Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Humanness as a Protected Legal Interest of Crimes Against Humanity

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 22))

  • 332 Accesses

Abstract

It is difficult to find a more ambiguous and multifaceted category than the concept of humanity . There are several definitions of the term; however, no integral comprehensive interpretation of the concept exists in law. There can hardly be more topical an area in the conceptual realm of “humanity” than the question of its role and influence on the legal theories of crimes against humanity. This chapter introduces the main problem analyzed in the book: absence of the exact definition of what exactly constitutes the central protected interest of crimes against humanity, i.e., humanity. The chapter poses several substantive questions, notes some etymological issues related to humanity, formulates the main purposes of the monograph and briefly describes the main points of the discussion in each subsequent “substantive” chapter. It points out one of the monograph’s key aims which is to re-examine and assign to the notion of humanity its proper place within the contemporary understanding of crimes against humanity, and propose a comprehensive conceptual and normative concept of humanity , in light of German Rechtsgutsheorie and social contract doctrine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an interesting exploration of universalist claims and studying the effects of such claim-making as a dynamic interplay between governance and humanity, see Feldman and Ticktin 2010.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 3 for a more detailed and chronological discussion.

  3. 3.

    Feldman and Ticktin 2010, pp. 1–2.

  4. 4.

    Peterson and Seligman 2004, p. 40; see also Chan 1955, p. 296.

  5. 5.

    See Peterson and Seligman 2004, p. 40. As Chap. 3 will show, this is important for understanding how the concept of “humanity” purportedly came to be engraved within the legal term “crimes against humanity” in their present-day shape. See Ibid. for further study of humanity’s understanding as a human virtue in the historical perspective, including on Thomas Aquinas ’ so-called “Seven Heavenly Virtues”.

  6. 6.

    Coit 1906, pp. 424–429.

  7. 7.

    Aristotle 1989, book 13, Sect. 1078b.

  8. 8.

    That falls out from the purpose and scope of the present book. As described below, this legal monograph will deal with, first of all, the question of how the relevant views on “humanity” affected the shaping out of the current legal concepts such as crimes against humanity, and to track down in what ways they formed the object of this legal category. This will be needed to proceed towards considering and determining the protected legal interest of these international crimes. At times this process appears to have flown so inherently that there has been almost no explicit or relevant fundamental research of the concept for that purpose. However, there has been some amount of research carried out on the matter during the 20th century as discussed further below.

  9. 9.

    For an instructive overview of the phenomenon of war and its definitional features, see Sayapin 2014, pp. 4–7, citing Neff 2005, pp. 14–29.

  10. 10.

    See also Luban 2004, pp. 86–87.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., Luban 2004; Bassiouni 2011; Lippman 1997; May 2005; Cassese 2003; Werle and Jessberger 2014.

  13. 13.

    See Luban 2004, p. 86.

  14. 14.

    Bassiouni 2011, p. 83.

  15. 15.

    Analysis of the concept of “laws of humanity” is found in Chaps. 2 and 3 as it is directly relevant to the main issue of the present volume.

  16. 16.

    Not to confuse with Georg Friedrich von Martens, a German jurist and diplomat.

  17. 17.

    It was formulated in the Second Convention as follows: “Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience”. Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II), opened for signature 29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900, in Schindler and Toman 1996, pp. 69–93. The Fourth Convention contains a slightly modified version: “Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience”. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), opened for signature 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 2010, in Schindler and Toman 1996, pp. 69–93; see also for reference Roberts and Guelff 2000.

  18. 18.

    United Nations War Crimes Commission 1948, p. 35.

  19. 19.

    Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Annex, 59 Stat. 1544, adopted 8 August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (entered into force 8 August 1945, Article 6(c).

  20. 20.

    Article 6 provides that along with crimes against peace and war crimes, the following acts come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and entail individual responsibility: “… (c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. …” Ibid., Article 6.

  21. 21.

