Skip to content

The Humanity Compact

English

The method, in one map

Fifty methods, rules and inferences — from the origin of the problem to the architecture that closes it. Each cell links to the passage of the work that establishes it; each institution opens its record in the diagram.

This map exists first as a printable plate, composed on 14 July 2026. It is remade here for the screen: its positions are no longer paragraph numbers — which change with every new edition — but the structure of the work as this site serves it.

Who this map is for: anyone who wants to audit the approach — to find, for each rule or inference, the passage that establishes it. It is not a general explanation of the book. New here? Start with the argument in one page.

How to read this map

Each cell is a method, a rule or an inference from the work. It sits on the chapter where it is established, and it links back there: click it to read the passage. The colour states the status of what is asserted — the nomenclature is that of the evidential statuses, §1.10, taken word for word.

Front matter123456789101112131415

A — ORIGIN & QUESTIONwhere the problem comes from, how it is framed

  1. 1Practitioner’s origin (2022-2025)4 instruments (2022) → Humanity Test (2025) → the chain
  2. 2Humanity Test — the entry filterfive questions put to any decision — box opposite
  3. 3Definition: invisible externalitiescosts imposed on third parties, without consent or redress
  4. 4The accountability deficit, defineddocumented, but neither qualified, nor priced, nor contestable
  5. 55 questions, 7 contributionswhy this void · which functions · AI · adoption

B — METHOD & EPISTEMIC DISCIPLINEthe rules the work imposes on itself

  1. 6Method: design science researchproblem → mapping → requirements → tested architecture
  2. 7Every assertion carries a statusfact ≠ programme ≠ design ≠ value: 4 burdens of proof
  3. 8Refutability stated up frontwhat would refute the work is published; 2 global refutations
  4. 9Institutional theory (§1.4)7 bodies of theory + 5 causal hypotheses — box opposite
  5. 103 levels of proof, never conflated① accounting ② attributable (range) ③ causal — here: ① + ②
  6. 113 kinds of cost, never added togetherA market · B welfare · C transfers — box opposite
  7. 123 registers kept apartcash disbursed ≠ revalued debt ≠ output forgone
  8. 13Netting the cyclemoney that came in on the way out does not offset the damage on the way back
  9. 14No global figureno extrapolation to 80 countries without published data
  10. 15Mapping under protocolcorpus frozen (12/07/2026), coding published, ambiguous items logged

C — EVIDENCE & DIAGNOSISthree corpora, one quantified case, 80 years of precedents

  1. 16The magnitude, from third-party sourcesfossiles ~7 400 · illicites ~1 000 · gap ODD ~4 000 Md$/an
  2. 17Taxonomy: 5 modes × 20 families5 channels × 20 families — the two boxes opposite
  3. 18One case dissected: 15 mechanisms15 channels: A debt · B price (at zero) · C real · O gains
  4. 19Quantified on Tunisia 2022-2026gross ~15 bn TND; attributable net €0.76-1 bn; output −€0.9 bn
  5. 20Corpus 1 — the United Nations101 texts: 12 binding · 7 advisory · 82 declaratory
  6. 21Corpus 2 — Sevilla130 initiatives: 71 finance, 3 rate, 0 adjudicate, 0 bind
  7. 22Converging recognition at the IMFthe Fund measures, acknowledges — and asks the victim to adjust
  8. 23Precedent 2009: debtdebt had its chain; compensation has no holder
  9. 242009 → 2025: the remedy degradessame authors: from a payment (2009) to an analysis (2025)
  10. 2580 years of degraded mechanisms = a law of attritionwhat binds no one survives; what binds someone dies

D — DOCTRINE — INTERMEDIATE INFERENCESwhat the evidence warrants, provisionally

  1. 26Inference 1 — an architectural deficitneither information nor money: each tool holds ONE link
  2. 27Inference 2 — a holder is missingthe spillover chain has never even been proposed
  3. 28Inference 3 — Korinek turned aroundefficient perhaps; the ledger remains incomplete
  4. 29Classify before pricing: S0-S67 classes (box); only 2 open a correction
  5. 30Candidate accountable party: the central bankout of its profits — never by the taxpayer of the country affected
  6. 31THE thesis: the holderneither the diagnosis nor the remedy: who carries each link
  7. 326 convictions → 7 functions“the invisible underwrites injustice” → measure, and so on
  8. 339 design principles (P1-P9)the core: P3, nothing binds without consent (table)

