“My friends, although I am not of your color, I have always considered you my brothers. Nature has formed you to have the same spirit, the same reason, the same virtues as whites.” Two and a half centuries after these Reflections on the Slavery of Negroes (1781) by the Enlightenment thinker Nicolas de Condorcet, and 80 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), with the decolonization process largely concluded, one must ask why Ghana, together with other member states of the African Union, felt the need to promote a resolution on the issue of African slavery at the United Nations General Assembly. The answer is found in the text of Resolution A/80/L.48, adopted on 25 March 2026: it is a historic resolution recognizing the transatlantic trade of Africans reduced to slavery as “the gravest crime against humanity”.
The resolution originates from a strong “political” mandate: a coalition of African states, co-sponsored by dozens of Caribbean and Global South countries, aimed to “complete history by establishing a principled framework for reconciliation based on truth and rooted not in revenge but in moral recognition”. This is not an irrelevant declaration: although the General Assembly resolutions are formally not “binding”, they can, in practice, develop an opinio juris (accepted as law) contributing to principles of law from which it will be difficult for states to diverge.
The “historical responsibility” of states
From an international law perspective, the resolution gains value in recalling the principle of the “historical responsibility” of states to confront the past. Its wounds and structural legacies continue to affect power relations, the economy, and social inequalities today. In other words, it is the official claim of the Global South’s “right to recognition” for the interferences and discrimination suffered, which has not yet been fully addressed despite decolonization.
The resolution asserts a first principle: the transatlantic slave trade of Africans and the condition of racial slavery are defined as “crimes of exceptional magnitude”, not only because of their brutality and duration, but also for their long-term structural consequences. These practices shaped “global hierarchies” of race, labor, property, and capital, leaving persistent traces in contemporary societies. It also underscores the importance of moral recognition of the past, without creating a legal hierarchy relative to other crimes against humanity. Historical truth is therefore an indispensable prerequisite for a path of reconciliation, to lay the foundations for collective reflection and the construction of international relations in terms of “moral legitimacy”.
Consequently, two other principles emerge that now form the basis on which the Global South intends to structure the international system, especially toward Western countries historically responsible for slavery: “reparative justice” and “current responsibility” for inequalities. The resolution highlights how the consequences of slavery persist in contemporary socio-economic structures, contributing to racial inequalities, marginalization, and disparities in access to economic and political opportunities.
From “perpetual slavery” to liberation
It is useful to recall the main framework and passages of the text, which spans seven pages and sixteen final decision points. The first four pages are dedicated to the preamble, referencing primarily the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on civil and political rights (1966), and the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (1965). Yet the document places particular emphasis on another substantial element: the acknowledgment of the historical and legal trajectory in which human history saw predatory imperial powers formally legitimize the racial enslavement of Africans worldwide.
This long and disturbing legacy began with the papal bulls Dum Diversas of 18 June 1452 and Romanus Pontifex of 8 January 1455, which authorized the reduction of African people to “perpetual slavery”. It continued with the Portuguese commercial standard peça de Índias of 1 July 1513, which legally quantified enslaved Africans as units of income, with women, children, and the elderly measured as fractions of a principal male slave. The Spanish Asiento de Negros, formalized on 18 August 1518, transformed African individuals into “taxable merchandise” under a state-authorized trade monopoly, while the Dutch West India Company Charter of 3 June 1621 applied Roman-Dutch law to classify Africans as res mobiles, or movable property. The Barbados Slave Code of 14 May 1661 formally categorized Africans as chattel property under English law, and in March 1685, the French Code Noir legally defined enslaved Africans as meubles, stripped of all rights. Furthermore, the statutory principle of Virginia partus sequitur ventrem, established in December 1662, created an unprecedented biologically inheritable status of property transmitted through the mothers of enslaved African children.
The narrative then moves to the eventual liberation from slavery, beginning in the nineteenth century with the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, the Declaration of the powers on the abolition of the slave trade of 8 February 1815. This legal and moral trajectory culminates in the African Charter on human and peoples’ rights (the Banjul Charter, 1981) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), which explicitly classifies enslavement as a crime against humanity, marking the universal legal recognition of its profound and unequivocal illegality.
