The UN Resolution on Slavery Reparations

UN General Assembly Makes History: Declares Transatlantic Slave Trade the “Gravest Crime Against Humanity”

March 27, 2026 /Mpelembe Media/ — On March 25, 2026, coinciding with the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution declaring the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as “the gravest crime against humanity”. Spearheaded by Ghana and heavily supported by the African Union and Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Resolution A/80/L.48 marks a significant shift in international human rights by calling for a comprehensive framework of reparatory justice.

The resolution outlines a multi-dimensional approach to reparations that goes beyond symbolic acknowledgment. It urges member states to issue full formal apologies, provide financial compensation, forgive debts, and ensure the unhindered restitution of looted cultural artifacts and national archives to their countries of origin without charge. Proponents, including Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, emphasize that the measure serves as a “safeguard against forgetting” and a necessary pathway to global healing, truth, and the dismantling of the structural racism and economic inequalities that persist today as a direct legacy of enslavement.

However, the resolution revealed a stark geopolitical divide between the Global South and Western nations. It passed with an overwhelming 123 votes in favor, but faced 52 abstentions—predominantly from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan—and three direct “no” votes from the United States, Israel, and Argentina.

Western opposition centered on legal and factual concerns. The United States and the European Union objected to the term “gravest,” arguing that international law does not recognize a hierarchy among crimes against humanity, and that using such superlatives diminishes the suffering of victims of other historical atrocities. Furthermore, opponents firmly rejected the retroactive application of international law, with the U.S. asserting that it does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical acts that were not technically illegal under international law at the time they occurred. Despite this resistance, advocates view the resolution’s passage as an unprecedented diplomatic victory that grounds the demand for reparatory justice in international discourse.

The Continuous Reality: How the UN’s Reclassification of the Slave Trade Dismantles 200 Years of Legal Silence

1. The Weight of History: Deconstructing Historical Amnesia

For nearly two centuries, the global conversation surrounding the transatlantic slave trade was stifled by a convenient “historical amnesia.” Former colonial powers often treated the era as a closed chapter of moral regret—a tragic but distant memory that carried no contemporary legal weight. This silence served as a shield, insulating the beneficiaries of enslaved labor from the demands of justice. However, in March 2026, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) effectively dismantled this shield.The passage of the 2026 resolution marks a seismic shift from passive acknowledgment to active accountability. This is not merely a report on past events; it is a deep dive into a new global order where the “continuous legal reality” of history is finally being codified. The resolution signals that the international community is moving beyond the performative and toward a legal framework that treats historical atrocities as active, unresolved crimes.

2. Beyond a “Moral Wrong”: The “Transtemporal” Shift to Universal Accountability

The intellectual cornerstone of the March 2026 resolution is the fundamental reclassification of the slave trade. While the 2001 Durban Conference categorized slavery as a “historical wrong” rooted in moral judgment, the UN now formally recognizes the practice as “the gravest crime against humanity.”This shift is a legal game-changer predicated on what Professor Luc Mubiala Mutoy describes as the  “transtemporal principle.”  By adopting this principle, the UN bridges the gap between 1826 and 2026, asserting that the harms suffered by people of African descent are continuous and transgenerational. This effectively eliminates the “statute of limitations” defense, framing the slave trade not as a finished event, but as a “world-breaking” inception that inaugurated a racial capitalist system still in operation today.”So, today, we come together in solemn solidarity to affirm truth and pursue a route to healing and reparative justice. The adoption of this resolution serves as a safeguard against forgetting. It also challenges the enduring scars of slavery.” —  President John Mahama, speaking before the General Assembly

3. The Case for Haiti: Restitution for a Historical Irony

At the forefront of this movement is a targeted demand for reparatory justice for Haiti. Ambassador Harold Adlai Agyeman has pointed to a staggering “historical irony”: in the wake of abolition, it was the former slave owners who received financial compensation for their “loss of property,” while the enslaved received nothing.Haiti’s developmental stagnation is directly linked to the “independence debt” of 150 million francs imposed by France in 1825 as the price for international recognition. This was not a business loan; it was a ransom paid by the world’s first Black republic to its former colonizer. The UN framework now prioritizes  restitution —the specific return of these extorted funds—as a distinct legal obligation separate from general compensation. By placing Haiti at the vanguard, the global movement seeks to correct a quantifiable theft that has stifled Haitian sovereignty for a century.

