Language: English

Hannah Gray is an Extern contributing to IFIT’s  Security Engagement Practice Group (SEPG), Zimbabwe Bottom-Up Platform (Z-BUP), and Initiative on Apex Courts Appointments (IACA).

Before joining IFIT, Hannah was a Research Intern for the Centre on Armed Groups based in Geneva, and a visiting researcher at the West African Centre for Counter Extremism in Accra. In these roles she conducted conflict analysis and policy-relevant research on armed non-state actors and security challenges in various regions of Asia and West Africa. She has also supported multilateral diplomacy through an internship with the Permanent Mission of Malta at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

Hannah holds a Joint Honours B.A. in International Relations and International Law from the University of Edinburgh. She is currently a final-year masters student at the Geneva Graduate Institute studying International and Development Studies, with a concentration on Conflict, Peace, and Security. Her scholarly research spans the climate-conflict nexus, the role of non-state actors in fragile and conflict-effected settings, emerging technologies in warfare, and geopolitics of humanitarian response – with a particular interest in how these dynamics shape pathways to sustainable peace.

Working language: English

[email protected]

You may also be interested in

Victoria Hinkson is an Extern at IFIT and a Juris Doctor candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto, Canada. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from King’s University College at Western University in London, Canada, and a Master’s in International Affairs with a specialization in International Organizations and Global Public Policy from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. She was also an exchange student at the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po in Paris, France. 

Before joining IFIT, Victoria worked at Global Affairs Canada, where she supported the implementation of Canada’s free trade agreements. She spent over five years as a research associate with the Informal International Relations Lab, contributing to publications with leading academic presses. She has also contributed as a researcher and drafter for the United Nations Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, analyzing the interpretation and application of Article 33 of the UN Charter concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes.  

Her international experience includes conducting and supervising field research in Ghana and Ethiopia, where she engaged with government officials, international organizations, and regional institutions including the African Union, United Nations agencies, and diplomatic missions. 

Victoria’s research interests include international law, human rights, international organizations, and governance. She currently serves as a Senior Editor on the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.

Working language: English

[email protected]

You may also be interested in

Elisabeth Stewart is a Princeton RISE Fellow at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), based in the Bogotá office. She is a fourth-year student at Princeton University pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish and Portuguese, with minors in History and Latin American Studies.

Her areas of interest include immigration and migration in Latin America and the United States, as well as community-based solutions to conflict and injustice. Last summer, she served as a legal assistant in the immigration unit of the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), where she supported asylum seekers navigating immigration court proceedings in New York City amid a changing immigration landscape. She also volunteers as an interpreter with Solidaridad Central Jersey, assisting asylum seekers in preparing applications for relief. At Princeton, she has contributed to research projects examining media portrayals of social and political violence in the broader Latin American region.

She hopes to attend graduate or law school and continue working in spaces dedicated to community-based solutions to injustice. 

Working languages: English, Spanish and Portuguese

[email protected]

You may also be interested in

Jacob Cervantes is a Princeton RISE Fellow at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), based in the Bogotá office. His academic and professional trajectory has focused on human rights, gender-based violence, vulnerable populations, and conflict-related sexual violence. He is particularly interested in how legal systems or transitional justice mechanisms respond to abuses in the aforementioned thematic areas. 

Before joining IFIT, Jacob has worked with the Survivor Justice Center and Children and Family Futures, both U.S.-based nonprofits. His research has included examining domestic violence rates in Mexico, considering the legal strategies and reparations framework in the landmark Sepur Zarco case in Guatemala, and the legal implications of Peru’s 2025 amnesty law. Among various involvements on campus, he will also serve as a Gender and Security Fellow at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination this upcoming academic year. 

Jacob is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Public and International Affairs with minors in Philosophy and Latin American Studies from Princeton University. 

Working languages: English and Spanish

[email protected] LinkedIn Profile

You may also be interested in

The question is not whether it will be Iván Cepeda or Abelardo de la Espriella who wins the
second round on June 21, but how the winner can govern for all of Colombia.

“We are going to defeat the enemies of the Republic,” or we will eliminate the left, Abelardo de la Espriella has said on various occasions — a message he repeated forcefully in his victory speech on Sunday. From Iván Cepeda, the message is not very different: “Uribismo is fascist. It represents the ideology of contempt in all its forms — racism, classism, misogyny, homophobia, the destruction of nature, hatred of peace.”

In both cases, these messages have been delivered before crowds of tens of thousands, broadcast on national television, and have accumulated hundreds of thousands of views on social media. The message is clear: either we win, or they destroy us.

This is a manifestation of the most negative version of polarisation — one that intensifies during electoral periods but is not resolved once the presidential race is decided. There are interesting examples from Chile, which I discuss below, but above all, Colombia has the opportunity to manage its differences far better than the denial and zero-sum logic that recent campaign rhetoric has left in the air.

When elections are seen as all-or-nothing, as political survival or death, they leave deep fractures at the social, family, and community level. Their effects extend to governability: “We will defend democracy by reason or by force,” “they will not pass — the far-right projects,” said De la Espriella and Cepeda respectively, before their crowds last night.

