BOGOTÁ - COLOMBIA JANUARY 2018
POLICY PAPER #5 ARTÍFICES DE LA MEMORIA ESCUELA SUPERIOR DE GUERRA “GENERAL RAFAEL REYES PRIETO”
Differences between the Historical Memory of Victims of Law 1448 of Colombia and Historical Military Memory: A Theoretical and Practical Approach
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN CONFLICTO Y MEMORIA HISTÓRICA MILITAR
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF VICTIMS OF LAW 1448 OF COLOMBIA AND HISTORICAL MILITARY MEMORY: A THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL APPROACH
AUTHORS: Eduardo Pastrana Buelvas* Mario Arroyave Quintero** Translated by: Louise Anne Lowe***
*Professor in the Department of International Relations of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (PUJ), Bogota, Colombia and Leader of the Research Group on International Relations and Latin American Integration (GRIALI). Advisor to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Colombia, and the Superior Academy of Warfare (ESDEGUE) of the Colombian Ministry of Defence. Doctor in International Law from the University of Leipzig, Germany. Contact: epastrana@javeriana.edu.co; efpastranab@ gmail.com **Professor in the Department of International Relations of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (PUJ), Bogota, Colombia. Doctor Iuris (Ph.D) from the University of Hamburg, Germany. Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of Leipzig, Germany. Contact: mario.arroyave@javeriana.edu.co; marioaaq@gmail.com ***Master of Arts (Honours) in Politics and International Relations from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Student of the Masters in Political Science at Los Andes University, Bogota. Research Assistant in the Escuela Superior de Guerra.
POLICY PAPER #5
Abstract There are many theoretical and practical differences between the historical memory of victims and historical military memory. Therefore, this paper attempts to identify, interpret and account for such differences. Firstly, it is argued that the historical memory of victims is based on the right to memory while historical military memory has its raison d’être in the need for the institution to build its collective identity. Secondly, the memory of victims is individual or collective, while institutional memory will always be collective. Thirdly, the memory of victims is post-heroic, while institutional memory is heroic. Fourthly, the memory of victims is communicative memory, while military memory is cultural. And finally, different types of sources of investigation are identified for both the memory of victims and for institutional memory.
3
Introduction This policy paper identifies five theoretical-practical differences between the historical memory of victims of the Law 1448 and the institutional historical memory of the Armed Forces. The first difference is that while the historical memory of victims is based on the right to memory of the state, historical military memory is based on the need for identity in the Armed Forces. The second difference is that while the memory of victims is, above all, individual memory, institutional memory is always collective. The third difference is that the memory of victims is a post-heroic memory, while institutional or military memory is heroic. The fourth difference is that while the memory of victims is communicative, military memory is cultural. Similarly, institutional memory is permanent, while the memory of conflict victims has a temporal framework. The fifth difference lies in the sources of investigation. On one hand, the memory of victims comes from their own stories, while institutional memory goes beyond the testimonies of victims and has available not only the accounts of the people who make up the institution, be them victims or not, but also symbols, figures, narratives, texts, heroes, operations, rituals, etc., which have a constitutive effect on the institutional identity of the Armed Forces.
Historical memory is understood as a tool with which individuals and societies build a sense of the past. Hence, it is composed of individual and collective memories, which are, at the same time, interpretations of events that have already happened. Historical memory involves the reconstruction of the facts provided by different actors who share a social life in the present, in which process they project and reconstruct a reinvented past (Betancourt, 2004, p. 126). As such, Halbwachs (2004) referred to historical memory as a building of stories about significant events favoured by the construction of national history.
The construction of the historical memory of victims of Law 14481 is based on the fulfilment of an international obligation of the state called The Duty of Memory2 . That is to say, Law 1448 of 2011 embeds in Colombian national law the Duty of Memory, an obligation contained in international standards and principles against impunity3. Such standards constitute minimum standards of conduct which oblige states to investigate, punish crimes against human rights, establish effective remedies for justice, impose appropriate penalties on the perpetrators of crimes, and to protect and make reparations to all victims whose rights were abused (Valdivieso, The Difference Between the Historical 2012, p. 625).
