Rewarding genocide - what to do with land after conflict

The Bosnian Serb entity exists on the land it now occupies because its wartime leaders committed genocide against the Bosniak (Muslim) and Croat populations on that territory. While national self-determination can be both just and lead to greater stability, I believe the international community has a far greater interest in not rewarding genocide and other heinous crimes.

Peter Galbraith's (UN Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan, former US ambassador) response to a piece by William Montgomery (former US ambassador and a former special adviser to the president on Bosnia) in the New York Times earlier this month.  (Emphasis in quote is mine).

Now, the debates and warnings on increased tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina come out in the American or European press every once in a while, but this particular back-and-forth is noteworthy for the implications it has for post ethnic conflict/genocide situations and peace agreements.

The current conference in Washington is focused on implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan.  And of course, land is one of the biggest sticking points (and that black liquid stuff that hides out under the land).  And, as the Enough Project's recent election report notes:

many displaced Darfuris are deeply concerned that registering as residents of  internally displaced persons’ camps will delegitimize their land rights outside these camps. In this charged atmosphere, elections could actually lead to more violence and, potentially, give the government an excuse to forcibly close displaced persons camps.

We all know that land disputes often spark conflict.  But now interesting questions arise: how to equitably deal with land issues in ongoing or post-conflict areas? and how to balance the need to avoid rewarding conflict and the need for peace?

What do you think?

Hat tip to Bec Hamilton for her post on the Montgomery/Galbraith tête à tête.

Maps from Wiki Commons.