The special jurisdiction for peace in Colombia: possible International conflicts of jurisdiction (original) (raw)
Related papers
Transitional Justice should provide war victims with tools that attain their dignity and lead to acknowledgement of the violations occurred, so to prevent further perpetrations of human rights. Installment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) 4 was made in March of year 2018 and the first judgements lead to question the accuracy of their interpretation and application of concepts in their court decisions, i.e. Case. This paper aims to criticize the submission of the term, to make visible the harm being made because of wrongful application and breach of the procedural guarantees from international standards of judgement.
2020
Transitional Justice should provide war victims with tools that attain their dignity and lead to acknowledgement of the violations occurred, so to prevent further perpetrations of human rights. Installment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP)4 was made in March of year 2018 and the first judgements lead to question the accuracy of their interpretation and application of concepts in their court decisions, i.e. Case. This paper aims to criticize the submission of the term, to make visible the harm being made because of wrongful application and breach of the procedural guarantees from international standards of judgement.
2018
The subject of this paper is the post-national nature of transitional justice that manifests itself in the case of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) in Colombia and, more precisely, the way in which this jurisdiction is linked to legal systems, such as the International Humanitarian Law, International Law of Human Rights, and International Criminal Law, that raises the need to understand this expression of justice beyond the context of State sovereignty, and from the broader vision of the progressive internationalization of constitutional law. The thesis is that both the way in which this form of justice is created and its rules of composition, operation, procedure, and especially the substantive rules that are to be applied by judges and prosecutors in this system, forces us to rethink the rigidity of the traditional system of sources of law, in favor of a more dynamic and pluralist understanding of justice, which coincides with the concept of post-nationality conceptualized by the political philosopher Jürgen Habermas and later developed by international jurists such as Nico Krisch.
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace and Sui Generis Transitional Justice
Transitional Justice in Colombia. The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, 2022
This article argues that both the Tribunal for Peace and the Chambers of Justice of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) can be con sidered sui generis jurisdictional institutions. They have been established taking into account the rich experience of international criminal justice institutions and Colombia's own experiences in transitional justice (TJ). The principles of preference and exclusive jurisdiction that govern the SJP entail its focus on cases associated with the armed conflict, which previously fell into the mandate of different judicial bodies. This article aims to discuss the SJP's institutional nature as an institution in charge of adjudicating crimes committed during the Colombian armed conflict, highlighting several features that makes it distinct from other domestic criminal justice institutions.
Transitional Justice in Colombia. The Special Jurisdiction for Peace
2022
The Colombian Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP, Special Jurisdiction for Peace) is the judicial center piece of the national Transitional Justice system (Sistema Integral de Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición, SIVJRNR; Integral System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition). At the same time the JEP is also at the center of public controversies about the Colombian peace process and faces a series of legal and political challenges in its daily work. In this sense, the JEP generates a continuous need for consultation, discussion and research. The articles in this volume aim to contribute to a better understanding of the JEP and to identify further research needs. At the same time, we hope to contribute to the still limited research on the Colombian peace process and the JEP in English language.
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia: Transdisciplinary Inquiries
Transitional Justice in Colombia: The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, 2022
The article highlights current conflicts regarding the implementation of the peace process and especially its transitional justice component in Colombia. It stresses some important gains of the transitional justice institutions and discusses current challenges regarding dealing with the past in Colombia. The article closes by presenting four discussions that will be important for both future interdisciplinary research and political discussions on transitional justice on an international level.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE: EXPLORING SOME CHALLENGES THROUGH THE COLOMBIAN CASE
AJIL-Unbound, 2022
Latin America has always been central to the configuration, interpretation, and operation of the field of transitional justice. Starting in the late 1980s with contributions from scholars interested in democratic transitions after dictatorships in the Southern Cone, the 1996 signing of the Peace Agreement in Guatemala, and the Truth Commission in Peru, to the more recent case of Colombia, Latin American academics and activists have contri- buted significantly to the theory and practice of transitional justice. This essay explores a question central to recent transitional justice processes: the interaction and possible contradictions between the aim of ending a violent inter- nal conflict and the demands imposed by international law. Colombia serves as an example. The Colombian case is informed by all previous experiences, but it is also novel because it is the first transitional justice process established in the region since the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Although the Colombian process is still being implemented and it is too early to claim its success or failure, the case offers important insights into the tense, complex, and overarching interactions between international law, internal peace, and transitional justice. This essay explores how local and external actors involved in negotiating and implementing the agreement presented international law as if it were univocal and universal, as if there were no competing interpretations within the discipline, and as if it were neutral in relation to local political discussions. Building upon this analysis, the goal is to shed light upon the ideological uses of international law.
The results of the plebiscite suggest that Colombia's international obligations regarding the right to justice will be a key issue in the new postplebiscite phase of the peace negotiation. Perhaps, then, the best starting point for an analysis of these obligations is the rejected Peace Accord. If it complies with international obligations, then it seems likely that any new agreement will also be in compliance: opponents focused much of their arguments on the high level of impunity supposedly embedded in the original deal. The original agreement established a " Special Jurisdiction for Peace. " This jurisdiction was to be charged with judging those who bear most responsibility for crimes that constitute serious violations of international human rights law and for grave breaches of international humanitarian law that were committed during an armed conflict that has affected the country for more than sixty years. However, the Special Jurisdiction would have authority to prioritize both the most responsible perpetrators and the most serious crimes. In other words, not all crimes or actors would be prosecuted. Further, even those convicted for the most serious crimes would be eligible for alternative punishments, including the deprivation of liberty without imprisonment. 1 The most common argument against this selection tool is that it generates impunity and, thus, goes against the state's international obligation to investigate, judge, and punish, especially as established in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (" the Court "). Against this view, I argue that (i) this system of selection would be found to be in compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights under the conventionality control test 2 as practiced by the Inter-American Court; and (ii) the organs of the Inter-American System should show deference both in undertaking an abstract review of Colombia's transitional system, and in reviewing individual petitions claiming that its application violates their rights.
Korean Association of International Association of Constitutional Law, 2020
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace was the judicial mechanism chosen by the negotiating parties in Havana to overcome the Colombian armed conflict that lasted for more than five decades and split this country into violence. The universalist nature of this peace accord, and the open structure of the Colombian constitution, compel the judges and the prosecutors of this special jurisdiction to apply international law on a regular base. This Transitional Jurisdiction relates to international law in the same way that most hybrid criminal tribunals do, and binds the domestic application of the law to the universal values of human rights. The unique legal nature of the SJP forces us to rethink the rigidity of the traditional system of law to favor a more dynamic and pluralist understanding of justice, often framed as postnational. This research highlights the necessity to understand the hermeneutics of transitional justice beyond the context of State sovereignty, and from the broader vision of the progressive internationalization of constitutional law.
The Colombian Peace Process and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace
Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, Rivista Trimestrale 4 (with Kai Ambos), 2018
In 2016, the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army concluded the Final Peace Agreement, which marks the official end of more than 50 years of internal conflict. At the heart of this agreement is the so-called Integral System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition, which includes different mechanisms. This article focuses on the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, describing its structure, the way it operates and presenting the main controversies evolving around it.