Memory of Victims and Historical MiPrinciples 1 to 4 of the set of principles for the litary Memory
protection and promotion of human rights through the fight against impunity establish the inalienable right to the truth, the duty to remember,
Law 1448 of 2011, also known as the Victims Law, establishes a set of judicial, administrative, social and economic measures, both individual and collective, for the benefit of the victims during the internal armed conflict. 2 The principal of the duty to remember consists of “The knowledge of a people of the history of oppression that forms part of their heritage and, therefore, must be conserved through the adoption of adequate measures for the duty to remember, making it incumbent on the state to preserve archives and other proofs related to violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and to facilitate the knowledge of said violations. These measures must be aimed at preserving the collective memory from being forgotten and, in particular, avoiding the emergence of revisionist and negationist theses”. 3 See: Promotion and Protection of Human Rights – Impunity – Report by Diane Orentlicher, Independent expert charged with updating the set of principles for the fight against impunity. Human Rights Commission, 61st session. E/CN.4/2005/102 18th February 2005 (What type of normative instrument is a resolution of said organism?) Economic and Social Council. 1
4
and the right of victims to know the reasons for the atrocities committed. The right to truth has an individual manifestation, of which the victim is properly the owner, and a collective manifestation, which concerns the society in which systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law took place (Botero, 2006, p. 72).
The duty of memory is connected to the right to the truth of which the victims of human rights violations in the framework of an armed conflict are the owners, and therefore, the construction of historical memory is an integral part of transitional justice. That is, the duty to remember is a strategy or demand of transitional justice, which gives the framework and legal and political feasibility to negotiations for a peace process. In this sense, for peace to be considered legitimate, the rights of the victims must be guaranteed. The rights of the victims, and of society as a whole, to build a collective memory must be seen as essential interests and be guaranteed in an effective way if the political agreements are to be effective and legitimate (Vela, 2013, p.23). The right to truth has two aspects: firstly, victims have an individual right to know the truth, and secondly, society as a whole has a collective right to know the truth in the framework of the conflict. The construction of historical memory is a form of satisfying the right to truth, as it is derived from the right to know, to remember and to reaffirm the identity of a social group, in the process of which the atrocities committed in the past are accounted for and made visible, and at
the same time, the historical memory that is built must be established as a guarantee of non-repetition. As such, such an obligation is part of transitional justice and is therefore a measure of satisfaction and a guarantee of non-repetition in the framework of the end of the conflict. The construction of historical memory is a measure of satisfaction, framed in the right to truth of both the victims and civil society in general. On the other hand, Law 1448 is neither the source nor the foundation of the institutional memory of the Armed Forces, as the institutional memory goes beyond the victims and even the Colombian armed conflict. The institutional memory is a collective memory that gives identity and form to the Armed Forces, which overflows the sources of the mere victims.
That is to say, institutional memory is not concerned only with the memories and stories of the victims, but rather it also covers the action and identity of the Armed Forces. Historical memory is a measure of satisfaction, while historical military memory is a measure of institutional cohesion. Institutional historical memory allows the force to identify and document its role in the framework of the internal armed conflict. What does the force have to say about the actions and events that happened? What was its experience? While some will point out that Law 1448 orders different institutions to make historical memory, or better put, to help in the construction of the historical memory of victims, this is not the mandate for the construction of institutional memory. Law 1448 asks for help in building the stories of
5
the victims. Article 143 brings an invitation to the agencies of the state to make progress in memory reconstruction exercises as a contribution to the achieving the right to the truth that the victims are entitled to4v.
From Individual or Collective Memory to the Institutional Institutional memory is always a collective memory, whereas historical memory in the sense of Law 1448 is principally an individual memory, which can also become a shared socialisation process of collective memory. However, not all individual memories are also collective memories. In effect, there will be individual memories that remain as such. However, one may wonder if the memories of the victims are also collective. The answer is a possible yes, but it is collective only within the closest groups to the victims, such as family and the community to which they belong. However, the stories of the victims do not automatically become a collective national memory, because this type of memory is part of the external experience of the subject, which happened a long time ago and are immersed in the culture of a people, group or nation. The memory of the victims, and of the conflict in general, can become collective for future generations. But for now, we are faced with individual memories of specific events lived by the victims.
Every individual possesses a capacity to develop individual memories. In this sense, in the course of said process, individual memory is forged. In contrast, collective memory can be defined as the joint capacity of a group of people – a social group, a village – has to develop collective memories.
