Suchergebnisse

Entre 2007 y 2013, las autoras hicieron parte del Grupo de Memoria Histórica (GMH), integrado por investigadores y expertos y adscrito a la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación de Colombia. Su misión fue la de producir un informe sobre los orígenes y las causas del conflicto armado en el país. El GMH fue el resultado de una disposición de justicia transicional de la controvertida Ley 975 de Justicia y Paz que reguló el proceso de desmovilización de los paramilitares vinculados a las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). A pesar del contexto político de extrema derecha en el cual operó, y de adelantar su labor en medio del conflicto armado, el grupo tuvo autonomía intelectual y operativa en su trabajo investigativo y articuló su quehacer alrededor de un discurso que posicionó a las víctimas como razón del ejercicio de memoria histórica y factor de legitimación social. Este modo de producir conocimiento abrió nuevos caminos para la construcción de relatos históricos más integradores. En este artículo interrogamos las dinámicas y razones a partir de las cuales se construyó una especial sensibilidad hacia las víctimas, las nociones de víctima implícitas en el quehacer investigativo, con sus inclusiones y exclusiones, y las tensiones que se generaron en el quehacer del grupo. Si bien el GMH se puede caracterizar como un dispositivo y agente de producción de conocimiento sobre el pasado violento, su empeñó en construir narrativas integradoras y plurales sobre la violencia en el país se vio limitado por las dinámicas estatales e institucionales que buscan domesticar e instrumentalizar las voces de quienes han sido sistemáticamente silenciados y excluidos. La revisión del trabajo hecho por el GMH pone en evidencia la existencia de tres dilemas críticos que limitan los alcances de la labor de memoria histórica: el dilema entre abrir espacios que permitan contar la verdad y la seguridad de quienes dan sus testimonios; el dilema respecto a qué voces de las víctimas adquieren más autoridad durante el proceso de documentación; y el riesgo de institucionalizar un discurso alrededor de las víctimas que reditué en beneficio del capital narrativo del estado y de las instituciones sociales. ; Between 2007 and 2013, we were part of the Historical Memory Group (GMH), a research group comprised of researchers and experts working under the auspices of the National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation of Colombia. The GMH was tasked under Law 975 with producing a report on the origins and causes of the armed conflict in Colombia. Despite the dominant right-wing political context and the ongoing armed conflict, the GMH enjoyed intellectual and operative autonomy in its research and articulated his work around a discourse that positioned the victims as a reason for the exercise of historical memory and a factor of social legitimation. This way of producing knowledge opened new avenues for the construction of more inclusive historical accounts. This article interrogates the dynamics and reasons that served as the basis for the GMH's special sensitivity towards victims; the notion of victim implicit in the research work, with its inclusions and exclusions; and the dilemmas that arose in the group's work. We argue that the GMH can be characterized as an agent of knowledge production about a violent past that was able to articulate comprehensive and plural narratives about violence in Colombia. However, this work was limited by state and institutional dynamics that sought to domesticate and instrumentalize the voices of those who had been systematically silenced. A review of the GMH's work suggests three critical dilemmas that constrain truth-telling mechanisms: the dilemma between opening spaces for truth telling and the safety of those providing testimony; the dilemma around whose victims' voices gain authority in the documentation process; and the risks of institutionalizing a discourse around victims that bestows narrative capital to state and societal institutions.

Between 2007 and 2013, we were part of the Historical Memory Group (GMH), a research group comprised of researchers and experts working under the auspices of the National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation of Colombia. The GMH was tasked under Law 975 with producing a report on the origins and causes of the armed conflict in Colombia. Despite the dominant right-wing political context and the ongoing armed conflict, the GMH enjoyed intellectual and operative autonomy in its research and articulated his work around a discourse that positioned the victims as a reason for the exercise of historical memory and a factor of social legitimation. This way of producing knowledge opened new avenues for the construction of more inclusive historical accounts. This article interrogates the dynamics and reasons that served as the basis for the GMH's special sensitivity towards victims; the notion of victim implicit in the research work, with its inclusions and exclusions; and the dilemmas that arose in the group's work. We argue that the GMH can be characterized as an agent of knowledge production about a violent past that was able to articulate comprehensive and plural narratives about violence in Colombia. However, this work was limited by state and institutional dynamics that sought to domesticate and instrumentalize the voices of those who had been systematically silenced. A review of the GMH's work suggests three critical dilemmas that constrain truth-telling mechanisms: the dilemma between opening spaces for truth telling and the safety of those providing testimony; the dilemma around whose victims' voices gain authority in the documentation process; and the risks of institutionalizing a discourse around victims that bestows narrative capital to state and societal institutions. © 2017 University of San Diego. All rights reserved.

