Cette loi, comprenant 27 articles, exige de la France des excuses officielles ainsi que des réparations intégrales pour les dommages causés. De plus, elle énumère de manière explicite les différents crimes coloniaux commis par l’état français pendant l’époque coloniale, tels que les massacres de civils, les attaques militaires contre les populations, les essais nucléaires dans le désert (notamment 17 essais conduits dans le Sahara entre les années 1960 et 1966), les exécutions arbitraires, les tortures de masse, l’utilisation d’armes interdites et non-conventionnelles, la pose de mines, le pillage des ressources naturelles et le détournement des fonds publics, les déportations forcées, la discrimination raciale, les traitements inhumains et l’instauration des lois d’exceptions pour les algériens. Ces lois d’exception, consolidées dans le Code de l’Indigénat du 28 juin 1881, étaient des lois répressives et discriminatoires mises en place pour maintenir les populations algériennes (dites « indigènes ») dans un statut juridique inférieur et établir ainsi une différence de traitement entre les Algériens musulmans et les citoyens français.

La loi du 24 décembre 2025 vise à obtenir des excuses officielles de la France, un dédommagement matériel et moral, la restitution des archives historiques, des plans détaillés des sites sur lesquels ont eu lieu les essais nucléaires, ainsi que la décontamination des sols affectés par ces essais, et le rapatriement des dépouilles des combattants résistants. Cette loi contient également des sanctions criminelles qui s’appliquent aux citoyens algériens — moyennant des pénalités spécifiques — faisant l’apologie, la glorification ou justifiant le passé colonial. Cette loi aborde même la question sensible des harkis, considérés comme auxiliaires de l’armée française et donc assimilés aux forces coloniales.

Vers une reconnaissance systémique de la colonisation ?

Actuellement, la colonisation n’est pas reconnue comme un crime contre l’humanité.  D’abord parce que la définition de « crime contre l’humanité » ne peut s’appliquer rétroactivement (nullum crimen sine lege). La définition de crime contre l’humanité apparait initialement au 20^ième  siècle, à la suite d’évolutions majeures comme la clause Martens de la Convention de La Haye en 1899, ou encore la qualification du génocide arménien comme crime contre l’humanité par Andrei Mandelstam, soutenu par Louis de Brouckère à la Ligue des Nations, ou porté par Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin lors des accords de Londres, qui ont amené au procès de Nuremberg en 1945, et donc au développement de la définition légale de crime contre l’humanité.

La définition de ‘crime contre l’humanité’ comprend les actes portant atteinte à l’intégrité des individus, tels que les assassinats, les exterminations, l’esclavage et la déportation. Ces crimes n’avaient donc pas de catégorie juridique avant 1945. La France a adopté une approche fragmentée quant à la reconnaissance de ses actions en Algérie, en isolant des incidents, de manière singulière, au lieu de reconnaître leur nature systémique. Par exemple, la France a reconnu isolément les massacres de Sétif en 1945 et le Massacre de Paris en 1961, où des Algériens ont été visés massivement par des attaques et nombreux ont perdu la vie à la suite d’une manifestation pacifique. Ceci expose donc un schéma qui traite les événements de manière ponctuelle et les reconnaît séparément, plutôt que de remettre en cause le système colonial dans son ensemble.

Pour que la colonisation soit reconnue comme un crime contre l’humanité, il faudrait d’abord conceptualiser la colonisation comme un ensemble de faits continus, plutôt qu’une série d’événements isolés. En pratique, cela n’est pas si simple. La pluralité des histoires coloniales, ainsi que la singularité de chacune, compliquent la qualification de la colonisation en « crime contre l’humanité », bien que les régimes coloniaux impliquent de nombreuses violations organisées et répétées. Cependant, la reconnaissance de la colonisation comme un système en tant que tel a un précédent : la question de l’apartheid en Afrique du Sud. Le régime de l’apartheid a d’abord été reconnu comme crime dans le droit sud-africain, qui l’a condamné moralement et politiquement avant d’être finalement reconnu internationalement comme crime contre l’humanité. Cet exemple montre qu’un système établi peut être considéré comme criminel en raison de sa nature discriminante et oppressive. De plus, les conséquences engendrées par la colonisation sont socialement, économiquement et psychologiquement transmises de manière intergénérationnelle. Elles continuent de façonner le présent, les dépendances économiques, les divisions sociales, ainsi que les traumatismes. La reconnaissance des violations systémiques commises par les régimes de domination coloniale confirme la démarche importante consistant à se saisir des enjeux contemporains de justice, de mémoire et de responsabilité internationale.

