This chapter utilizes the case of Colombia and its institutionalization of the search for the disappeared following the 2016 peace accords. Here, the author focuses on the institutional spaces of violence, disappearance, and death that the state is in charge of within the space of the search for the disappeared persons in Colombia, and the institutionalization process involved in the search for the disappeared that both predates and runs parallel to the peace accords. The author particularly delves into how that institutional control of death, disappearance, and ritual by the state further contributes to multiple different forms of violence which are enacted in concurrent circles across space, time, and communities.

This article tests claims from the comparative extractive literature by examining how state-company linkages shape civil society mobilization against extractive projects. We focus on convenios de cooperación (CCs)—contracts through which extractive companies finance branches of the Colombian armed forces or judiciary to provide security for company operations. We employ a mixed-methods design. First, we analyze a panel dataset of nearly six hundred contracts signed between 2002 and 2020, assessing their relationship to threats, assassinations of social leaders, arbitrary detentions, and other security indicators across municipalities. We then pair this statistical analysis with fieldwork in two case study sites: Jericó, Antioquia, and the Ariari region of Meta. Our analysis asks two central questions. How do CCs fit into extractive companies’ broader repertoires of community control? And what do they mean for civil society mobilization—how are they lived and felt on the ground? Findings reveal sectoral variation and differences in how CCs are activated and experienced over time. By introducing the first systematic dataset on CCs, we make visible a widespread but understudied mechanism through which firms embed repressive capacity in state security apparatuses, thereby advancing debates on corporate counterinsurgency, protest criminalization, and security governance in Latin America.

In most peacebuilding processes, the state is seen, particularly by the international community, as a primary and central arbitrator in peacebuilding and transitional justice processes. In this article, I critique the global system’s centralisation of the state, using Colombia as a case study. This critique of the state as a central site for peacebuilding in Colombia is driven from three key bodies of work: legal feminist institutional reform, radical Latin American feminist perspectives on the state as un macho violador, and Afro-Colombian intellectual traditions which call for ethnic regional autonomy, particularly from the Pacific region of the country.

Over the last 15 years, scholars, universities, and foundations have promoted numerous efforts to link the scholarly and policy communities of international relations. Increasing evidence suggests that scholars are succeeding in getting their ideas and findings in the press, and their success bodes well for their ability to influence public and elite opinion. Despite these strides, we know little about when journalists may pick up on academic ideas and evidence or how they will report it in their stories. We seek to fill this gap.

Female scholars of international relations and women in the general public are less likely than men to express political opinions—often choosing “I don’t know” more frequently and avoiding extreme responses. Using surveys of U.S. IR scholars and the public between 2014 and 2023, our study finds that, while political knowledge reduces the gap, a gender confidence gap persists even among highly educated experts. Female IR specialists still report lower certainty and are less likely to choose strong positions than their male peers. The findings underscore the role of confidence, not just knowledge, in shaping political expression.

The intersection of conflict research and research ethics is already a complex and fraught one, particularly in exchanges between researchers from the Global North and researched communities from the Global South. There are many examples (and years) of exploitation, fraud, and violence in these exchanges, and more recent scholarship on fieldwork ethics has established new norms of reciprocal exchange rather than exploitation in these relationships. However, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, asymmetric access to health care, and global vaccine inequality has added yet another layer of complexity here. How do we continue move forward with the push to make our research exchanges ethical while dealing with the additional complexity of the pandemic? In this article, I reflect on the ethics of these exchanges and concerns around security for interlocutors in replacing in person fieldwork with virtual fieldwork, drawing from examples of my own doctoral dissertation research in the Pacific region of Colombia, which was interrupted by the outbreak of COVID-19.

What accounts for the creation, design, and outputs of quasi-judicial institutions in autocracies? Prior research demonstrates that autocrats co-opt electoral, legislative, and judicial institutions to curtail opponents’ power and curry international patrons’ favor. However, scholarship on co-optation neglects quasi-judicial mechanisms, such as truth commissions, that can be useful for arranging a political narrative that bolsters a leader’s image while undermining his rivals. In this article, we formalize the concept of autocratic truth commissions—which account for one-third of truth commissions globally—and develop and test a novel theory of their origins, inputs, and outputs.

States facing sovereignty challenges, especially in human rights, may use them for political goals through negotiation and legitimation. Colombia’s interactions with the ICC show that, rather than resisting, successive governments leveraged ICC scrutiny to shape domestic human rights debates, particularly during FARC peace talks.