The French sociologist and philosopher Maurice Halbwachs developed the social theory of the collective memory of the individual and thereby departs from the attempts at biological explanations of memory typical in the first three decades of the 20th century. He constructed his theory based on the presumption that memory is constituted through a reciprocal relationship between individual and group, that is, transmitted through intersubjectivity and marked by the tension between the internal experience of the subject and their interaction with the group as an external experience. Consequently, the individual needs a social framework (soziale Rahmen), manifested in the dimensions of historical time and social space, in which context the membership of a defined group is structured, which is transmitted by the connection that occurs through sharing a common language (Echterhoff & Saar 2002, in Krüger 2011). Through the communicative action between the members of a group – transmitted through intersubjectivity – the possibility arises of localising traces of memory in the individual and from this developing a complete image of a memory (Erinnerungsbild). Hence Habermas argues that the concept of communicative action presupposes language as a means of understanding, through which speakers and listeners refer, from the pre-interpreted horizon, to what their world of life represents for them (Habermas, 2002). According to Halbwachs, memories are only formed in the interconnection or intersubjectivity that people have with a certain current situation (Halbwachs 1985, in Krüger 2011).
The memory of the individual is permeated by shared experiences within a given community. Even memories of a uniquely personal nature are shaped through the communications and interactions that one experiences in the framework of a specific social group.
Article 143 of Law 1448 of 2011, expressly states that “the duty of the Memory of the State translates into providing the necessary guarantees and conditions for society, through its different expressions such as victims, academia, think tanks, social organisations, victims’ and human rights organisations, as well as the organisms of the state that have competence, autonomy and resources, can progress in memory reconstruction exercises as a contribution to the realisation of the right to truth to which victims, and society as a whole, are entitled”. 4
6
In other words, a person builds their individual memory through their participation in social communicative processes. Strictly speaking, it is not the memories that are individual, but rather the sensations. Above all, this is because sensations and emotions are linked to our body and internal experience, while memories have their origin in the thoughts we share with others, who are also part of social groups, and in which we are also integrated (Assmann, J. 1992). From this, Halbwachs makes a distinction between history and memory. In this sense, history had for him a universal and impartial aspiration. While the bearers of collective memory are, on the contrary, groups limited to their space and time, for which their memories are strongly valued and hierarchized by themselves (Saar 2002, in KrĂźger 2011). Additionally, he starts from the idea that there are multiple collective memories, which can exist parallelly. Halbwachs thinks about families, neighbourhoods, work groups, parties, associations and even the nation. Every individual is included in one of these multiple groups and therefore participates in multiple self-images and collective memories (Assmann, J. 1988). Although there are distinctions between individual memory and social or collective memory, on one hand, both are permanently related to each other, while on the other hand, both reciprocally influence the other (Schwelling, 2015). One way or another, we are presented with a mixture which we could call individual memory, collective memory and historical memory (Betancourt, 2004, p. 126). Individual memory exists, but it is rooted in the frames of simultaneity, because personal recollection is situated at a crossroads of multiple solidarities in which we are permanently connected (Betancourt, 2004, p. 126). Collective memory is that which magically recomposes the past, whose memories refer to the experience that a community or group can pass on to an individual or group of individuals (Betancourt, 2004, p. 126). In sum, it is from 5
the way in which something is remembered or forgotten that signs of identity can be traced as ways in which individuals are constructed as subjects and members of collectives (RiaĂąo, 1999).
Historical military memory as institutional memory is never an individual memory, insofar as institutional and national memories are not individual but rather collective. The concept of institutional memory refers to all knowledge and the memory shared by an organised group of people, particularly an institution, an entity, a government, a church, a business or the Armed Forces. Institutional memory serves to preserve the specific knowledge of an institution over a long period of time, independent of whether the people that form the institution change. The knowledge implicit in this type of memory is composed of facts, methods, experiences, behaviours, etc., and the method of its preservation can be through oral declarations, exchanges of experiences, written accounts, archives, databases and the like5. Institutions and agencies do not have a memory in the sense of individual memory, but rather they possess only a collective memory, because institutions do not have biological foundations comparable with the anthropological disposition and which constitute the natural mechanisms of memories. Therefore, there are always voices that warn that collective memory is a mere mythification (Assmann, A. 2008). Institutions and organisations such as nations, states, the church, a business or the Armed Forces do not have memory in the sense of human beings. Accordingly, they are built collectively, for which historical drawings and symbols, heroes, as well as texts, photographs, rites, practices, shared values, places and monuments are used. At the same time, institutions and organisations create identity with said memory (Assmann, A. 2008).