E — ARCHITECTURE — THE 7 + 3 CHAINseven derived institutions, three instruments

  1. 34Comparison of 4 candidate architectures8 criteria + human costs; the 5-body variant, the only serious rival
  2. 35Derivation: 1 function = 1 holderone mission each + what the others may not do (negative mandate)
  3. 36HuIB — measurepublishes harms in ranges; neither rates nor prices
  4. 37GIRA — raterates severity; never paid by the entity it rates
  5. 38GFEA — pricesets the consequence (correction or equity); does not collect
  6. 39BFM — adjustapplies the price at the crossing — to the process, never to the country
  7. 40GSF — financeunconditional emergency support + grants; never austerity
  8. 41IPDA — certifycertifies algorithms — the process, never the content
  9. 42Humanity Court — adjudicatereviews the legality of the six — without commanding them
  10. 43The integrity of the interfacesevery figure travels with its case file; counted once
  11. 44Who pays for measurement: pooledlevy by size: the assessed does not pay its assessor

F — INSTRUMENTS · AI · ADOPTION · RESILIENCEhow it is adopted and how it holds

  1. 45The 3 instrumentsthe Compact organises · the Charter grounds · the Call legitimises
  2. 46AI-native — the human decidesAI flags, detects, alerts — a named human signs
  3. 47Entry routes, without an initial treatymeasure and publish first; binding through law (to be validated)
  4. 48The objections, facedworld government, capture, §51…: sourced answers
  5. 49The cost of inaction & resiliencethe invisible debt accumulates; rapid modes pre-committed
  6. 50Limits & open research programme13 work strands: data, double coding, memoranda, pilots

Seven functions, seven holders, three instruments

This map does not propose seven institutions because seven were needed: it derives seven functions from the diagnosis, and assigns each to a single holder. The negative mandate is half of the design — it states what the holder may not do, failing which the chain closes back on itself.

From the seven functions to the seven holders — and what each one may not do
FunctionHolderWhat it doesNegative mandateWhat it rests on
measureHuIB — Human Impacts Boardpublishes the measurement of harms, in rangesdoes not rate, does not price, does not adjudicateIPCC (Nobel 2007) · Beyond-GDP · SNA 2025 · Sen · Ibn Khaldūn
rateGIRA — Global Impact Rating Authorityconverts measurement into a severity ratingno price; never social scoringcredit rating agencies inverted — Abdelal · UNCTAD · UNDP · Akerlof · Spence
priceGFEA — Global Financial Equity Authoritysets the consequence: correction or equitydoes not collect — immunity untouchedOECD Pillar Two · UN tax convention · DICE — Nordhaus · FSIA · SIA · CMF
adjustBFM — Border Fairness Mechanismapplies the price at the borderno tax doctrine; never nationalityCBAM (EU) · WTO, US — Shrimp · HS customs · Pauwelyn
financeGSF — Global Solidarity Fundparametric emergency support + recovery in grantsdoes not tax, does not rate; never austerityGlobal Fund · loss & damage · parametric insurance
certifyIPDA — Inter-Parliamentary Digital Authoritycertifies algorithms democraticallythe process, never the contentUIP 1889 · UNCITRAL model laws · vTaiwan · AI Act (EU)
adjudicateHumanity Courtsettles challenges, reviews legalitylegality, never expediency; enforces nothing itselfCAS + New York 1958 · ICJ · ICC · regional courts · ARSIWA 2001

The three instruments that ground them

  • Humanity Compact — links the seven — interfaces, no joint liability between bodies
  • Carthage Charter — grounds it in law — parliaments, internal primacy, solidarity clause
  • Call of Carthage — legitimises — citizen adoption → Assembly of Peoples

What the argument rests on — nine families

Each method on the map carries the family or families of references that support it. The detail of each reference is on the page References.

