The United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) resolution recognizing the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity” is regarded not merely as a historical observation, but as a significant development signaling a transformation in the international normative order.[i] Although this resolution adopted by the UNGA is not legally binding, it carries significant symbolic weight in terms of reshaping global collective memory and strengthening the discourse on “restorative justice.” Supported in particular by the African Union and the Caribbean Community, this initiative contributes to making long-standing claims for reparations more visible on the international stage.
The central issue at the heart of this resolution is how a historical crime should be defined today and what the implications of this definition will be for contemporary international law and politics. The forced displacement of approximately 12–15 million Africans and the loss of millions of lives between 1500 and 1800 is being reframed not merely as a system of economic exploitation, but also as a systematic crime against humanity.[ii] In this context, the decision emphasizes that slavery is not merely a phenomenon of the past; its effects persist today through ongoing forms of racial inequality, economic underdevelopment, and social exclusion.
An important aspect of this decision is that “politics of memory” is becoming increasingly influential in international relations. This initiative, brought to the forefront particularly under Ghana’s leadership, advocates for the recognition of historical traumas on international platforms and the need to transform these traumas into a process of collective reckoning. As Ghanaian President John Mahama stated, this resolution aims not only to document the past but also to prevent it from being forgotten.[iii] This demonstrates that the international community’s capacity to confront historical injustices is growing.
However, the decision-making process and the voting results reveal that serious differences of opinion regarding such normative initiatives persist within the international system. In particular, the fact that the United States (U.S.), Israel, and Argentina voted against the resolution, while the United Kingdom and European Union (EU) countries abstained, shows that the issues of reparations and historical responsibility remain contentious. The main argument put forward by these countries is that past actions must be evaluated according to the norms of international law at the time, and that current generations cannot be held responsible for those actions.
At this point, the tension between international law and ethical-political responsibility becomes apparent. From a legal perspective, the fact that many practices during the era of slavery and colonialism were not explicitly prohibited by international law at the time makes the legitimacy of claims for compensation today a matter of debate. However, when evaluated from an ethical and political perspective, the fact that the consequences of such historical injustices are still felt today brings to the fore a concept of “historical responsibility.” This situation indicates that a broader understanding of justice—one that goes beyond the classical conception of international law—is emerging.
Another important aspect of the ruling is that the issue of reparations is being addressed not merely as a financial matter, but as a multidimensional demand for justice. As Ghana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs emphasized, what is being sought is not merely a transfer of funds; it includes educational funds, cultural restoration, capacity building, and structural support mechanisms aimed at redressing historical inequalities.[iv] This approach shifts the reparations debate into a more inclusive framework and brings together the concepts of “development justice” and “historical justice.”
The decision’s call for the return of cultural heritage points to another area of debate that has gained increasing prominence in the postcolonial era. The restitution of cultural artifacts taken from Africa and other former colonies is viewed not merely as a matter of ownership, but also as an issue of identity, memory, and historical redress. In this context, the decision has the potential to increase international pressure for the return of artifacts held in Western museums.
The connection between this development and the balance of power within the international system should not be overlooked. The fact that countries of the Global South are acting in an increasingly coordinated manner and uniting around common demands indicates that a new dynamic is emerging in the creation of international norms. In particular, the shared discourse of African and Caribbean countries is seen as a reflection of historically marginalized actors’ quest for a greater voice in global governance.
In this context, the decision in question is not limited to the recognition of a tragedy that occurred in the past; it also brings about a process of deep questioning of the normative structure of the international system. In particular, the need to re-evaluate the relationship between historical justice, collective memory, and structural inequalities is becoming more apparent. This situation shows that states are beginning to be evaluated not only on the basis of their legal responsibilities, but also on the basis of their moral and political obligations. In addition, this decision reveals that the international community’s capacity to confront the past is increasing and that this confrontation is simultaneously producing areas of conflict with new cooperation mechanisms. Therefore, this development paves the way for a more comprehensive and multi-layered discussion of the quest for global justice and allows similar demands to be voiced more strongly in the future.
In conclusion, although this UNSC resolution has limited legal binding force, it stands out as an important indicator of normative transformation in international relations. The resolution is considered an institutional expression of the recognition of historical injustices, the strengthening of collective memory, and the search for a more just order on a global scale. However, disagreements on compensation and responsibility indicate that this process will continue to be controversial in the coming period. Ultimately, this resolution reveals that the international community’s capacity to confront the past has increased, and that this confrontation brings with it new political and legal debates.
[i] Chibelushi, Wedaeli, and Thomas Naadi. “UN Votes to Recognise Enslavement of Africans as ‘Gravest Crime against Humanity’”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg06q36052o, (Date Accessed: 29.03.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