See: http://de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dewiki/784257 Consulted: 25.11.16
7
Post-Heroic Memory and Heroic Memory The memory of victims is post-heroic memory, because it puts emphasis on the people affected by armed confrontations, that is to say, on the victims. The model tries to show the tragedies of the victims in the context and development of the armed conflict, in order to dignify them in the face of the unjust actions that befell them and also to guarantee non-repetition. Law 1448, and the duty of memory in general, seek to protect victims. Likewise, they look for the guilt of the perpetrator, for which emphasis is put on their responsibility (Schwelling, 2015). That is to say, this model is directed at perpetrators responding for the damages inflicted on their victims. That is why it is a question of not letting the atrocities committed against human rights be forgotten.
Historical institutional memory, on the other hand, does not represent a post-heroic memory, as promoted in Law 1448, but rather it is built as a heroic memory, whose objective is to highlight or exalt the role of the Armed Forces in the framework of the development of the conflict. Institutional historical memory considers its victims in order to broaden the understanding of the legitimate role of the institution in Colombian society. However, it also considers the actions that generate identity in the process of institutional dynamics. For this reason, everything that generates and consolidates the institutional identity must be documented and disseminated, with the purpose of giving it social visibility and a public projection. 8
Accordingly, the construction of historical military memory offers the Armed Forces the opportunity of providing society its own point of view on what was the armed conflict and the legitimate role fulfilled by the institution in the framework of the conflict, which allows that nation to have a better understanding of its history. This memory should be written with its own authorship, from the point of view of the institution, proactively, and not leave the task to external – and in some cases hostile – observers, which may be totally alien to the experiences shared by members of the Armed Forces facing the internal armed conflict. Moreover, the construction of historical institutional memory is an opportunity to show the true and legitimate role played by the Armed Forces in the framework of the armed conflict. In this sense, one can demonstrate how the Armed Forces have been a fundamental pillar of the construction of the Colombian nation and state; it is the opportunity to write and make visible the positive ways that the institution has guaranteed the security of citizens and the territorial, political and social integration of the country.
The Armed Forces are one of the state institutions that most generate a feeling of identity for the Colombian people. For that reason, the Armed Forces should be remembered as the defenders of sovereignty, as the forgers of independence and as builders of the state. Institutional historical memory must account for the participation of the Armed Forces in the defence of the territory, in the fight against narcotrafficking and against organised crime.
The most important characteristic of communicative memory is its limited timeframe. It does not go back further than a period of time between 80 and, maximum, 100 years; that is to say, it survives with 3 or 4 generations and communicative memory dies with its carrier. For example, communicative memory can be conserved while survivors inform the following generations about the crimes of which they were victims. At the moment, with regards to memory of the holocaust, we are in a transition from communicative memory to cultural memory, because the last survivors and witnesses of the events will In this way, military memory is nourished by the not live much longer (Krßger, 2011). heroic acts of its members in the fulfilment of their legitimate duty. Institutional memory does Historical memory of victims is, in the first insnot have impartial or involuntary moments be- tance, communicative memory, as it deals with cause it is built in a symbolic way. It is a me- particular stories of what the victims have lived mory of will and calculated choice (Assmann, A. and how they share those memories with their 2008). Accordingly, the Colombian Armed For- contemporaries (Schwelling, B. 2015). This type ces can construct their memory in a calculated of memory is different from the memory of those way, exalting their glory, victories or even their who were born after an atrocious event occurred and who did not live it directly. In this senmistakes and lessons learned. se, the historical memory of Law 1448 can be The Difference Between Communicative defined legally as the accounts of the victims of the internal armed conflict, that is to say, the hisMemory and Cultural Memory torical memory contemplated in Law 1448 is the In the 1980s, Jan Assmann developed, in rejec- memory of victims; those are the memories that tion of the theory of memory of Halbwachs, the can be shared by those directly affected by the theory of communicative memory and cultural conflict. As has been said, it is a matter of commemory. These two forms can be merged in the municative memory, which embodies the direct concept of collective memory, although both re- account of those who lived an atrocity. Therefopresent different frameworks of memory (zwei re, they are the memories of those who can be Gedächtnisrahmen) (Assmann, J. 1992). described as victims6. In addition, they must be remembered as guarantors of the respect for human rights in Colombia. It is of great importance to show the events and life stories that can account for what happened during the internal armed conflict. Moreover, the actions by which the Armed Forces have been helping to build the statehood and institutionality of the Colombian state must be made visible, mechanisms through which the Armed Forces have been constructing themselves as the maximum guarantor of the defence and consolidation of national sovereignty.
