Dilemmas in Regards to the Restitution of Lands in Colombia

The text argues that, even if different sectors of society have some strategic points of agreement on the issue of land, which converge on the specific issue of restitution, they strongly disagree on various other points. On one side are some who advocate “pure restitution” and consequently support a restitution policy that focuses on correcting the illegal dispossession and clarifying land titles and individual rights to property, which would serve to boost the land market and allow for rural development policies that modernize agricultural production, fundamentally based on large, corporate ownership. On the other end of the spectrum are advocates of what we call “comprehensive restitution,” who promote adopting a restitution policy that meets the requirements not only of corrective justice but also of recognition and redistribution, advancing the interest of peasant, indigenous, and afro-Colombian communities.

Land Restitution and Prevention of Forced Displacement in Colombia

The armed conflict in Colombia, which has generated over three million internally displaced persons, has dramatic humanitarian consequences and raises serious issues regarding the protection of displaced peoples’ rights. The underlying reasons for the displacement often lie in the dynamics associated with territorial control and land seizures undertaken for strategic, military or purely economic purposes. Domestic and international legal provisions have established the victims’ right to the restitution of their homes and property as the “preferred remedy” in cases of displacement. However, policies dealing with displacement, both those of the Colombian government and of several international institutions, fail to take this sufficiently into account. A comprehensive reparation policy for victims must necessarily entail the reversion of lands, territories and goods seized in Colombia under the pretext of the internal armed conflict.