The discussion of recognition of the existence of armed conflict reminds me of the story of the king who was deceived by his negligence suits and wore a suit invisible at a public event where the participants, despite knowing that carrying nothing, accepted the idea of \u200b\u200ban invisible suit. Uribe's government at the time tried to convince the public of the existence of a terrorist threat and not an internal conflict, many believed him, but in the awareness that the conflict there is and has been a reality. Anyway, the legal framework of the implications that brings one or other definition might suggest much less than the discussion believe. I dare to say that armed conflict and terrorist threat today is not mutually exclusive events.
An internal conflict does not necessarily recognize a state of belligerent armed rebels who are fighting the rule of law. The plight of Colombia's all a long historical process that began with the political demands of a popular group, divisions between slopes and gradual evolution irregular armies reached jeopardize the state. But a fierce battle against a decrepit state, weak, but sustained by a democratic discipline characteristic of the Colombian people -Not without vices, proved all sources of funding that made partakers of organized crime and drug trafficking emanating from the then kings of this profitable business.
are over 40 years that the illegal armies have fought the government and through different processes, the Colombian State, not subject to constitutional periods, recognized either implicitly or explicitly the existence of a conflict actors outside the law and a legitimate representative government of national interests. An internal conflict of the characteristics of Colombia is not nothing but a sustained armed conflict that links a actors with clear roles: some representatives of popular will and another that seeks to depose them. No causal relationship has to call the warring parties to the conflict when there are groups with some kind of territorial, popular or, indeed, representatives of an internationally recognized independence cause. Neither the FARC nor the ELN, much less criminal gangs have some of these features and do not need a law to give them a specific treatment when the crimes they have committed systematically engages in conduct that departs from state actors of belligerence and subversive movements about terrorist practices.
Apelar a la denominación de conflicto armado lo que permite, en el núcleo de una ley como la que permite la reparación a las víctimas de los hechos que involucren a una acción armada y violenta en concreto, es que se impida ambigüedades que puedan representar altos costos fiscales para el Estado. Dicho de otro modo: un terrorista podría ser un delincuente como el tristemente célebre Chacal o ser terrorista todo un frente guerrillero. Más sin embargo ambos casos no responden a motivaciones similares y, en un contexto como el de Colombia, los hechos históricos sugieren que los frentes guerrilleros, los grupos de autodefensas and some State agents have committed crimes in a context of conflict in particular, not isolated events caused by the insanity of a criminal. Define an armed conflict allows for actors and the establishment of the actors can outline the responsibilities: the FARC and the illegal groups still insist that make war against the state and soon will have to assume the State will pay for work and omissions in this confrontation. Recognize that a conflict exists is not to lose.
0 comments:
Post a Comment