Communicative memory is a substantial component of collective memory, which takes form, is expressed and reproduced in day to day communications (oral history). It is characterised by its closeness to daily life and contains what people, based on their memories of the direct past, transmit to following generations (Assmann 1988). 6
On the other hand, although historical military memory is also communicative memory among the members of the institution who share a daily life, it is above all a cultural historical memory.
Cultural memory (Erinnerungskultur) is a collective, shared knowledge of the past on which rests the consciousness of unity and idiosyncrasy of a group (Assmann, J. 1988).
See: Article 3, Law 1448 of 2011
9
Cultural memory is history in the memories of the present (Assmann, A. 2007). In the definition of Astrid Erll (2008) cultural memories are represented as the variable forms of historical and cultural nature in collective memory (Erll, 2008). Erll argues that various cultural memories always coexist and that, within a culture or society, even if it is very homogenous, there are always a multiplicity of communities of memory (Erinnerungsgemeinschaften). According to Jan Assmann, cultural memory is the fulfilment of a social obligation. The core question is: what cannot be forgotten? Cultural memory is the memory that gives form and defines the identifying features of a community. Hence, it is about the construction of identity and the process of self-understanding of a group. Consequently, cultural memory belongs to the plans and hopes of a given community, essentially because it contributes to the social formation of shared feelings and to the construction of the time frames of its historical evolution (Assmann, J. 1992).
be reconstructed exactly as it really happened. The past is always reconstructed from a current perspective. In this sense, according to Haberman (1969), “the world of transmitted and interpreted meaning is only open to the interpreter insofar as his own world is open to him. He who understands the meaning establishes a communication between both worlds; he captures the sense of what is transmitted only in terms of applying the tradition to himself.” Therefore, each society remembers the past it needs for its present (Krüger, 2011).
Finally, it is emphasised that cultural memory is characterised by its distance from daily life. Cultural memory has fixed points, and its horizon does not change in the face of the transformations of the present. Such fixed points are the events of destiny, of the past, and said memories remain awake or alive through cultural forms – texts, rituals, monuments – and institutionalised communication – recitation, celebration, contemplation. All of these can be called memoCultural memory represents an external dimen- rial figures (Erinnerungsfiguren) (Krüger 2011). sion of human memory (Außendimension des menschlichen Gedächtnisses) (Assmann 1992). According to Halbwachs, the only thing that The specific imprint of what gives a human be- remains from the past is that which each coming a sense of belonging to a given society, and munity can reconstruct in each epoch with its at the same time gives them knowledge of their corresponding frame of reference. Reference to culture, is conserved through the generations. the stories of glory and victims has, since the It is not that this process is understood as an 19th century, been one of the main tools in the element of phylogenetic evolution, but rather construction of the nation – a heroic cultural methat it is understood as a process of socialisa- mory (eine heroisierende Erinnerungskultur). tion and of the transmission of the legacy of the tradition of a community. Therefore, cultural me- In this way, historical military memory mory is a catalysing concept of all knowledge, is a cultural memory which gives through which control is exercised over the conidentity cohesion and projection to ducts and experiences of the individual in the framework of specific action, within a specific the Armed Forces. society. This shared knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation for its practice Historical memory, as cultural memory, does not and appropriation (Assmann 1988). According have as a frame of reference only the armed to Assmann (1988) the past can be rebuilt conflict, but can also be found in the origins of through cultural memory, beyond the centuries the Armed Forces themselves, that is, the era or millennia (über Jahrtausende hinweg). Fixed of independence can be determined as a point points and events such as the holocaust act as of origin. Therefore, historical military memory testimony and reference points for the recons- is not reduced to the temporality of the armed truction of the past. However, the past cannot conflict. 10
Sources of investigation: the memory Building historical military memory based only on victims reproduces a partial or incomplete viof victims and institutional memory sion of both the Armed Forces and indeed the entire Colombian armed conflict. As such, it is indispensable to turn to other memories, such The construction of the memory as those of the high commanders, veterans, poof victims and of historical military lice and the citizens who have lived the conflict, memory differs in terms of the sources but who are not necessarily defined as victims, consulted to access the information in order to construct an inclusive historical memory, because the memory of other actors involthat serves to support the research. ved is fundamental to understand the effects of The historical memory of victims is reduced to the Colombian armed conflict. the memory of the victims, and as such, represents only one part of the conflict. In this point, Recommendations it should be considered that the Colombian conflict has had a long duration and has become so complex, that its understanding and explanaIt is recommended, to the different units of the tion cannot be reduced only to the stories of the Armed Forces, that their mission be to produce victims. The historical memory of the victims, institutional memory and to avoid having only having them as its source, leaves out those witLaw 1448 as the basis of its construction, becaunesses who were actors in the conflict but are se as has been observed, military memory goes not considered victims under Law 1448. far beyond that of victims and tries in particular to establish the elements which give identity and The construction of memory is understood in belonging to the individuals who conform said Law 1448 as a “contribution to the realisation institution. of the right to truth of which the victim and society as a whole are entitled” … “Memory is an In this sense, the units which have assumed individual right of the victims and of society as the task of constructing the historical memory of a whole.” Similarly, Article 145 establishes the the Armed Forces must concentrate their efforts actions needed in terms of historical memory, in research and publications that identify and and in section 2, it is made clear that one of said clarify the institution’s symbols, rituals, beliefs, actions is to collect the oral testimonies of the values, texts, figures, operations and missions, victims and their families. That is to say, memory etc. Similarly, the report should highlight the acof the conflict is intended to be built from the victions and activities of the Armed Forces in the tims and the victimising actions. framework of the conflict, and finally, said units must continue to write the memory of their own The memory of victims is made with victims in line with Law 1448.
