'The gravest crime against humanity': What does the UN vote on slavery mean?

The United Nations General Assembly this week overwhelmingly backed a resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade "the gravest crime against humanity".

Welcoming the vote, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that the wealth of many Western nations was "built on stolen lives and stolen labour".

Noting the "barbaric punishments that maintained control - from shackles and iron collars to flogging and sexual violence", he said it "was not simply forced labour".

"It was a machinery of mass exploitation and deliberate dehumanisation of men, women and children. The wounds run deep and often go unrecognised."

The resolution, backed by African and Caribbean countries, is not legally binding but analysts say it sends a powerful message.

"It is already a huge and significant step in political terms to have this debate at the UN, even when it has a more symbolic value," Almaz Teffera, a senior researcher on racism at Human Rights Watch, told the BBC.

She says it could increase the chance of progress on discussions about reparations, or some form of compensation.

The resolution was adopted by 123 votes to three, while 52 countries abstained, including the United Kingdom and EU member states.

The United States, Argentina and Israel voted against it.

Dr Erieka Bennett, who leads the Ghana-based Diaspora African Forum, told the BBC the vote had a personal meaning for the descendants of people who were enslaved, like her.

''It means that I'm acknowledged, it means that my ancestor finally rests. For me personally as an African American I'm overwhelmed - until you've been a part of what happened, it's very difficult to understand what this really means."

Countries affected by slavery have been asking for reparations for more than a century. But the debate has intensified in recent years, particularly after some nations and businesses which historically profited from African slave labour formally apologised and announced measures of atonement.

What is the case for reparations?

From the 15th to 19th Centuries, around 12-15 million African men, women and children were captured and trafficked to the Americas to work as slaves.

They were sent to colonies controlled by European countries, such as Spain, Portugal, France and the UK. Two million people are believed to have died aboard the infamous slave ships.

The effects of centuries of exploitation are still felt to this day.

In Brazil, the largest recipient of enslaved Africans - 4.9 million, mostly while it was a Portuguese colony - black people are twice as likely to live in poverty as whites, according to the country's official statistics body (IBGE).

Reparations are intended to work as a restitution – an apology and repayment to black people whose ancestors were forced into slavery. The motion, proposed by Ghana, urges UN member states to consider apologising for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund.

Dr Esther Xosei, a British scholar, activist and leading figure in the global reparations movement, welcomed the vote but doubts it will make much difference on its own.

"It is good victory [for the reparations movement], but let's remember this is only a declaration of intent," she told the BBC.

Xosei added that while it was "encouraging to see African nations taking centre stage in these discussions", she highlighted the importance of grassroots action.

"Hearts and minds will not be won at the UN."

"The real battle will be fought on the streets, where people are still misinformed about the history of slavery and its enduring effects on the lives of Africans and African descendants."

Is there a historical precedent for reparations?

Yes - the most famous reparations case involves Germany. Since 1952, the European nation has paid more than $80bn (£60bn) to Jewish victims of the Nazi regime, including payments to Israel.

But so far, no country has ever paid reparations to the descendants of enslaved Africans or affected African, Caribbean and Latin American nations.

Most of the reparations paid by governments came in the form of compensation to slave owners in the 19th Century, rather than to those who had been enslaved.

That includes the UK - in the 1830s, following the abolition of slavery, the country paid owners the equivalent of more than $21bn (£16bn) in today's money.

Even nations that have formally apologised for their role in slavery, such as the Netherlands in 2022, have ruled out direct financial reparations to descendants of enslaved people. The Dutch government instead established a $230m fund for "social initiatives and projects to address the legacy of slavery".

"The most important thing to understand is that nobody is trying to change the past, but to address its consequences in the present," explained Dr Celeste Martinez, a researcher who specialises in Spanish colonialism in Africa.

"Slavery legacies still endure today in the shape of racism and inequality. Recognising the past is crucial if we want fairer and more democratic societies."

What are the arguments against reparations?

Opposition to reparations takes place on different levels.

One of the main arguments is that those alive today should not be held liable for the crimes of their ancestors.

Some also argue that the passage of time complicates matters in terms of identifying the descendants of the victims. Previous cases – such as payments to Holocaust victims – were resolved while many survivors, or their close relatives, were still alive.

There is also a legal debate. The US has historically refused to recognise a right to reparations because slavery was legal, and even regulated by several countries, between the 15th and 19th Centuries.

The UK, which was one of the major slaving nations before going on to lead the fight to abolish the trade, has also repeatedly ruled out paying reparations. In November 2024, the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy said during a visit to Nigeria that the concept of reparations for former colonies affected by slavery "is not about the transfer of cash".