The nine families of sources, and what each establishes
FamilyWhat it saysMethodsReferences
F1The official diagnosis exists everywhere; constraint begins nowhere.20GIEC · Pact 2024 · Sevilla 2025 · UNCTAD · PNUD · FACTI · CIJ 2025 · OCDE · BRI · World Bank · OMS · UIP
F2The Fund measures the spillover — and addresses the remedy to the victim.8External Sector Report 2023 · Black et al. 2025 · Basu 2020 · Aiyar 2023 · RST 2022
F3Eighty years of remedies proposed then degraded, for want of a holder.4Keynes 1944 · Stiglitz Commission 2009 · Palais-Royal 2011 (Volcker, Camdessus…) · Rajan 2015 · ICE 2025
F4Floating does not insulate (Rey); the centre makes the cycle, the periphery bears it (Ocampo).12Rey 2015 · Miranda-Agrippino & Rey · Bruno & Shin · Gopinath · Korinek · Ocampo · Abdelal · Rodrik · Grabel
F5Accountable = informing a forum that can sanction (Bovens); an institution is designed (Koremenos).12Koremenos · Bovens · Grant & Keohane · Koppell · Kingsbury (GAL) · Barnett & Finnemore · Mearsheimer · Stone
F6The process can be regulated at the border (US — Shrimp); immunity does not bar recording.7US — Shrimp (WTO) · Howse & Regan · Pauwelyn · FSIA · NML 2011 · UK SIA · CMF · ARSIWA · New York 1958 · CBAM
F7The magnitude is quantified by third parties; extra-financial ratings diverge (0.38-0.71).11Swiss Re 2025 · WEF 2025 · GFI · TJN · Oxfam · Maddison · Rennert 2022 · Berg 2022 · IOSCO · Zucman 2024
F8Private cost ≠ social cost (Pigou); without a forum, no exchange (Coase); fairness makes rules last (Ostrom).17Ibn Khaldūn · Pigou · Coase · Arrow · Sen · Ostrom · Nordhaus · North · Buchanan · Akerlof · Tirole · Stern
AUT4Yaiche 2022 (ERF-IMF) · Yaiche 2023 (Tunisia) · Yaiche 2025 (TSYP13)

The theories drawn on, one sentence each

Each name opens its entry on the page References.

Pigou (1920)
the externality: the decision-maker’s private cost diverges from the social cost.
Coase (1960)
without a forum and without title, the market for harm cannot form.
Korinek (2016)
a spillover calls for correction only if three conditions hold.
Rey (2015)
a dilemma, not a trilemma: even floating, no one is insulated from the global cycle.
Bovens (2007)
accountability: an actor informs a forum able to attach a consequence.
Koremenos et al. (2001)
the features of an institution are rational design choices.
Ostrom (1990)
rules perceived as inequitable are not complied with — and collapse.
Abdelal (2007)
the authority of the rating agencies was not seized: it was delegated.

Text equivalent of the map

The fifty methods, in lane order, with their status, their families of sources, the thirty-one links of the plate and the place in the work where they are established.