Même s’il n’y a pas de conséquences directes et légales sur la scène internationale, la nouvelle loi algérienne a une portée symbolique non négligeable : elle rompt avec des décennies de silence. Pour de nombreux États africains, cela montre qu’un État peut s’affirmer face aux crimes coloniaux sans s’effondrer sur le plan légal ou institutionnel. En outre, cela souligne qu’il est possible d’assumer sa responsabilité historique tout en évitant d’emblée de transformer le passé colonial en une question de judiciarisation systématique ou d’engager directement la voie des réparations massives.

The law comprises 27 Articles that mandate official apologies and reparations and enumerates explicitly multiple forms of colonial crimes committed by the French state, including: the massacres of civilians, military attacks against populations, nuclear tests and explosions (notably 17 tests in the Sahara between 1960 and 1966), extrajudicial executions, mass physical and psychological torture, the use of unconventional and internationally prohibited weapons, the laying of mines, the plundering of public funds and resources, forced deportations and population displacements, racial discrimination, inhumane treatment, and the imposition of exceptional laws on Algerians. Such exceptional laws were primarily embodied by the Indigenous Code, decreed on June 28, 1881. This code established a separate legal regime for Muslim Algerians, depriving them of the rights accorded to French citizens.

The law adopted on 24^th December 2025 seeks a formal apology from France, compensation for material and moral damages, the return of national archives, the provision of detailed maps of nuclear test sites, decontamination of areas affected by atomic tests, and the repatriation of the remains of Algerian resistance fighters held in France. The law also enshrines criminal provisions that apply to Algerian citizens and specify penalties criminalising excuses to colonisation, glorification, or justification of colonialism. The law even addresses the sensitive issue of the Harkis (Algerian auxiliaries of the French army).

Colonisation and systemic recognition

Colonisation is not recognised as a crime against humanity, primarily because its definition is not applied retroactively (nullum crimen sine lege). The notion of ‘crime against humanity’ was defined in the 20th century, during important developments such as the 1899 Martens Clause in the Hague Convention: Andrei Mandelstam’s argument after World War I, that the Armenian Genocide was a crime against humanity, supported by Louis de Brouckère at the League of Nations: the work of Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin during the London Agreements, which led to the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and subsequently, the definition of crimes against humanity as acts that harm civilian populations, such as murder, extermination, enslavement, or deportation. Therefore, crimes against humanity did not exist as a legal category before 1945.

France adopts a piecemeal approach by recognising isolated incidents rather than the systemic nature of colonisation in Algeria. For instance, France has made acknowledgements about specific events such as the Sétif massacres of 1945 and the Paris Massacre of 1961, where peaceful Algerian protesters were brutally suppressed. This highlights a pattern in which only single episodes are confronted, rather than the entire colonial system and its rules. For colonisation to be recognised as a crime against humanity, it would need to be conceptualised as a continuous phenomenon rather than a series of isolated events.  However, the plurality of colonial histories also complicates the question of whether colonisation constitutes a crime against humanity. But colonial regimes consist of serious violations that are organised, repeated, and carried out by a political, economic, or social system. This systemic approach has a precedent: South African apartheid was once acknowledged as a domestic policy, then condemned politically and morally, and finally recognised as a crime against humanity. The example of apartheid shows that a system can later be seen as criminal because of its oppressive and discriminatory nature. Furthermore, the consequences of colonisation are socially, economically and psychologically inter-generational: they still shape the present through ongoing inequalities, economic dependence, social divisions, and trauma passed down through generations. This demonstrates that colonisation was a systemic violation of rights and supports the view that recognition should address current issues of justice, memory, and international responsibility.

