Published by the Commonwealth of Humanity Tribunal on Crimes Against Humanity
Date: May 4, 2026
* * *
This page describes how the Commonwealth of Humanity intends to build from its current state into something capable of producing real consequences for those who commit crimes against humanity.
The work is already underway. What follows is a description of the phases we expect to move through, and the standards we hold ourselves to along the way.
What we are building toward
The goal is not a new government. The goal is a public record of crimes against humanity so disciplined, so well-documented, and so widely recognized that the people responsible for those crimes can no longer move freely through the world without consequence -- not legally, not diplomatically, not in the eyes of history, and not even among other free human beings.
We are building toward a legitimacy threshold: the point at which this project is procedurally fair enough, factually serious enough, and broadly enough supported that it cannot be dismissed. That threshold is defined in detail on the Goalposts page.
Phase 1 -- Documentation and Community (Now through Year 3)
The first phase is the one we are in. Its work is foundational and unglamorous: document everything, build communities capable of sustaining the work, and establish the evidentiary and procedural standards that make our accusations persistent and irrefutable by reasonable and compassionate human beings.
This means publishing indictments, evidence dossiers, and reasoned findings. It means building local communities -- on the order of 100 to 200 members per locality -- capable of doing journalism, investigation, outreach, and mutual aid. It means subjecting our own claims to hostile scrutiny and correcting what fails -- factual claims that do not hold up, procedures that do not produce fairness, and methods that do not withstand adversarial review.
Here, "withstand adversarial review" does not mean winning an endless argument. It means critics can inspect the cited evidence and published method, raise specific challenges about provenance, corroboration, chronology, translation, inference, omission, or procedural fairness, and either those challenges are answered publicly with evidence within 30 days or the claim is corrected, downgraded, or withdrawn.
It also means refusing to defer to the institutions that have already failed to bring about action and consequences to powerful people. The Commonwealth does not apply for permission from criminal governments. It does not wait for captured international bodies to act. It publishes, it builds, and it invites the world to look at what it has produced.
The standard for this phase is simple: is the work serious enough that it cannot be dismissed without cost?
Phase 2 -- Uptake and Recognition (Years 4 through 8)
The second phase begins when the first has produced enough credible, documented work that other people -- affected communities, independent experts, journalists, lawyers, and institutions not ideologically aligned with us -- begin to treat it as usable.
We do not define legitimacy as universal agreement. We define it as the point at which dismissal no longer prevents meaningful uptake by the people whose judgment matters: those harmed, those with expertise, and those with the capacity to act on documented findings.
In this phase, the Commonwealth's findings should begin producing concrete downstream effects: sanctions pressure, legal citations, formal endorsements, cross-border coverage, archive deposits, and referrals to bodies capable of acting on them.
The standard for this phase: are we producing consequences, not just testimony?
Phase 3 -- Consequence and Transition (Years 9 through 15)
The third phase is the most speculative, and we say so plainly. It depends on how well the first two phases go, and on conditions in the world that we cannot fully predict.
What we can say is this: where governments have proven themselves criminal beyond any reasonable doubt, and where the communities they claim to govern reject them as legitimate, the Commonwealth intends to provide a documented, procedurally grounded basis for transition -- not to impose one from above, but to make the case for one that communities can act on themselves.
Any transition the Commonwealth supports must be limited in scope, publicly accountable, and bound to clear triggers for dissolution. We are not building a new permanent ruling structure. We are building the evidentiary and moral foundation for removing the current one.
The standard for this phase: does the transition preserve life and break domination -- or does it simply replace one form of domination with another?
How we hold ourselves accountable
The Commonwealth publishes its own goalposts and measures itself against them. These include: error rates on factual claims, expert validation, media penetration beyond sympathizers, legal traction, cross-border reach, adversarial resilience, procedural transparency, and conversion of findings into concrete action.
We do not ask to be trusted. We ask to be scrutinized. Every major claim should be checkable. Every major failure should be correctable. Every departure from our stated procedure should be challenged and answered.
If the work remains purely symbolic after a reasonable period, it has not met its own standard. We say that plainly here so we cannot forget it later.
One rule throughout
Preserve continuity where continuity protects life, and break continuity where continuity protects domination.