax purposes, while also requiring money transmitter licensing and imposing Know Your Customer norms.

Federally, the CFTC retains jurisdiction over digital commodity markets, while the SEC has authority over ICOs and other offerings that qualify as securities. The pending CLARITY Act would further clarify these roles and provide greater coordination between federal agencies. Additionally, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) continues to apply its sanctions compliance standards to transactions involving crypto.