Between 2007 and 2013, we were part of the Historical Memory Group (GMH), a research group comprising researchers and experts working under the auspices of the National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation of Colombia. The GMH was tasked under Law 975 with producing a report on the origins and causes of the armed conflict in Colombia. Despite the dominant right-wing political context and the ongoing armed conflict, the GMH enjoyed intellectual and operative autonomy in its research. This article interrogates the dynamics and reasons that served as the basis for the GMH's special sensitivity towards victims; the notion of victim implicit in the research work, with its inclusions and exclusions; and the dilemmas that arose in the group's work. We argue that the GMH can be characterized as an agent of knowledge production about a violent past that was able to articulate comprehensive and plural narratives about violence in Colombia. However, this work was limited by state and institutional dynamics that sought to domesticate and instrumentalize the voices of those who had been systematically silenced. A review of the GMH's work suggests three critical dilemmas that constrain truth-telling mechanisms: the dilemma between opening spaces for truth telling and the safety of those providing testimony; the dilemma around whose victims' voices gain authority in the documentation process; and the risks of institutionalizing a discourse around victims that bestows narrative capital to state and societal institutions. © The Author (2015).

Aristas del Conflicto refleja los diálogos sostenidos al interior de la Línea Democracia y Justicia de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad del Rosario. El volumen está conformado por seis capítulos. El primero de ellos, Análisis del Marco Jurídico para la paz ¿Una ley para quienes?, hace un seguimiento al marco jurídico para la paz propuesto por el gobierno Santos para darle sustento jurídico a los diálogos que se llevan a cabo en la Habana con la guerrilla de las FARC; en el texto se indaga si éste es un modelo que garantiza o no los derechos de las víctimas. El segundo capítulo, Tomarse el derecho en serio: el derecho en las transiciones políticas. A propósito del caso colombiano, analiza cuáles concepciones del derecho son favorables a los fines normativos de la justicia transicional. El capítulo siguiente, La reparación a las víctimas en la Ley de Justicia y Paz, un modelo de desacuerdos y falsas promesas, se centra en el debate sobre los derechos adquiridos por las víctimas del conflicto armado y las expectativas creadas en el marco de la reparación judicial de la Ley de Justicia y Paz. El escrito Asimetrías en el Proceso de Justicia y Paz en Colombia deja de lado la mirada jurídica, y ofrece una etnografía de los espacios y procedimientos judiciales; en otras palabras, observa y describe la compleja forma en la que se interrelacionan tres ámbitos de producción de conocimiento, diferentes y asimétricos, inherentes a la ley de Justicia y Paz. En el capitulo Conflicto Armado Colombiano, Feminismo Radical Criollo se evalúan las influencias de los discursos feministas en la comprensión del conflicto armado colombiano. Y, por último, el capítulo Comprendiendo al Ejército analiza de que manera algunos altos mandos del ejército nacional colombiano se auto representan, cómo inventan su tradición, y cuál es el trasfondo mediante el cual justifican sus acciones. ; Edge of the Conflict reflects the dialogues held within the Democracy and Justice Line of the Faculty of Jurisprudence of the Universidad del Rosario. The volume is made up of six chapters. The first of them, Analysis of the Legal Framework for Peace, A Law for Whom ?, follows up on the legal framework for peace proposed by the Santos government to give legal support to the dialogues that take place in Havana with the FARC guerrilla; the text investigates whether or not this is a model that guarantees the rights of the victims. The second chapter, Taking the law seriously: the law in political transitions. Regarding the Colombian case, it analyzes which conceptions of law are favorable to the normative purposes of transitional justice. The next chapter, Reparation to victims in the Justice and Peace Law, a model of disagreements and false promises, focuses on the debate on the rights acquired by victims of the armed conflict and the expectations created in the framework of reparation. judicial of the Law of Justice and Peace. The writing Asymmetries in the Justice and Peace Process in Colombia leaves aside the legal perspective, and offers an ethnography of judicial spaces and procedures; In other words, it observes and describes the complex way in which three different and asymmetric areas of knowledge production are interrelated, inherent in the Justice and Peace law. In the chapter Colombian Armed Conflict, Criollo Radical Feminism, the influences of feminist discourses on the understanding of the Colombian armed conflict are evaluated. And, finally, the chapter Understanding the Army analyzes the way in which some high commanders of the Colombian national army represent themselves, how they invent their tradition, and what is the background by which they justify their actions.