Forced transfers and deportations of civilian populations are a persistent theme in atrocity crimes. Criminalizing forced displacement not only responds to a major human rights and atrocities problem which is not directly covered by either refugee or international human rights law; it can also serve an important deterrent effect. And yet a critical and enduring question has been around the nature of the relationship between the two offenses of deportation, in which a border is crossed, and forcible transfers, in which a border is not. While both are recognized today as crimes against humanity, the conventional story is that deportations have a much longer and more enduring history than forcible transfers. We argue that this is wrong, and that practice from the Nineteenth century through Nuremberg viewed ‘deportation’ as encompassing both forms of crimes. The loss of this history, however, has meant that in recent times the ICTY, ECCC, and the ICC have had to in effect reinvent the wheel of how forcible transfers are understood and how they are differentiated from deportations as a distinct crime. While a clear conception of forcible transfers as a crime against humanity is now developing in international criminal law, this has limited the number of prosecutions in spite of the fact that this provides a critical accountability mechanism.

在暴行罪中，强迫转移和驱逐平民是一个持续的主题。将强迫流离失所定为刑事犯罪不仅解决了难民和国际人权法未直接涵盖的重大人权和暴行问题；它也可以起到重要的威慑作用。然而，一个关键而持久的问题是关于两种驱逐出境罪行之间的关系的性质，跨界驱逐罪行跨越了边界，而强行移交则没有边界。虽然今天都承认这两种都是危害人类罪，但传统的故事是，驱逐出境比强迫转移有更长的时间和更持久的历史。我们认为这是错误的，从19世纪到纽伦堡的这种做法都将“驱逐出境”包括在两种形式的犯罪​​中。然而，这段历史的丧失意味着近些年来，前南问题国际刑事法庭，ECCC和ICC实际上不得不重新发明如何理解强制转移以及如何将其与驱逐出境区别开来，这是一种独特的犯罪。虽然在国际刑法中现在已明确提出将强制转移作为危害人类罪的概念，但尽管这提供了关键的问责机制，但它限制了起诉的数量。国际刑事法院实际上必须彻底改变人们如何理解强制转移以及如何将其与驱逐出境区别开来，这是一种独特的犯罪。虽然在国际刑法中现在已明确提出将强制转移作为危害人类罪的概念，但尽管这提供了关键的问责机制，但它限制了起诉的数量。国际刑事法院实际上必须彻底改变人们如何理解强制转移以及如何将其与驱逐出境区别开来，这是一种独特的犯罪。虽然在国际刑法中现在已明确提出将强制转移作为危害人类罪的概念，但尽管这提供了关键的问责机制，但它限制了起诉的数量。