Chairs:

• Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
• Alberto Rojas Ríos
• Antonio Jose Lizarazo Ocampo
• Jose Fernando Reyes Cuartas
• Alejandro Linares Cantillo

SPEAKERS

Juan Sebastián	Villamil Rodríguez
Luis	Botello-Moncada
María Sofía	Sagüés

Peace is a universal aspiration of humanity and a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter and referenced in many constitutions. After the Second World War, nations collectively committed themselves to establishing a world order rooted in peace, and many included provisions in their constitutions to uphold peace as a fundamental social value. Today, peace is at the center of one of the most difficult challenges faced by numerous democracies around the world: social fragmentation and political polarization. Therefore, the constitutional concept of peace includes not only the international public law commitment to non-aggression, but also the domestic meaning of peace within the state—social peace among, or even despite, the social and cultural diversity of contemporary states. Thus, some constitutions seek to protect the concept of peace simply by rejecting war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples, while others frame peace as the primary vocation of the state. In Europe, several constitutions declare their intention to engage in various forms of international cooperation in order to protect peace and human rights. Very often, constitutional preambles treat peace as a primary objective of the political community within the state or refer to peace as a tool to heal historical divisions and reconcile populations after armed conflicts.

At the same time, the constitutional concept of peace may carry an entirely different meaning and address internal outcomes such as social cohesion and the necessary prevention of social conflict, or “civic/social peace.”

Social peace and conflict resolution may even require interpreting vaguely defined constitutional provisions in a way that enables a legal system free of contradictions and guarantees the balance among constitutional values. It also implies the calming of state authorities and political actors, as well as ongoing mediation between state power and civil society. Achieving and maintaining peace requires forging consensus through constitutional frameworks, resolving historical disputes through peaceful negotiation, and relying on constitutional principles to preserve social harmony.

In this context, and within the thematic axis “Rule of Law: Courts as Defenders or Reformers of Constitutionalism,” five former judges of the Constitutional Court of Colombia would like to propose addressing any of the many aspects of peace at the intersection with the concept of constitutionalism, including peace as a constitutional right (the right to peace), in accordance with the following proposal:

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND PEACE PROCESSES AROUND THE WORLD: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH WITH EMPHASIS ON COLOMBIA

Constitutional courts play a crucial role in contemporary peace processes, acting as guardians of constitutional supremacy and guarantors of respect for human rights. Their intervention can determine the legitimacy, viability, and sustainability of peace agreements, especially when these involve constitutional reforms, amnesties, the creation of special jurisdictions, or transitional justice measures. The purpose of this panel is to offer a technical analysis of the role of constitutional courts in different contexts, with particular attention to the Colombian case.

1. Constitutional Function in Transitional Contexts
   In peace processes, constitutional courts assume a dual function: first, as guardians of the existing constitutional order; and second, as facilitators of the transition toward a new social pact. This tension is reflected in constitutional review of the norms that implement peace agreements, as well as in the flexible interpretation of the constitutional text to allow for the consolidation of peace without sacrificing the essential principles of the rule of law.
2. Comparative Experiences
   In South Africa, the Constitutional Court upheld the system of conditional amnesties established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, arguing that the pursuit of truth and symbolic reparation could be compatible with constitutional justice, provided that the amnesties were proportional and did not shield serious international crimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court assumed a structural role in interpreting the Dayton Agreement, ensuring that the new institutions derived from the agreement respected the separation of powers and minority rights. In Guatemala, the Constitutional Court has intervened in overseeing judicial reforms arising from the 1996 Peace Accords, highlighting the importance of institutional strengthening as a component of lasting peace.
3. The Colombian Case
   The Constitutional Court of Colombia has been a central actor in the implementation of the Final Agreement with the FARC (November 2016). Its jurisprudence has balanced the political autonomy of the agreements with the need to ensure compliance with the State’s international obligations. In Judgment C-674 of 2017, the Court recognized the special character of the Peace Agreement but reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the impossibility of introducing permanent reforms outside the formal mechanisms for constitutional amendment. Likewise, in Judgment C-080 of 2018, the Court upheld the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), reiterating that transitional justice must guarantee victims’ rights to truth, justice, reparation, and non-repetition.

The Court has also exercised control over implementation legislation, as in Judgment C-588 of 2019, in which it defined the scope of the JEP’s jurisdiction regarding members of the armed forces, reaffirming the principle of equality before the law and the need for proportionality in sanctions. Together, these decisions have shaped a model of transitional justice that is constitutionally compatible and balances the values of peace, justice, and reconciliation.

Conclusion
The comparative analysis shows that constitutional courts play an indispensable role in the consolidation of peace. Beyond the formal review of constitutionality, their interpretive function and their role in safeguarding human rights make them essential actors in transitional justice. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court has helped harmonize peace and justice, offering a valuable example for other transitional processes seeking to balance political stability with the State’s legal and moral responsibility.

Tensions and Challenges
Constitutional courts face the challenge of maintaining their independence and legitimacy in politically polarized contexts. Their intervention may be perceived either as an obstacle to the popular will or, conversely, as a safeguard of the rule of law. The Colombian case illustrates how rigorous judicial review of peace agreements can strengthen their democratic legitimacy, provided that the court acts with prudence, consistency, and reasonable deference toward the Legislature and the Constituent Power.