    Cryer and Boister 2008, pp. 7 et seq.

  22. 22.

    See Ferencz 1980, p. 488.

  23. 23.

    United Nations Security Council 1993, Annex to the Secretary General’s Report, Article 5.

  24. 24.

    Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 13–14, 130–134, paras 43, 348–353.

  25. 25.

    United Nations Security Council 1994, Annex, p. 4, Article 3.

  26. 26.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute ), Article 7.

  27. 27.

    There are presently efforts on the side of the legal academic community to promote the adoption of such an international legal instrument. See Sadat 2011. In my opinion, this renders the comprehensive analysis of the legal understanding of “humanity” as implied in the context of crimes against humanity, and correspondingly, of the valid legal protected interest it may signify within this context, ever more topical in a practical sense.

  28. 28.

    Bassiouni 2011, pp. 43–44.

  29. 29.

    For an introductory discussion with respect to human dignity, see Schachter 1983, p. 849. The discussion of human dignity as an element of humanity in the context of crimes against humanity is also important for the purposes of this book (see Chaps. 3, 4 and 5).

  30. 30.

    Gustav Radbruch 1947, pp. 131–136.

  31. 31.

    Radbruch 1947, p. 131. Translation from German made by this author.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    Gierhake 2005, pp. 272–273. Kant’s views of fundamental concepts such as humanity, freedom, human autonomy and categorical imperative as well as his philosophy of law are relevant for this book’s subsequent analysis in the main chapters (Chaps. 3, 4 and 5).

  35. 35.

    Kant’s definition of freedom may be summarised as follows: “Freedom is the only one and original right of every man inherent in him by virtue of his humanity, provided it can coexist with the freedom of others, in accordance with one universal law.” [“Freiheit, sofern sie mit jedes anderen Freiheit nach einem allgemeinen Gesetz zusammen bestehen kann, ist (das) einzige, ursprüngliche, jedem Menschen kraft seiner Menschheit zustehende Recht”, translation from German by the author], quoted literally in Ibid., p. 273, fn. 783.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    In particular, in different domestic contexts, in terms of legislative and judicial interpretation and application of the law – where language concerns are certainly crucial, as well as in academic discourse in the sphere of ICL.

  38. 38.

    See the modern accepted English definition at “Oxford Dictionaries Online” (UK English), maintained by Oxford University Press, available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humanity. Accessed 26 November 2018.

  39. 39.

    See contemporary definitions of “humanité” in French at “Dictionnaire de francais “Littré””, available at http://littre.reverso.net/dictionnaire-francais/definition/humanit%C3%A9. Accessed 26 November 2018. Also for comparison see Brachet 1873, p. 186. A similar situation exists with Spanish and Portuguese languages: in general, “humanidad” and “humanidade” carry the same comprehensive meanings, see, correspondingly, “SpanishDict, the Spanish-English Dictionary Online”, available at http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/humanidad. Accessed 26 November 2018 and “Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa”, available at http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/humanidade. Accessed 26 November 2018.

  40. 40.

    Fasmer 1964–1973; “Толковый словарь Ушакова” [Ushakov’s Definitional Dictionary], available at http://enc-dic.com/ushakov/Chelovechnost-84958.html. Accessed 26 November 2018; Даль 2002 г., том 1, стр. 377 [Dal’ 2002, Vol. 1, p. 377], available at http://books.google.de/books?id=2KtiRSUTRMEC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed 26 November 2018.

  41. 41.

    Perhaps, a proper illustrative example would be the official Russian translation of the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity where in all instances “человечество” (humankind) is used instead of “человечность” (humanness or humaneness). See “Конвенция о неприменимости срока давности к военным преступлениям и преступлениям против человечества”, принята резолюцией 2391 (XXIII) ГА ООН, открыта к подписанию 26 ноября 1968 г., вступила в силу 11 ноября 1970 г. [Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, adopted by UN GA Res. 2391 (XXIII), opened for signature 26 November 1968, entered into force 11 November 1970]. The Russian text is available at www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/warcrimes_limit.shtml. Accessed 26 November 2018. This translation is now outdated. The Rome Statute and the Nuremberg Statute’s official Russian translations use the word “человечность” (humanness or humaneness).

