The Afro-Colombian identity has been characterized for being notoriously strong in certain areas of the country but extremely weak in others. In the 1970s some Afro-Colombian activists made possible the “creation” of an identity discourse that is based on their ancestors’ historical struggles and contributions to the nation. Behind this “recent” discourse there is a strategy that seeks the elimination of racist practices and other human rights abuses against Afro-descendants. To what extent has this ethnic discourse been successful? Why have some Afro-Colombians resisted ethnic homogenization projects whereas many of them have followed the elites’ rules? What are the challenges of the Afro-Colombian identity-building process and mobilization? The author intends to answer these questions, while explaining the importance for Afro-Colombians of their heritage and ethnic self-awareness as a political tool. The paper represents one of the few works of its kind that studies the Afro-Colombian ethnic identity discourse and the political strategy behind its social goals.

Prescriptive ideas on war have been traditionally focused on the reasons and the means of war. However, contemporary scholars have emphasised the importance of normative judgements about the aftermath of armed conflicts. Although peacetime after war has been mainly guided by notions of corrective justice like retribution and restoration, a distributive approach to justice is currently proposed to redress socio-economic inequalities within highly unequal post-conflict scenarios. From this perspective, a peaceful state of affairs that preserves severe inequalities could not be deemed a just peace. In this regard, Colombian conflict is frequently utilised as an example of the expected role of distribution after war. Then, it seems a relevant question whether reducing socio-economic inequalities through mechanisms of distributive justice must be considered indispensable for a just peace after war. I will argue that distributive justice must be regarded as essential for a just peace within highly unequal post-conflict societies like Colombia. To that end, consequentialist and deontological arguments for post-conflict distribution will be discussed to analyse Colombian case as a scenario in which a just peace must necessarily include notions of distribution.

The neoliberal discourse around development proposed liberalization and market based strategies to increase economic growth and productivity. The retreat of the state gave the market and the private sector a predominant role in trade, investment and industrial and technological upgrade. In this context, the increasing role of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) in the globalized economy strengthened the focus on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as an important tool for development, and intensified the competition to attract investments between countries. This paper suggests that rather, than being a magic formula for achieving development or having a general effect –either positive or negative-, FDI’s impact, seen as positive spillovers and effective industrial and technological upgrading, depends on the sector in which investment is being made, level of intervention and direction that the host government is applying, and the absorption capacity of the host economy.

Colombia internal conflict between paramilitary armies and the central government is a topic that has been studied widely from different perspectives, including, but not limited to, studies on forced disappearance, internal displacement, the war on drugs, and the incidence of United States in Colombian internal warfare (Richani, 2013; Acemoglu et al., 2013; Aviléz, 2006; Dube & Naidu, 2015). By contrast, 2005 peace process between Colombian government and illegal paramilitary armies grouped under the umbrella organization named United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), has not been addressed with the same dedication. The objective of the present research is to analyze the 2005 Colombian peace-settlement through the scope of jus post bellum theory, aiming to see the possible deviations of the peace process from a just war theory moral perspective. According to jus post bellum theorist, a just peace-settlement can help to avoid repetition, while an unjust one can derive into new confrontation (Bell, 2013; Turner Johnson, 2012; Philpott, 2010). By achieving this goal this project intends to provide an ethical reflection on the course of action followed in Colombia to finish war with the self-defense armies, and to enrich Colombian debate about peace policy making in a time when the government is now negotiating a new peace settlement with FARC guerrilla.