The Value of ‘Unity of Humankind’ in International Law Discourse

This two-day roundtable considered in-depth collective values recognised by international law and their principal bearers, with a partial focus on international criminal law. Drawing on TOAEP’s Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law: Legally-Protected Interests (in particular sections 1.4.3. and 1.5.), the concept note discusses the difference between states and humankind as the holder of collective values or goods, the current state of recognition of the collective of ‘humankind’ in international law, and the arguments for and against a clearer recognition of the value or good of ‘unity of humankind’ to supplement sibling values such as international peace and security, international co-operation, and friendly relations among nations.

The invited roundtable participants included Professor Marina Aksenova (IE University, Madrid), Professor Emiliano J. Buis (University of Buenos Aires), Professor Sergio Dellavalle (University of Turin), Adjunct Professor Gunnar M. Ekeløve-Slydal (University of Southeast Norway; Director, CICJ), Associate Professor Liu Renxiang (Wuhan University), Professor Natalia Luterstein (University of Buenos Aires), Dr. Rod Rastan (International Criminal Court) and Dr. Shahrzad Sabet (Co-Director, COMIT; Fellow, New York University’s Institute for Public Knowledge), in addition to CILRAP Director Morten Bergsmo, Dr. Song Tianying (CILRAP Research Fellow; Member, CICJ Steering Group), and Mr. Rohit Gupta (CILRAP Fellow; doctoral candidate, Cologne University).

In his opening presentation, Bergsmo offered a theoretical overview of international law’s recognition of ‘humankind’ or mankind from the pre-Grotius use of hostis humani generis by Bartolus and later Gentili, to recent treaties on the environment and climate; treaty-recognition of core collective values, goods or interests since 1899; incarnations of the category of ‘humanity’ in instruments in the same period; and why it is important that international law recognizes interests of humankind as such (and not only as interests of states or the ‘international community’).

Each participant then addressed a series of questions defined in the concept note, followed by dynamic and intimate discussion (in the conducive environment of the CILRAP Bottega). The limitations of existing state-centred language were analysed. The duality of the term ‘humanity’ was debated, in contrast with the collective notion of ‘humankind’, as in the German Menschheit (v. Menschlichkeit or humanness). Language in recent environmental and climate treaties is more au courant with common needs of human beings around the globe, not just of states. The roundtable considered how established treaty-values such as international peace and security, co-operation and friendly relations could be reinforced by conceptual developments relevant to the sense of solidarity between nations. The concept note recognizes that this process is important “whether we seek to nourish respect for or further develop this common value system, especially if the spirit of the time suffers nationalist intoxication and our concern is the day after”.