The 50 methods of the work
N°LaneMethodWhat it doesStatusFamiliesFollows fromLeads toIn the work
A — ORIGIN & QUESTION
1APractitioner’s origin (2022-2025)4 instruments (2022) → Humanity Test (2025) → the chainExternally verifiableAUT—2§4.1
2AHumanity Test — the entry filterfive questions put to any decision — box oppositeDesign proposalAUT129§4.1
3ADefinition: invisible externalitiescosts imposed on third parties, without consent or redressDesign proposalF8, AUT—17§2.2
4AThe accountability deficit, defineddocumented, but neither qualified, nor priced, nor contestableDesign proposalF5, F1—26§2.5
5A5 questions, 7 contributionswhy this void · which functions · AI · adoptionDesign proposal———§1.9
B — METHOD & EPISTEMIC DISCIPLINE
6BMethod: design science researchproblem → mapping → requirements → tested architectureDesign proposal———§1.10
7BEvery assertion carries a statusfact ≠ programme ≠ design ≠ value: 4 burdens of proofDesign proposal———§1.10
8BRefutability stated up frontwhat would refute the work is published; 2 global refutationsDesign proposal———§4.4
9BInstitutional theory (§1.4)7 bodies of theory + 5 causal hypotheses — box oppositeExternally verifiableF5——§1.4
10B3 levels of proof, never conflated① accounting ② attributable (range) ③ causal — here: ① + ②Design proposalF4, F2—19§9.2
11B3 kinds of cost, never added togetherA market · B welfare · C transfers — box oppositeDesign proposalF7, F8, F1—16§2.4
12B3 registers kept apartcash disbursed ≠ revalued debt ≠ output forgoneDesign proposalF2, F1—19§9.3
13BNetting the cyclemoney that came in on the way out does not offset the damage on the way backDesign proposalF4, F2—29§9.8
14BNo global figureno extrapolation to 80 countries without published dataNormative commitment———§9.3
15BMapping under protocolcorpus frozen (12/07/2026), coding published, ambiguous items loggedFrom the programmeF1——§3.4
C — EVIDENCE & DIAGNOSIS
16CThe magnitude, from third-party sourcesfossiles ~7 400 · illicites ~1 000 · gap ODD ~4 000 Md$/anExternally verifiableF2, F1, F711—§2.4
17CTaxonomy: 5 modes × 20 families5 channels × 20 families — the two boxes oppositeFrom the programmeF7, F1, F8318§2.3
18COne case dissected: 15 mechanisms15 channels: A debt · B price (at zero) · C real · O gainsFrom the programmeF4, F8, F11719§9.1
19CQuantified on Tunisia 2022-2026gross ~15 bn TND; attributable net €0.76-1 bn; output −€0.9 bnFrom the programmeAUT, F2, F110 12 18—§I
20CCorpus 1 — the United Nations101 texts: 12 binding · 7 advisory · 82 declaratoryFrom the programmeF1—26§3.1
21CCorpus 2 — Sevilla130 initiatives: 71 finance, 3 rate, 0 adjudicate, 0 bindFrom the programmeF1—26§3.3
22CConverging recognition at the IMFthe Fund measures, acknowledges — and asks the victim to adjustExternally verifiableF2, F4—30§3.1
23CPrecedent 2009: debtdebt had its chain; compensation has no holderExternally verifiableF3—24§3.1
24C2009 → 2025: the remedy degradessame authors: from a payment (2009) to an analysis (2025)Externally verifiableF3, F42325§12.7.2
25C80 years of degraded mechanisms = a law of attritionwhat binds no one survives; what binds someone diesFrom the programmeF3, F4, F52427 31 33§2.7
D — DOCTRINE — INTERMEDIATE INFERENCES
26DInference 1 — an architectural deficitneither information nor money: each tool holds ONE linkFrom the programmeF1, F54 20 21—§2.5
27DInference 2 — a holder is missingthe spillover chain has never even been proposedFrom the programmeF5, F425—§2.6
28DInference 3 — Korinek turned aroundefficient perhaps; the ledger remains incompleteFrom the programmeF4, F8, F2—29§9.6
29DClassify before pricing: S0-S67 classes (box); only 2 open a correctionDesign proposalF42 13 2830§9.7
30DCandidate accountable party: the central bankout of its profits — never by the taxpayer of the country affectedDesign proposalF3, F422 2938§9.7
31DTHE thesis: the holderneither the diagnosis nor the remedy: who carries each linkDesign proposal—2535§4.7
32D6 convictions → 7 functions“the invisible underwrites injustice” → measure, and so onNormative commitmentF8—33§4.1.1
33D9 design principles (P1-P9)the core: P3, nothing binds without consent (table)Design proposalF525 3235 45§4.2
E — ARCHITECTURE — THE 7 + 3 CHAIN
34EComparison of 4 candidate architectures8 criteria + human costs; the 5-body variant, the only serious rivalDesign proposalF5—35§4.5
35EDerivation: 1 function = 1 holderone mission each + what the others may not do (negative mandate)Design proposalF5, F831 33 34—§4.7
36EHuIB — measurepublishes harms in ranges; neither rates nor pricesDesign proposalF1, F8, F5—37§5.2
37EGIRA — raterates severity; never paid by the entity it ratesDesign proposalF4, F1, F8, F73638§5.3
38EGFEA — pricesets the consequence (correction or equity); does not collectDesign proposalF1, F8, F6, F730 3739§5.4
39EBFM — adjustapplies the price at the crossing — to the process, never to the countryDesign proposalF6, F73840§5.5
40EGSF — financeunconditional emergency support + grants; never austerityDesign proposalF1, F839—§5.6
41EIPDA — certifycertifies algorithms — the process, never the contentDesign proposalF1, F8, F6, F7—46§5.7
42EHumanity Court — adjudicatereviews the legality of the six — without commanding themDesign proposalF6——§5.8
43EThe integrity of the interfacesevery figure travels with its case file; counted onceDesign proposalF5, F8——§5.9
44EWho pays for measurement: pooledlevy by size: the assessed does not pay its assessorDesign proposalF6, F7——§5.10
F — INSTRUMENTS · AI · ADOPTION · RESILIENCE
45FThe 3 instrumentsthe Compact organises · the Charter grounds · the Call legitimisesDesign proposalF1, F633—§6
46FAI-native — the human decidesAI flags, detects, alerts — a named human signsDesign proposalF8, F641—§7
47FEntry routes, without an initial treatymeasure and publish first; binding through law (to be validated)Design proposalF5, F8, F1——§12.1
48FThe objections, facedworld government, capture, §51…: sourced answersDesign proposalF5, F4, F7, F8, F1——§13.2
49FThe cost of inaction & resiliencethe invisible debt accumulates; rapid modes pre-committedExternally verifiableF7, F8, F2, F1——§13.3
50FLimits & open research programme13 work strands: data, double coding, memoranda, pilotsFrom the programmeF7——§14.1

Ask the book

The index covers the whole book. The search accepts a question in English or in French. The summary, when you ask for it, is produced by an artificial intelligence from the cited passages only: read the notice.