The opposition from the US, Israel, and Argentina
Having affirmed the principle of racial slavery as “the gravest crime against humanity”, the resolution specifies “collective recognition” due to “the profound and enduring impacts of the abhorrent regimes of slavery and colonialism and the persistence of racial discrimination and neocolonialism on Africans and people of African descent, and how this continues to cause immense suffering, cultural disintegration, economic exploitation, emotional trauma, and ongoing discrimination suffered by Africans and people of African descent throughout history”.
UN Member States are therefore called upon to engage in “inclusive and good-faith dialogue on reparative justice, including a full and formal apology, restitution measures, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition, and amendments to laws, programs, and services to address systemic racism and discrimination”. Specifically, the resolution calls for “prompt and unhindered return” of cultural property, artworks, monuments, museum objects, artifacts, manuscripts, and documents, as well as national archives of spiritual, historical, cultural, or other value, to countries of origin without costs, alongside strengthened international cooperation on reparations for any harm caused, “recognizing that this promotes national culture and the enjoyment of cultural rights by present and future generations”.
It was predictable that such a groundbreaking resolution would face strong opposition from the United States, Israel, and Argentina. The United States feels the weight of internal colonialism and persistent systemic racism and especially perceives the risk of being called to account for reparations. “The United States does not recognize a right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time,” stated U.S. Ambassador Dan Negrea.
Israel opposed the resolution for fear that asserting primacy among historical crimes might relativize the Holocaust, recalling the Historikerstreit debate of the 1980s on the uniqueness of the Holocaust. Legally, however, according to Jewish jurists Raphael Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht, who defined genocide and crimes against humanity, it makes no sense to rank mass atrocities: all retain universal disvalue, and there is no measure in dehumanization when every victim becomes a thing.
Argentina’s opposition is explained by the reactionary stance of the country’s president Javier Milei and by the historical construction of a white national identity that erased indigenous and African memories from the Campaña del Desierto. Between 1878 and 1885, the Argentinian army occupied southern Pampa and Patagonia, carrying out dispossessions, deportations, and massacres against indigenous populations.
Russia abstained to avoid antagonizing the Global South but is aware that Eastern peoples suffered transfers and deportations for territorial “Russification”, especially in Donbass and Crimea. Brazil, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and the other EU Member States also abstained, taking a strategic approach to avoid claims for reparations. While confirming that they recognize the seriousness of the historical crime, Europeans in particular questioned the methodological approach of a 'primacy' in the hierarchy of crimes against humanity that at this point would also relativize historical genocides, and proposed the opportunity for a different vision, even on future occasions, on the legal issues underlying an excessively 'selective' interpretation of the West's responsibilities. Italy also joined in abstaining, a position that, while not opposing the recognition of historical responsibilities – already admitted in the Treaties resolving its colonial past in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia – in fact appears oriented not to endorse explicit claims of compensation or reparation.
A global alliance against new imperialisms
The high number of votes remains notable: 123 states voted in favor, including nearly all African countries, numerous Caribbean Community (CARICOM) states, South American, Asian, and Arab countries (including those who’ve practised slavery) demonstrating the Global South’s determination to establish a firm recognition of past wrongs. An African Union expert committee is already working on an operational framework for reparative justice, starting with the recovery of memory through collecting testimonies of descendants of enslaved people worldwide, from Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas.
The Global South seeks accountability from former colonial powers through educational and cultural investments, return of cultural property, and support for social and infrastructural development. The strategy aims at real change in international relations that addresses persistent inequalities. The practical implementation of reparative justice will likely focus on a new paradigm for economic cooperation agreements, excluding predatory or purely exploitative approaches, and could also influence policies on migration and expulsions.
As Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama emphasized, “We walk this long path, each step guided by the desire to be better and to do better; each step brings us closer to the kind of world we want to leave for our children”. Facing new imperialisms, the Global South – a significant part of the world – is beginning to demand a new global consciousness, where history and law intersect to transform present power structures and inequalities, laying the foundations for a fair and responsible future. Europe should take this seriously and decide which side to stand on: a global alliance against the predatory logics of new imperialisms may be emerging.
Maurizio Delli Santi is a jurist and analyst affiliated with the International law association and the International society for military law and the law of war in Brussels. He has held positions as a lecturer in international criminal law and international humanitarian law. He has worked in the international legal sections of the Italian Defence Ministry, dealing with the implementation of the International Criminal Court Statute.
