Sexual Violence Against Women as a Strategy to Dispossess Land in the Colombian Armed Conflict

This article reviews the evidence collected by diverse national and international organizations regarding the relationship between sexual violence against women, forced displacement, and dispossession in the context of the Colombian armed conflict. To this end, it uses the concept of “sexual violence regimes” to highlight that the endspursued by sexual violence are not always exhausted by simple consummation (that is, the act of sexual violence itself), but depending on the context, can be connected with broader strategic goals of armed actors. At the same time, this document admits the difficulty of proving this relationship with respect to judicial procedures, and thus sets out the possibility of creating a rebuttable presumption, in the framework of “unconstitutional state of affairs” created by judgment T-025 of 2004, that alleviates the burden of proof of the victims, and serves as a catalyst to promote new genderbased mechanisms of reparations.

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.

The project of land restitution in Colombia: an illustration of the civilizing force of hypocrisy?

This article offers a theoretical interpretation of the dispositions on land restitution contained in the famous “Victims’ Bill”, which was debated in the Colombian Congress during the year 2008. The bill included specific mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict. At the time, the bill was endorsed by all the main political actors in the country –notably the government and the elites that support it, on the one hand, and victims’ and human rights organizations and other opposition groups, on the other–. The fact that the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict was being considered as a serious possibility by all political actors in the country seemed to indicate the existence of a consensus among actors whose positions are ordinarily opposed, on an issue that has traditionally led to high levels of polarization. This consensus is quite puzzling, because it seems to be at odds with the interests and/or the conceptions of justice advocated by these political actors, and because the restitution of land faces enormous difficulties both from a factual and a normative point of view, which indicates that it may not necessarily be the best alternative for dealing with the issue of land distribution in Colombia. This article offers an interpretation of said consensus, arguing that it is only an apparent consensus in which the actors are actually misrepresenting their interests and conceptions of justice, while at the same time adopting divergent strategies of implementation aimed at fulfilling their true interests. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the common adherence by all actors to the principle of restorative justice might bring about its actual realization, and thus produce an outcome that, in spite (and perhaps even because) of being unintended, might substantively contribute to solving the problem of unequal land distribution in Colombia. Even though the article focuses in some detail on the specificities of the 2008 Bill, it attempts to make a general argument about the state of the discussion on how to deal with the issue of land distribution in the country. Consequently, it may still be relevant today, especially considering that a new Bill on land restitution is currently being discussed in Congress, which includes the same restitution goals as the Victims’ Bill and many of its procedural and substantive details, and which therefore seems to reflect a similar consensus to the one analyzed in the article.

Conflict, wages, and multiple equilibria

Firms’ compensation practices affect the protection of investors’ interests and the degree of economic inequality by changing the stakes of engaging in appropriation activities versus respecting the status quo. We use a general equilibrium model where workers can either work peacefully or join a guerrilla movement that expropriates entrepreneurs. If workers are peaceful, they receive a competitive wage. If they join a guerrilla movement, they receive a share of the appropriated wealth, which depends positively on the number of guerrilla members. In this framework, we find one low-income, low-wage equilibrium with guerrilla activity and one peaceful, high-income, high-wage equilibrium. The peaceful equilibrium can be reached through redistribution policies, which can be implemented at the firm level. In essence, through their compensation policies entrepreneurs, not the state might be able to protect their assets against expropriation and simultaneously control the internal principal-agent problem.