A Review of Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and its Difference from Common Concerns of Mankind Concept

• Main Authors: Tavakolط Tavakol Habibzadeh, Farangis Mansoori
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Persian
• Published: Imam Sadiq University 2014
• Subjects: common concerns of mankind; public profits; common management; Islamic law; KBP1-4860; Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.30497/law.2014.1564; https://doaj.org/article/b495e1fbc3d54dd18a8c70e704e706b4

The principle of the “common heritage of mankind” is one of the results of the codification and the gradual development of the international law by the organs of the United Nations in order to implement the principles of justice and equality, the solidarity between the nations and the new international economic order. During the later decades, a powerful movement is formed by support of the majority of actors of the international community, in particular the developing states, willing to enlarge the domain of the principle of the “common heritage of mankind” to human genome. The insistence of the developing states on this question was for the implementation of one part of their claims and expectations to modify the international economic and political relations and the application of the principle of “compensatory inequality”. Meanwhile, if the implementation of this principle has been considered in the regions such as the seabed out of the sphere of national competence, outer space and a vast expanse of the Antarctic, when it comes to issues such as human rights, climate change, biological diversity and the environment, it is preferable to use the concept of “common concern of mankind”.Because here the most important thing is the protection of common interests and not the equitable distribution of the common resources profits. The concept of the “common concern of mankind” about the aforementioned questions attracted the attention of the international community with the necessity to take certain common measures, even if it is situated out of the sphere of national jurisdiction. This article tries to study the common characteristics of these two concepts and their differences.