the accounts of the victims of the armed conflict, while military memory is created with the symbols, texts, rituals, dignification of heroes, milestones, operations, beliefs, etc., that are shared by those who comprise the Armed Forces. Historical military cannot be reduced only to victims, but rather requires the consideration of other sources and even other actors.
11
Bibliography Assmann, J. (1988) Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität Assmann, J. (1992) Das kollektive Gedächtnis, Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen Assmann, A. (2007). Geschichte und Gedächtnis. Von der individuellen Erfahrung zur öffentlichen Inszenierung. Botero, C. (2006). Estándares Internacionales y Procesos de Transición en Colombia, En: ¿Justicia transicional sin transición? Verdad, Justicia y Reparación para Colombia. Betancourt Echeverry, D. (2004). Memoria Individual, Memoria Colectiva y Memoria Histórica: lo secreto y lo escondido en la narración y el recuerdo. En: la práctica investigativa en las ciencias sociales. Erll, A. (2011). Kollektives Gedächtnis und Erinnerungskulturen. Krüger, S. (2011). Erinnerung an den Holocaust – Gedächtnistheorien von Maurice Halbwachs und Jan Assmann. En: Zukunft braucht Erinnerung. http://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung.de/ erinnerung-an-den-holocaust-gedaechtnistheorien-von-maurice-halbwachs-und-jan-assmann/ Habermas, J. (1969). Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt (M): Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (2002). Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, I. Madrid: Taurus. Halbwachs, M. (2004). La memoria colectiva. Traducción de Inés Sancho-Arroyo Zaragoza, España. Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza Riaño, P. (1999). Recuerdos metodológicos: el taller y la investigación etnográfica. Estudios sobre las culturas contemporáneas. Universidad de Colima, México: 143-168. Schwelling, B. (2015). Erinnerungen an den Zweiten Weltkrieg und die nationalsozialistische Gewaltherrschaft im wiedervereinigten Deutschland Überlegungen zu einer postheroischen Erinnerungskultur und ihren Herausforderungen Eröffnungsveranstaltung, 5. Juni 2015, Zentralmuseum des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges Valdivieso, A. (2012). La justicia transicional en Colombia. Los estándares internacionales de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario en la política de Santos. Papel Político. Vol. 17, No. 2, 621-653, julio-diciembre 2012. Bogotá (Colombia). Vela, B. 2013. Los ideales de paz y los tiempos de guerra. En. Boletín de Historia y antigüedades Nº 856. Órgano de la academia colombiana de historia.
������ POLICY ����� PAPER �� #5 ARTÍFICES DE LA MEMORIA �������������� �� � � ESCUELA SUPERIOR���� DE GUERRA ������������ �� �������� ������������� Differences between the Historical Memory of Victims of �Law�� ���� 1448���� of Colombia���� and Historical Military Memory: A Theoretical and Practical Approach
Carrera 11 11 #102 - 50 Carrera #102 - 50 Bogotá - Colombia Bogotá - Colombia Conmutador (571) 620 4066 - 629 8980 Conmutador (571) 620 4066 - 629 8980 cmhm@esdegue.mil.co www.memoriahistoricamilitar.mil.co cmhm@esdegue.mil.co www.memoriahistoricamilitar.mil.co