  42. 42.

    Völkerstrafgesetzbuch 2002, pp. 2–3, para 7.

  43. 43.

    In accordance with linguistic and etymological definition presented in the “Das Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache” [DWDS Digital Dictionary of the German Language], available at http://www.dwds.de/?qu=Menschlichkeit. Accessed 26 November 2018.

  44. 44.

    May 2005, pp. 80–95.

  45. 45.

    Luban 2004, pp. 111–114.

  46. 46.

    Graven 1950, p. 433; Dubler 2008, p. 3.

  47. 47.

    See Luban 2004, p. 87.

  48. 48.

    Cassese 2003, p. 67.

  49. 49.

    Rome Statute , above n. 26, Article 7.

  50. 50.

    A comparative analysis between these crimes under international law and crimes against humanity in terms of legal interests they correspondingly protect, or should protect, is laid out in Chap. 6.

  51. 51.

    Lauterwein 2010, pp. 2–24.

References

  • Aristotle (1989) Metaphysics. In: Aristotle in 23 Volumes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, book 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni C (2011) Crimes against humanity: Historical evolution and contemporary application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brachet A (1873) Etymological dictionary of the French language. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2003) International criminal law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Coit S (1906) Humanity and God. International Journal of Ethics 4:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Boister N (eds) (2008) Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubler R (2008) What’s in a name? A theory of crimes against humanity. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIntLawJl/2008/5.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2018

  • Fasmer M (1964–1973) Этимoлoгичecкий cлoвapь pyccкoгo языкa [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow, Progress

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman I, Ticktin M (2010) In the name of humanity: The government of threat and care. Duke University Press, Durham and London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferencz B (1980) An international criminal court: A step toward world peace. Oceana Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gierhake K (2005) Begründung des Völkerstrafrechts auf der Grundlage der Kantischen Rechtslehre. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Graven J (1950) Les crimes contre l’humanité. Hague Recueil 76:427

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterwein C (2010) The limits of criminal law. A comparative analysis of approaches to legal theorizing. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman M (1997) Crimes against humanity. Boston College Third World Law Journal 17:171–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban D (2004) A theory of crimes against humanity, Yale Journal of International Law 29:85–167

    Google Scholar 

  • May L (2005) Crimes against humanity: A normative account. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assembly (2002) Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [(German) Code of Crimes Against International Law]. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/fa8c3f/pdf/. Accessed 26 November 2018

  • Neff S (2005) War and the law of nations: A general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson C, Seligman M (2004) Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch G (1947) Zur Diskussion über die Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20800911.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2018

  • Roberts A, Guelff R (2000) Documents on the laws of war, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat L (2011) Forging a convention for crimes against humanity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2014) The crime of aggression in international criminal law: Historical development, comparative analysis and present state. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1983) Human dignity as a normative concept. American Journal of International Law 77:848–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler D, Toman J (eds) (1996) Des conflits armés: Recueil des conventions, résolutions et autre documents. Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Security Council (1993) Resolution 827 adopted by the Security Council at its 3217th meeting on 25 May 1993. UN Doc. S/25704, Annex

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Security Council (1994) Resolution 955 adopted by the Security Council at its 3453rd meeting on 8 November 1994. UN Doc. S/RES/955, Annex

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948) History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the development of the laws of war. H.M.S.O., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of international criminal law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Rustam Atadjanov

Authors
  1. Rustam Atadjanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rustam Atadjanov .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Atadjanov, R. (2019). Introduction. In: Humanness as a Protected Legal Interest of Crimes Against Humanity. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 22. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-299-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-299-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-298-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-299-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation