CIVICUS discusses a recent United Nations (UN) resolution on slavery with Liliane Umubyeyi, co-founder and executive director of the African Futures Lab, a transcontinental civil society organisation that works to dismantle racial injustice through accountability.

On 25 March, the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution on the Transatlantic Slave Trade, advancing the global call for reparatory justice. The vote has reignited a long-running debate over how the international community should address the enduring legacies of colonialism and slavery, and who should bear responsibility for redress.

Why does this resolution matter?

This resolution marks a turning point in international law. It offers unprecedented recognition of the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialised chattel enslavement as crimes. It goes further than the 2001 Durban Declaration, which declared slavery a crime against humanity, by stating that the enslavement of Africans is one of the gravest crimes against humanity, one that structurally underpins the modern world and the rise of racial capitalism.

It also invokes an African legal principle according to which a crime continues to exist so long as it hasn’t been repaired. In doing so, it grounds the case for reparations.

Some object that it’s not legally binding, but foundational texts such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not legally binding either. And still, they came to be recognised as customary international law.

For the resolution to have real impact, it must become a key text in the architecture of international law. Citizens and civil society organisations must take ownership of it and invoke it. Judges and legislators must draw on it. And because the resolution redefines enslavement as central to the making of the modern world, it must also become part of education.

How did states vote and what does this reveal?

The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour, 52 abstentions and three votes against. European states largely abstained, while Argentina, Israel and the USA voted against. Most former colonial and slaveholding powers and their allies abstained. Some countries that had previously recognised slavery as a crime in national legislation, including France, have stepped back, wary of where the reparations question leads.

The vote reflects current geopolitical dynamics, with the global south aligning against the major former colonial and slaveholding empires and their allies, concentrated in the global north.

What should reparations look like in practice?

As the resolution notes, colonisation, slavery and neocolonialism are acts of violence with lasting structural effects, including economic marginalisation, racial discrimination and social inequalities, which must also be repaired. They cannot be addressed through simplistic or uniform reparations.

The UN provides a framework that can be adapted to each context. It rests on four types of measures.

The first is restitution, meaning the return of what was taken. Haiti, the world’s first Black republic, was forced to pay France the equivalent of US$560 million for its independence. This money belongs to the Haitian people and must be returned. Colonisation also saw thousands of cultural objects looted and archives taken from colonised countries. These too need to be restituted.

The second is rehabilitation, with redress for surviving victims of specific colonial crimes. For instance, mixed-race people abducted as children by colonial administrations, including Belgium’s, demand access to healthcare, family archives and recognition of their nationality.

The third is financial compensation for ongoing harm. Many of Africa’s climate disasters result from the extraction and exploitation of its resources and should be met with compensation, not aid or charity.

The fourth is guarantees of non-repetition. Structural reforms must end contemporary inequalities between African and Afro-descendant peoples and the rest of the world. African representation in international institutions is almost non-existent. The UN Security Council, where 80 per cent of decisions concern situations in Africa, is one example. African states are similarly under-represented in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, even though these institutions shape many African countries’ economic policies.

What role has civil society played, and what comes next?

Civil society has played a fundamental role in mobilising Africans and Afro-descendants, both in Africa and across the diasporas in the Americas and Europe.

The resolution is the product of decades of mobilisation by civil society groups, pushing states and regional organisations to act. It’s an intergenerational struggle that will not end until reparatory justice is achieved.

Civil society everywhere must now integrate this demand for reparations into its agenda, invoking and mobilising the resolution in all forums. Because the struggle for racial justice has economic, environmental, political and social implications, every movement, regardless of its agenda, has a stake in combating racial injustice.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.