| Summary: | <p>The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP, for its acronym in Spanish) is the set of national judicial institutions that adjudicate the crimes committed by the FARC-EP and the Colombian Government during the internal armed conflict between 1964 and 2016. The JEP’s legitimacy has been contested mainly because the institution was created after implementing the 2016 Peace Agreement, which was rejected in a referendum that year. However, the difficulties in modifying the JEP’s design, by-laws, and operation, the better reputation compared to other older judicial institutions, and the fact that most of the JEP’s rulings are fulfilled suggest that the JEP’s legitimacy is higher than expected.</p>
<p>This thesis endeavours to explain such a puzzle by verifying the extent to which the factors that affect judicial institutions’ legitimacy are consistent with the JEP’s case —e.g. diffuse and specific support, salience, obedience, and age. To do so, this document draws on polls, media studies, and data collected in fieldwork —a large number of interviews and the participant observation of hearings. It also proposes measurements of the factors impacting the legitimacy of judicial institutions and a scale to gauge the legitimacy of transitional justice tribunals. Finally, it assesses the JEP’s legitimacy and outlines some contributions to the existing literature.</p>
|
|---|