On 25 March 2026, on the occasion of the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 80/250, at the initiative of Ghana, containing the Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity. The text was adopted by 123 votes in favour, with 3 against (Argentina, the United States and Israel) and 52 abstentions (including the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom).
Through this qualification, the resolution invokes one of the most serious categories of international criminal law. Crimes against humanity refer, indeed, to acts of particular gravity – such as enslavement, deportation or persecution – committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of that attack.
While this characterisation forms part of a broader international movement towards the increasing recognition of the historical crimes related to slavery, the resolution goes a step further by describing these practices as the gravest crime against humanity and by expressly linking them to peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens), while reaffirming their imprescriptible character and calling for the opening of discussions on mechanisms of reparative justice. Furthermore, it emphasises the systemic, large-scale and enduring nature of these practices, the legacies of which continue to affect contemporary societies.
This development reflects an intensification of memorial and reparation claims on the international stage. It also raises important legal questions regarding its compatibility with the principle of non-retroactivity in international criminal law, the legal characterisation of the facts in light of existing legal categories, as well as the concrete limits of its implementation.
An initiative forming part of an international movement for recognition and reparation
The adoption of Resolution 80/250 comes against an international backdrop marked by a growing number of initiatives promoting the historical recognition of slavery and its contemporary legacies. In particular, it extends the efforts undertaken by African and Caribbean States to place the transatlantic slave trade at the heart of international debates on reparative justice.
From this perspective, the position adopted by the African Union constitutes an important milestone. At its 38th Ordinary Session, held on 16 February 2025 in Addis Ababa, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government recognised slavery, deportation and colonisation as crimes against humanity and acts of genocide perpetrated against African peoples. Furthermore, it proclaimed 2025 the “Year of Justice for Africans and People of African Descent through Reparations” and designated the period 2026-2036 as a Decade of Action dedicated to reparations and African heritage.
The resolution adopted by the General Assembly thus appears to be the culmination of a diplomatic strategy pursued by several States of the Global South, aimed at gaining multilateral recognition of the exceptional gravity of the transatlantic slave trade and the persistence of its structural effects. In this respect, it is a direct continuation of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which had already characterised the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity and underlined the need to address its lasting consequences.
Beyond that lineage, the resolution reflects a further development of the international normative framework. It reaffirms the prohibition of slavery as a fundamental principle of international human rights law, while situating that prohibition within a broader perspective of historical justice, memory and reparation. In this sense, it draws on a range of international instruments – from the two 1966 human rights Covenants to specialised conventions – which affirm the inherent dignity of the human person and the equality of all individuals.
Lastly, the resolution forms part of a broader movement to mobilise international and regional institutions around the question of reparations. By taking note of the initiatives of the African Union, the Caribbean Community, and the United Nations mechanisms dedicated to people of African descent, it helps to shape an international agenda in which recognition of past injustices is inseparable from the search for concrete solutions, whether in the form of symbolic, material or institutional reparations.
An ambitious declaration: characterisation, imprescriptibility and a reparative horizon
Beyond its symbolic significance, the declaration adopted by the General Assembly has a dense normative content, structured around three guiding ideas: the exceptional gravity of the crime, its inclusion within the core of international law, and the establishment of an explicit agenda for reparative justice.
First, the text undertakes a particularly strong recharacterisation of the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialised enslavement of Africans. It does not merely reiterate, in the wake of Durban, that slavery and the slave trade constitute crimes against humanity: it asserts that they must be regarded as the “gravest crimes against humanity”, by reason of their scale, their duration – extending over nearly four centuries, from the 15th century to the end of the 19th century – their systemic nature, their brutality and their lasting consequences. In this regard, the declaration stresses that these practices constituted a global regime of exploitation, subjugation and dehumanisation, involving States, private actors and institutions alike, and that they contributed to the enduring structuring of racialised systems of labour, property and capital.
Secondly, the resolution seeks to strengthen the legal basis of that characterisation. It explicitly links the trafficking and racialised enslavement of Africans to peremptory norms of general international law, affirming that they constitute violations of jus cogens. It also reaffirms their imprescriptible character, stressing that no limitation period may stand in the way of the demands of truth, justice and reparation. The text also draws on the language of State responsibility under international law, recalling that any internationally wrongful act entails, in principle, cessation, guarantees of non-repetition and full reparation. Although the resolution does not in itself have binding force, it thus seeks to consolidate the legal framework within which future claims might be advanced.
Thirdly, the declaration does not confine itself to retrospective characterisation: it expressly paves the way for reparative justice mechanisms. It emphasises the importance of an inclusive and good-faith dialogue on reparations, referring both to formal apologies and to restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. It also calls for the restitution of looted cultural property and archives, the strengthening of educational and memorial policies, and enhanced cooperation between the United Nations, regional organisations and States. In this way, the declaration constructs a continuum between memory, education, reparation and reconciliation, making the recognition of the past not merely a commemorative exercise, but the foundation of a broader political and legal agenda.
*
While Resolution 80/250 marks a significant step forward in the international recognition of the transatlantic slave trade and the racialised enslavement of Africans, it also highlights major difficulties in the field of reparation. Beyond the question of non-retroactivity in international criminal law, the principle of intertemporality also raises crucial challenges: the events took place in a radically different legal and political context, while the disappearance of the direct victims and perpetrators, the dilution of responsibility, and the transgenerational nature of the harm complicate the implementation of the traditional mechanisms of international responsibility. In this context, the resolution appears less as an instrument of immediate reparation than as an act of normative and political structuring. It contributes to legitimising contemporary claims for reparative justice, while leaving open the decisive question of their practical implementation.
