The meaning and non-meaning of legal humanism

This title expresses a malaise, because the abuse of the humanist ritornello is weakening the humanization of legal systems at a time when it seems more necessary than ever, in the face of globalization. Admittedly, "legal" humanism is apparently strengthened by the development of human rights, the appearance of humanitarian law and the emergence of international criminal justice. Yet anti-humanist currents are at pains to denounce its nonsense, pointing to the many contradictions revealed - and sometimes aggravated - by globalization.
Here are just a few examples: the tightening of migration controls underlines the contradiction between closed borders and open markets; the worsening of social exclusion contrasts with the growth of economic and financial profits; the persistence of international crimes linked or assimilated to armed conflicts demonstrates the limits of criminal justice. And let's not forget the proliferation of environmental damage in the face of economic development, or the ambivalence of new digital and biomedical technologies, which promote both individualization and its opposite. In the face of globalization, the myth of legal humanism looks like a mystification.
To give meaning to both humanism and globalization, it is not enough to reaffirm humanist principles. We need to implement processes - still utopian, but already identifiable - that aim to humanize legal systems by overcoming contradictions in the perspective of an "ordered pluralism".