Turning a political rival or adversary into an enemy has proven to be a powerful mobilising tool in a campaign where the fight for attention is fierce and emotions are everything. The formula we have seen repeated across the region in recent years has found fertile ground in Colombia. But as we have also seen, the argument that wins votes quickly becomes a major obstacle to governing.

Neither Cepeda’s vision of governability through the inclusion of those historically excluded, nor De la Espriella’s vision based on authority and order, can be built without some level of shared legitimacy among sectors that currently perceive each other as threats. Casting the other as an enemy — democracy defined by destroying the other — and the opportunistic use of power — the sense that it is now or never — only encourages the opposing side to spend four years sabotaging every governing effort and waiting for their turn, or their revenge.

Some degree of acceptance of the rules of the game is what allows authorities to formulate and implement policies, to have their decisions accepted, to channel conflicts through institutions rather than through force, to prevent violence, and to build political and social agreements. This should matter to everyone seeking the presidency. After all, the Constitution mandates that the President represent national unity — democratic coexistence and shared legitimacy — and guarantee the rights and freedoms of all.

Our system is not designed to function without this. Neither imposition — governing by decree, for example — nor protest — demanding change from the streets — produces outcomes or policies with enough stability to function even in the medium term, let alone with any promise of long-term transformation.

If the conversation, the debate, and the attacks from both sides do not change in the coming days, any declaration of unity, dialogue, or agreement from whoever wins the election will most likely ring hollow — or promise to plant seeds in already barren ground.

The presidents of recent decades in Colombia — from Belisario Betancur to Gustavo Petro — have all opened their terms by pledging to govern for everyone, to hold dialogues, make pacts, foster national conversations, and pursue reconciliation. From these declarations have emerged peace processes, national dialogue initiatives, and efforts at encounter. Some more successful than others, but all facing the great challenge of including the part of the country that sees itself represented in the political adversary and was left out of the initial picture.

When mobilisation is driven by dehumanisation, stigmatisation, rejection, or hatred of a political sector and a segment of the population — on both sides — rebuilding trust becomes extremely difficult. What lingers most is suspicion, blame, recrimination, and resentment.

Although Latin America is full of polarising rhetoric, it also has examples of leaders who understood that governing for everyone requires more than an appeal to unity. Patricio Aylwin, Chile’s first president after Pinochet’s dictatorship, chose to rebuild a fractured political community through truth, reparation, and agreement. In his case, inclusive governability did not come from eliminating differences, but from creating conditions to coexist with them. Gabriel Boric, in contrast, came to power through social mobilisation and amid one of the deepest moments of institutional questioning. Yet after the failure of the first constitutional process, he insisted on speaking of Chileans as compatriots rather than adversaries, shifting part of his discourse toward defending institutions and the need to build agreements. There is a difference between arriving in power representing one part of the country and actually governing for the nation as a whole.

At IFIT (the Institute for Integrated Transitions), we have been bringing together leaders from across the ideological spectrum in our Depolarising Circles to test just how true it is that we are two opposing sides, that we are radically different, that we face a zero-sum scenario — and how homogeneous each of those sides actually is internally. The results of this exercise will be turned into concrete ideas about what inclusive governability could look like for Colombia in 2026.

In the meantime, we have been genuinely surprised by the complexity and richness of the ideas at play around how to solve our country’s problems, the diversity that exists within each “camp,” how deep the points of common ground run, and how different people are when given the opportunity to engage with our differences without threat or stigma. We have also seen that those differences represent a diversity that, when well channelled, is not a problem but a source of strength.

For now, and over the next three weeks, as part of this electoral process, we have not only the right and responsibility to vote, but also the responsibility to demand that our candidates show that it is possible to debate with ideas — that we do not want to be further divided, that we are tired of conflict, and that we are aware of how vulnerable we are to violence.

If it is true, as La Silla Vacía noted yesterday, that we face “two mutually exclusive projects,” we need now more than ever to remind them that it is one Colombia.

Irene Vallejo calls on us to challenge the “mirage of apparent unanimity” — the tendency to turn those on the other side into a homogeneous and threatening group. Few things are as useful to conflict as convincing ourselves that those on the other side are exactly alike among themselves and exactly different from us. But a democracy does not function because differences disappear. It functions because there is a willingness to recognise that behind every label, every vote, and every political identity, there are people with motivations, fears, interests, and contradictions as complex as our own. And it is on that complexity — not on unanimity — that any possibility of governing for everyone ultimately rests, including that “enemy.”

Originally published in El País.

You may also be interested in

Sanjana Kumar is a Princeton Fellow at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) based in Barcelona, Spain. She is an A.B. candidate at Princeton University studying Legal, Political, and Economic Anthropology, where she is also pursuing secondary concentrations in Sustainable Energy and Technology and Society. 

