Resolution A/80/L.48 of the United Nations General Assembly, adopted on March 25, 2026, establishes in its first two operative paragraphs:
“1. Unequivocally condemns the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized enslavement of Africans, slavery, and the transatlantic slave trade, which it considers the most inhumane and enduring injustice against humanity;
2. Declares that the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized enslavement of Africans constitute the gravest crime against humanity.”
The resolution marks a significant milestone in debates on historical injustices arising from various causes, as the General Assembly affirms not only that the transatlantic slave trade was a crime, but also that its structural consequences persist to this day.
Background of the Resolution
March 25 marks the anniversary of the International Day of Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, also established by the UN General Assembly in 2006 through Resolution 61/19.
The date is linked to the United Kingdom, as it was on March 25, 1807, that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed, stipulating that: “any type of dealing in the purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves or of persons intended to be sold, transferred, used, or treated as slaves, practiced or carried on in, on, or from any part of the coast or countries of Africa shall be abolished, prohibited, and declared illegal.”
However, that act abolished the transatlantic trade but not slavery itself, which endured for decades.
Years earlier, in 1997, UNESCO, through its General Conference, had agreed to designate August 23 of each year as the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition, with the aim of preserving memory and combating contemporary forms of racism.
In this case, the chosen date was linked to Haiti: in the early hours of August 23, 1791, an uprising began that would prove crucial to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.
It is worth noting that the transatlantic trafficking of Africans and racialized enslavement were also addressed at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.
And even before the UN’s existence, Resolution A/80/L.48 itself recalls the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, adopted by the League of Nations in 1926.
That instrument defines slavery as: “the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”
Beyond the specific dates and reasons chosen, what is significant is that the issue has been addressed and has led to resolutions in at least three UN bodies—an important point to consider when examining the reactions to the March 2026 resolution.
Main Contents
In its preambular paragraphs, the resolution includes extensive and precise information on the various aspects considered in adopting the text.
It states that the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized enslavement of Africans took place from the 15th century to the late 19th century—a highly significant quantitative fact, as it situates the phenomenon within the period of primitive accumulation of capital, extending through the development of various colonial projects in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas.
“…the 15th century marked the decisive beginning of the exceptional and dark history of the capture, forced transportation, and racialized enslavement of the peoples of Africa, considered as chattel, with the holding of the first known state-sponsored mass auction of captured Africans in Nar, Tider, and the Bay of Arguin.”
Slavery and the transatlantic slave trade are integral to modernity, constituting: “…a systematic, widespread, and institutionalized regime of violence, exploitation, dehumanization, and racial subjugation in which States, private entities, institutions, and other beneficiaries participated across continents and oceans”.
Furthermore, this process became the largest forced migration in history and one of the longest-standing systems of organized mass human exploitation on record, in which millions of African people perished during capture, detention, and transport across the oceans.
A key aspect highlighted by the resolution is that this forced transfer of Africans to the Americas established the first racialized slavery: “…which turned human reproduction into a mechanism for capital accumulation and institutionalized racial hierarchy as the guiding principle of the international political and economic order.”
The slavery system was legally codified by the countries and companies involved, beginning with the Vatican State itself through the papal bulls Dum Diversas (June 18, 1452) and Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455).
Among the list of countries that incorporated slavery into their legal statutes are several colonial powers—a factor that undoubtedly contributed to the lack of support for the initiative from the European Union.
Regarding the more operative contents, after condemning the slave trade and slavery and declaring them the gravest crimes against humanity, the resolution includes the following aspects:
- Affirms that the trafficking and racialized enslavement of Africans constitute the gravest crime against humanity due to their magnitude, duration, systemic nature, brutality, and lasting consequences that continue to this day.
- States that the trafficking and racialized enslavement of Africans constitute violations of ius cogens.
- Calls for remedying historical grievances through concrete measures to repair the historical wrongs committed against Africans and people of African descent.
- Calls for the immediate, unhindered, and cost-free restitution of cultural property, art objects, monuments, museum pieces, artifacts, manuscripts, documents, and national archives that hold spiritual, historical, cultural, or other value for the countries of origin.
- Encourages Member States to support initiatives aimed at establishing justice.
- Encourages Member States to promote comprehensive educational programs, historical memory preservation initiatives, and academic research on slavery, the slave trade, and the enslavement of Africans.
Different Positions in the Vote
The decision was led by Ghana and promoted by the African Union, with the support of several other countries.
During the debate, clear blocs of positions either in favor or against the initiative could be observed.
African countries, along with a few Caribbean and Latin American nations, took on the task of defending the initiative, emphasizing the historical significance of the resolution and its potential as a milestone towards eliminating the consequences of the slave trade and racialized enslavement.
Another bloc—the European Union, its current members and some aspiring members, together with the United Kingdom—while stating they agreed in essence with the proposal, indicated they could not support it due to certain content and references within the text.
Though lacking in specificity, the representative of Cyprus, speaking on behalf of the EU, appeared to emphasize concerns regarding explicit references to the domestic laws of several EU member states, the characterization of the transatlantic trade as the “gravest” injustice or crime against humanity, among other issues. The EU’s final stance was to abstain.
Thirdly, three countries voted against: Argentina, Israel, and the United States of America.
The U.S. delegate expressed general agreement with the idea and condemned slavery but found the initiative “problematic.”
In addition to echoing the EU criticisms mentioned earlier, he added two further points: he considered the reference to ius cogens inapplicable, rejecting reparations for acts that were not illegal at the time they occurred.
He also questioned the potential beneficiaries of reparations, arguing that there is a “cynical use” of historical wrongs to benefit peoples and nations only distantly related to the victims of the slave trade.
Ultimately, the resolution was approved with 123 votes in favor, three against, and 52 abstentions.
Final Comments
Beyond the symbolic and political importance of the adopted decision’s content, it seems to reflect the current state of international relations.
The emerging continent—in economic and demographic terms—which is grappling with ongoing anti-colonial processes among its many challenges, has put forward a clear initiative condemning past events with present-day consequences. If dialogue and diplomacy do not prevail, this could lead to new episodes of conflict.
Caribbean countries, through CARICOM, supported the proposal as a bloc.
The former colonizing countries and the declining power view the initiative unfavorably, as they will, in one way or another, be expected to meet the demands for justice and reparation being called for.
Others, such as the majority of Latin American countries, while ultimately voting in favor of the initiative, neither promoted it nor supported its content enthusiastically.
The future will determine whether the proposals in the resolution are realized, but this will require extensive diplomatic dialogue, as the countries from which compliance is expected did not express agreement with the resolution.