Search

The paper addresses the fundamental aspects of transitional justice in Colombia, within the legal framework developed to obtain peace and considering the broad case law of the Colombian Constitutional Court on the matter. To this end, after laying down some foundations concerning the scope of the constitutional principle of "peace" in the Colombian legal order and the concepts of justice, truth, reparation and guarantee of non-repetition, the study focuses on the legislative and judicial developments that have characterized the process, starting from its very beginning up until the report of the Commission for the Clarification of the Truth in 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I study the relationship between the likelihood of a violent domestic conflict and the risk that such a conflict "externalizes" (i.e. spreads to another country by creating an international dispute). I consider a situation in which a domestic conflict between a government and a rebel group has the potential to externalize. I show that the risk of externalization increases the likelihood of a peaceful outcome, but only if the government is sufficiently powerful relative to the rebels, the risk of externalization is sufficiently high, and the foreign actor who can intervene in the domestic conflict is sufficiently uninterested in material costs and benefits. I show how this model helps to understand the recent and successful peace process between the Colombian government and the country's most powerful rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Colombian State and subversive groups have made attempts to build peace by the establishment of accords since the 1980s. Recently, the signature of a peace accord by former president Santos and the FARC-EP leadership in 2016, has come along with changes in the interpretative frameworks of the conflict and the emergence of new institutions, forms of subjectivity and collective meanings around peace. Nowadays, Colombia is in the transition from being a country at war to a peaceful nation. In this transition, the discourse of victims and state representatives about peace and conflict are predominant in the literature. This article characterizes the simultaneously coexisting discourses about peace and conflict in former combatants. We conducted a discourse analysis of 19 semi-structured interviews with former members of paramilitaries and guerrillas. The results are clustered into two categories: absent peace, in which peace is seen as the lack of something that was missed and lost; and the indefinite war, where peace can be hardly imagined due to the permanence of conflict and longevity of violence. The overlooked angle of the narratives of combatants about peace and conflict is discussed, and the findings are suggested as potential guidelines to navigate displaced and divergent accounts of peace and conflict in transition societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to the literature on the impact of transitional justice measures using behavioral evidence from experiments. We argue that there is a distributional dilemma at the heart of transitional justice programs, given that the State must allocate goods and services both to victims and excombatants. Individual and social preferences over these processes matter, given that they are likely to scale up to undermine or increase public support for transitional justice programs. We offer evidence from the Colombian case, to show what we call the hidden face of justice effect, which occurs when in the transition from war to peace distributional dilemmas arise and generate a social sanction function that creates negative incentives that can affect the achievement of reintegration of ex-combatants and jeopardizes the maintenance of peace. In order to explore the microfoundations that underlie the differences between allocations to victims and ex-combatants, we use data from field experiments and find that ex-combatants expect lower transfers from public officers and citizens and indeed receive lower transfers, if compared to the victims and the control groups included in the study, despite the fact that third-party observers have the power to punish senders when making offers seen by the third-party as unfair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]