Her work focuses on how societies navigate periods of profound political, economic, and environmental change. Over the past two years, she has contributed to research examining the geopolitical implications of sustainable technology transitions in the Global South, with a particular focus on restructuring of industrial supply chains in Brazil and South Africa. In tandem, she has contributed to research regarding factors and implications of large-scale displacement in regions affected by persecution and climate-induced resource scarcity through work with Pro Se Legal Clinic Solidaridad and Caritas Internationalis Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), the world’s largest private refugee resettlement organization.

At Princeton, she is an International Policy Associate at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD), where she engages in hands-on foreign policy experience and liaises with senior stakeholders on questions of international affairs. Her fieldwork and professional experiences have taken her across East Africa, Central America, and Europe, where she has worked on climate resilience, peacebuilding, sustainable development, and institutional reform. 

Working language: English

[email protected]

You may also be interested in

Sarah Kwon is a Princeton Fellow at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), based in the Barcelona office. Her areas of interest include forced displacement, civil-military relations, and the role of marginalized actors in addressing complex political and social transitions. She is particularly interested in how urban communities experience and respond to conflict, migration, and social change.

Outside of IFIT, Sarah is a Gender and Security Fellow at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University’s premier research center on self-determination, sovereignty, and international affairs. She also serves as Vice President of her class year, representing approximately 1,500 students and advocating on their behalf. Sarah has extensive experience working with underserved urban communities through her work with The Cities Project and Solidaridad Central Jersey. These experiences have strengthened her interest in inclusive narratives, community engagement, and solutions that address inequalities in urban settings.

Sarah is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, with minors in History and the Practice of Diplomacy, and Urban Studies.

Working languages: English and Korean

[email protected]

You may also be interested in

As fragile and transition countries confront declining aid, institutional fragility, and growing economic pressures, the need for new models of growth and recovery has become increasingly urgent. This IFIT paper explores how “collaboratories” – i.e., collaborative ecosystems that bring together public institutions, private actors, academia, civil society, and local communities – can help drive innovation, entrepreneurship, and inclusive economic development.

Drawing on examples from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and beyond, the paper examines how collaboratories can strengthen local innovation ecosystems, bridge institutional gaps, expand access to finance and opportunity, and foster trust and cooperation in fragile settings. From climate innovation centres and entrepreneurship hubs to diaspora-linked research networks and grassroots initiatives, the paper highlights practical ways to connect bottom-up innovation with broader national development strategies.

At a time when many traditional development approaches are struggling to deliver sustainable results, the paper argues that collaborative, locally anchored ecosystems can play a critical role in building more resilient, inclusive, and adaptive economies in transition contexts.

The DOI registration ID for this publication is: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20426829

Share this publication

You may also be interested in

María José Espinosa is an economist and foreign policy expert specializing in migration, democratic governance, and U.S. engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean. She currently serves as Executive Director of the Center for Engagement and Advocacy in the Americas (CEDA) and as Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy. Under her leadership, CEDA has expanded its regional work across Latin America and strengthened partnerships with civil society, governments, philanthropic organizations, and multilateral institutions, becoming an important hemispheric voice on migration, diplomacy, and human rights.

María José advises policymakers, multilateral institutions, philanthropic leaders, and civil society actors on migration governance, regional cooperation, and hemispheric policy dynamics. She has led high-level delegations across the Americas connecting decision-makers with on-the-ground realities shaping migration, governance, and regional stability. Her analysis and commentary have been featured in international media outlets including the BBC, CNN, The New York Times, and El País, and she is the author and co-author of multiple policy reports on Latin America and the Caribbean.

She serves on the board of the Miami Freedom Project for Democracy and was recognized by New America as one of the 2020 Latino National Security & Foreign Policy Next Generation Leaders. She completed executive education in Strategic Perspectives in Nonprofit Management at Harvard Business School and holds an M.Sc. in Environmental Economics and Tourism from the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain), an M.Sc. in Economics from the University of Havana, and a B.A. in Economics from the same university.

You may also be interested in

Nasser Judeh is a Jordanian politician and diplomat who served as Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2017, and as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates from 2015 to 2017. From 2017 to 2024, he served as a Senator in Jordan’s Upper House of Parliament, where he chaired the Japan and Spain Friendship Committees.

Over the course of his public service career, he held several senior ministerial and media-related positions, including Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications (2007–2009), Minister of Information (1998–1999), and official government spokesperson across multiple terms. He also served as Director General of the Jordan Radio and Television Corporation and Director of Jordan Television. Earlier in his career, he held several positions at the Royal Hashemite Court, including Principal Private and Press Secretary to the Crown Prince.

Internationally, Judeh has remained actively engaged in multilateral diplomacy, mediation, and peacebuilding efforts. He served on the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation (2017–2019), the High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement (2019–2021), and the Independent Eminent Persons Panel reviewing the UN Peacebuilding Architecture (2019–2020). During Jordan’s 2014–2015 term as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, he presided over the Council on multiple occasions.

Judeh currently serves on several regional and international boards and advisory bodies, including the Board of Trustees of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, the World Affairs Council–Jordan, and the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan.

He earned a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in 1982, with a focus on international politics, law, and organisations.

You may also be interested in