4. The Digital Frontier: From Chattelization to Algorithmic Surveillance

One of the most sophisticated arguments emerging from the 2026 sessions, championed by experts like Isak Nti Asare and Jermaine Ross-Allam, is the link between historical dehumanization and modern technology. They argue that “algorithmic bias” is not a technical glitch but a socioeconomic continuation of white supremacy.If historical “chattelization” reduced humans to property, modern AI reduces people of African descent to data points within systems designed for their exclusion. This link between the “reduction of humans to property” and “reduction of humans to data” is evidenced by:

The 33% Internet Access Gap:  While only 6% of Europeans lack internet access, 33% of people in Africa remain offline, creating a modern “digital divide” that mirrors colonial-era exclusion.

The 35% Error Rate:  Facial recognition technology exhibits a 35% error rate when identifying Black women, a direct result of systems trained on biased datasets that exclude or misidentify people of African descent.

Systemic Exclusion:  The projected trillion-dollar growth of the AI industry largely excludes communities of African descent, while the technologies themselves are frequently deployed to reinforce patterns of surveillance and predictive policing.

5. Geopolitical Friction: The 123-3 Divide

The resolution passed with a significant majority—123 nations in favor—but the vote exposed a stark diplomatic rift. The United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against the measure, while 52 nations, including the United Kingdom and much of the European Union, abstained.The opposition was characterized by a refusal to accept the resolution’s legal implications:

The U.S. Objection:  Deputy Ambassador Dan Negrea argued that the U.S. does not recognize a “legal right to reparations for historical wrongs” that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.

The UK’s “Hierarchy of Atrocities”:  UK representatives justified their abstention by warning against creating a “hierarchy of historical atrocities,” a position that critics argue ignores the unique, world-shaping scale of the transatlantic trade.

The AU and CARICOM Leadership:  In contrast, the African Union—following its 2025 theme of “Justice for Africa and people of African descent through reparations”—and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) operated as the strategic architects of the resolution. They sought “political recognition at the highest level” to ensure that the slave trade is seen as the platform for every subsequent crime against humanity.

6. Redefining the Terms: Deconstructing the “Trade” Myth

A critical linguistic shift has taken hold within the UN’s anti-racism architecture. Experts are moving away from the term “trade,” which implies a consensual, bilateral business enterprise. Instead, the official lexicon is shifting toward  “chattelization.”As Kyeretwie Osei and Jasmine Mickens have argued, the word “trade” distorts the reality of a non-consensual crime. “Chattelization” more accurately defines the process of reducing human beings to property that can be sold, inherited, and passed on through birth.”When it’s framed as a trade, it distorts the reality. It was not a consensual joint business enterprise.” —  Jasmine Mickens, Harvard UniversityThis shift in terminology is essential for the legal pursuit of reparations, as it strips away the veneer of “commerce” and exposes the period as a multi-century criminal enterprise.

7. Conclusion: Toward a New World Order of Equity

As the United Nations embarks on the “Second International Decade for People of African Descent,” the roadmap for reparatory justice has been clearly defined. According to the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (A/HRC/60/77), true justice must be comprehensive and include:

Restitution:  The return of stolen assets, land, and cultural artifacts.

Compensation:  Financial redress for quantifiable harm and lost labor.

Rehabilitation:  Medical, psychological, and social support for transgenerational trauma.

Satisfaction:  Formal apologies, truth-telling, and the restoration of dignity.

Guarantees of Non-Repetition:  Institutional reforms to ensure systemic racism is dismantled.The 2026 resolution suggests that global stability now depends on this accounting. It leaves us with a fundamental question: If our global systems—from international banking to the algorithms that govern our digital lives—are built on a foundation of historical “chattelization,” can equity ever be achieved without a total legal and financial deconstruction of that foundation? The shift toward universal accountability suggests that the “continuous legal reality” of the past can no longer be ignored.