Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--

Corrective Justice vs. Social Justice in the Aftermath of War

How do we justify the practice of corrective justice for losses suffered during armed conflicts? This article seeks to show the force and relevance of this question, and to argue that, in cases of massively destructive wars, social justice should gain priority over corrective justice. Starting from a liberal Rawlsian conception of the relationship between corrective and social justice, it is argued that, paradoxically, the more destructive a war is, the less normative force corrective rights have and the higher priority policies of social justice, which guarantee basic rights to all citizens, should have.

Elementos para una teoría de la justicia: una comparación entre John Rawls y Amartya Sen

Este ensayo busca establecer una comparación entre los elementos centrales de la teoría de la justicia de John Rawls y de Amartya Sen, así como analizar algunas debilidades y contribuciones de estas propuestas teóricas. Nuestro trabajo se concentra en cuatro temas centrales en la discusión de la teoría de la justicia: las circunstancias que han de ser consideradas en cualquier evaluación de la justicia, principios de la justicia y reglas de combinación, bases informacionales de la justicia y desigualdades admitidas en las evaluaciones de justicia.-----This essay aims to establish a comparison between the central elements present in the theory of justice of John Rawls and Amartya Sen, as well as analyze some of the weaknesses and contributions of these theoretical proposals. This work focuses on four topics that are core to the discussion on the theory of justice: circumstances to be considered in any evaluation of justice, principles of justice and rules of combination, informational bases, and inequalities admitted by the evaluations of justice.

The Demobilization Process of Paramilitaries in Colombia: Between Politics and Justice

The phenomenon of paramilitarism in Colombia has received an ambiguous treatment, balancing between political and criminal issues; an oscillation that has been intimately linked to the evolution of the Colombian internal conflict. This contribution analyzes the recent negotiations held with paramilitary groups by the administration of Alvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010). After a brief account of the dependency path that has determined this historical episode, I propose an assessment of the use of judicial categories by the various actors of the negotiations. The main argument is that those categories –war criminal, political criminal, drug smuggler, etc.– do not depend on the intrinsic nature of an armed actor, but are socially constructed by a conflictive process of material and symbolic struggles. The capacity to categorize private violence, as legitimate or illegitimate, political or criminal, appears as one of the basic manifestations of the state’s action, as well as one of the main conflicts presiding at the rocess of state formation.