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.

New Law against an Old State: Land Restitution as a Transition to Justice in Post-Apartheid South Africa?

The research on which this text is based has been financially supported by the Berne University Research Foundation (2009–2011) as well as by an Ambizione Research Fellowship of the Swiss National Science Foundation (2012–2014). During my stays in South Africa, the Departments of Anthropology at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and the University of South Africa (UNISA), Pretoria, provided me with welcoming and inspiring research environments. This article benefitted greatly from engaged discussions around its presentation at various occasions, notably our ECAS 2011 panel Transition and Justice: Negotiating the Terms of New Beginnings in Africa, held in Uppsala. I am particularly grateful to my co-convener and co-editor Gerhard Anders as well as Laurens Bakker, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, Ben Cousins, Julia Eckert, Marion Fresia, Vinodh Jaichand, Steffen Jensen, Tim Kelsall, Hanri Mostert, Johanna Mugler, David O'Kane, Julia Pauli, Mats Utas, Julia Zenker and the anonymous referees of Development and Change for their critical engagements.