While it may not have immediate legal ramifications, the Algerian law’s symbolic significance is impactful; it breaks with decades of silence. For many African states, such recognition could demonstrate that a state can acknowledge colonial crimes without collapsing legally or institutionally. It also shows that it is possible to assume historical responsibility without immediately paving the way for massive legal reparations or a widespread legalisation of the colonial past.

From State Sovereignty to International Accountability

The 20^th century radically transformed the Westphalian model of state sovereignty. Absolute state sovereignty was a shield protecting nation states from external intervention in their domestic affairs. Scholars and authors have, however, criticized the Eurocentric roots of international law. The concept of state sovereignty, while ostensibly protecting all nations equally, was often selectively applied. Non-European countries were subject to interference and domination under the name of legal norms created by and for European powers.

A shift appeared in the aftermath of World War II, when the United Nations was created and human rights became inalienable. This transformation challenged the absolute sovereignty of states, as international human rights norms now demanded accountability for the protection of citizens’ rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was a crucial step in this direction, aiming to hold states liable for human rights violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms, often dominated by Western interests within international organizations, have led to criticisms that these institutions selectively apply human rights standards, reflecting broader geopolitical dynamics.

The post-World War II era saw empires dismantled and independent states emerge, yet colonialism’s impact remains significant. Independence movements in the mid-20th century sought to reshape global organizations, challenging Eurocentric views and expanding the international human rights framework to be more inclusive. The 1960s marked a turning point, transforming human rights from selective privileges to a more universal agenda.

Critics like Chandra Mohanty argue that, while colonial legacies persist, Global South countries should move beyond a “victim narrative” and define their own paths. Efforts from the Global North, including acknowledgments of past harms and indebtedness for reparations, indicate progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations. A notable example is King Philippe of Belgium, who in 2020 wrote a letter to the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, expressing his “deepest regrets” for the atrocities committed during Belgium’s colonial rule, making progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations.

The Colonial Legacy: Analyzing the Remaining Power Imbalance

Colonial power dynamics persist, even in forums such as the United Nations Security Council where Western countries hold disproportionate power with instruments like the veto. This structure of such organizations limits Global South’s representation and influence, perpetuating inequalities. Despite the formal end of colonialism, those power imbalances maintain alliances protecting the most powerful nation’s interest. Colonies are left with little support from their former colonial powers.

Human rights became institutionalized within global structures, shifting from a tool made to challenge an oppressive system to one that upholds the status quo. This had diluted its revolutionary roots with interventions, sometimes selectively enforced, based on the interests of powerful nations rather than a consistent humanitarian standard.

For instance, interventions justified by the “Right to Protect” often reflect Global North interests, mirroring colonial practices under the guise of humanitarianism. This dynamic is evident in cases like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 1999 intervention in Kosovo, where the action both brought stability to Kosovo and limited Russian influence in the Balkans. NATO had every reason to participate in this conflict, to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces; however, it also helped to reassert its relevance post-Cold War and define its role beyond the collective defense against the Soviet threat. While this intervention had positive outcomes for local safety and governance in Kosovo, it underscores how such interventions can blend humanitarian goals with strategic motives, reinforcing existing power imbalances.

Toward a More Sustainable Legal Order

Countries in the Global South, while having gained independence from colonizing powers, still suffer from this era, in subtle and more obvious ways. This issue is an ongoing discussion in many organizations where solutions are considered in order to develop and preserve human rights.

To effectively dismantle the legacies of colonialism, efforts must come from powerful states, to establish the equal application of international human rights between them and countries from the Global South.

Many panelists argue that former colonial powers should provide compensation to nations and peoples affected by colonial exploitation and violence. This also includes the return of cultural artifacts looted during the colonial period, but also addresses the psychological and cultural damage inflicted on colonized societies. It is only by acknowledging the remaining legacy of colonialism and actively working against it that international human rights can become a tool for genuine justice and equality, rather than another battlefield for power.