But it's telling that even Barack Obama, America's first black president, did not publicly pursue, propose, or endorse any reparations policy during his two terms in office. In a 2016 interview with writer and activist Ta-Nehisi Coates just weeks before leaving office, Obama revealed his belief that the country's political system made reparations practically unworkable.

Critics have also voiced concern about the classification of African enslavement as "the gravest crime against humanity". Deputy US ambassador to the UN Dan Negrea said at the General Assembly that Washington strongly opposed what he called an attempt to create a hierarchy for violations.

"The assertion that some crimes against humanity are less severe than others objectively diminishes the suffering of countless victims and survivors of other atrocities throughout history," he argued.

What could the UN decision change?

The UN itself had already publicly supported reparatory justice. In a September 2025 statement, its High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, went further, saying that such justice must include "reparations in various forms".

However, the UN General Assembly, where all 193 member countries get one vote, had never voted or passed a resolution along these lines.

The general assembly cannot force countries to pay reparations, but it can give the cause political legitimacy and bolster the case of those arguing for reparations.

"Grassroots movements and pressure from international bodies like the UN are the reasons why many countries, some more timidly and some more decisively, have started discussing reparation policies," said Martinez, the researcher into Spanish colonialism.

How much money are we talking about?

One of the most discussed aspects of these repairs is who should pay the bill - and how much. The UN resolution does not specify an amount.

Calls have been made for companies, institutions and families who owned slaves to pay compensation. But in most proposals, responsibility stops at the government level. In 2013, Caricom – a bloc of 15 Caribbean nations – issued its 10-point Plan for Reparatory Justice.

The proposals went from cancelling foreign debts to investing in tackling illiteracy and public health. In 2023, the bloc presented a study saying the 15 Caribbean nations were owed at least $33 trillion (£25tr) from former colonial powers.

"The state is always guilty, because it created the environment in which individuals, institutions and businesses participated in slavery and colonialism," said Verene Shepherd, a professor at the University of the West Indies and vice-chair of the Caricom Reparations Commission.

In the same year, Patrick Robinson, a leading judge at the International Court of Justice came up with an even bigger figure - $107tr collectively owed by 31 countries, including nations like Brazil and the US, which benefitted from slave labour after becoming independent from Portugal and the UK.

These are astronomical figures that any country in the world would struggle to pay - the entire US federal budget for 2025 was $7.1tr.

Legal expert Luke Moffett, a lecturer at Queen's University Belfast, believes such massive payments are simply not enforceable.

"Legally, it is a huge mountain that cannot be climbed, but that doesn't mean that the parties involved shouldn't sit down and negotiate," he said.

"People, however, shouldn't expect trillions of dollars. It is also likely that these discussions could take decades to reach any kind of settlement.

And if any money is paid, it is far from clear who the beneficiaries should be.

Caricom's campaign does not only focus on finances. One of the bloc's main complaints is that most countries which benefitted financially from slavery have not issued official apologies.

"The healing process for the victims and their descendants requires that European governments issue sincere formal apologies," said Shepherd from the University of the West Indies.

"Some have instead issued statements of regret. These statements [imply] that the victims and their descendants do not deserve apologies."

Sara Hamood, from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that such acknowledgment is a crucial part of any restorative justice process.

"The financial side is just part of it. We have repeatedly said that no country has fully reckoned with the legacy of slavery or comprehensively accounted for the impacts on the lives of people from African descent," she argued.

"Formal apologies, truth-telling and education are all part of a wide range of measures."

So why won't countries apologise? One of the simplest answers is that apologies can sometimes act as a declaration of legal responsibility for which there could be a financial cost.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who in 2007 said he was sorry for Britain's role in the slave traffic, suggested to the BBC in 2024 that it was wrong for states to apologise for historic wrongs.

"You can go back over history, and you end up in a completely absurd position," he said.

"The most important thing we can do for countries that have been marked by colonialism is to help them now."

Campaigners also highlight the role that education could play in reparation efforts.

This ranges from investments in the educational infrastructure of countries historically affected by slavery to discussions about how the history of slavery is taught in countries who played a role in the transatlantic slave trade.

"People in countries like Britain are still misinformed about the role slavery played in the dehumanisation of my ancestors," Dr Xosei said.

Teffera from Human Rights Watch fears that the importance of education as part of reparations discussions gets diluted by the inevitable focus on compensation payments.

"Yes, it can be about money. And, you know, in many cases, it probably should be about money, because other forms of reparations cannot do justice to address the harm. But reparations are so much more," she said.

Teffera added that nations who took part in the slave trade were still reluctant to confront their history and that a proper reckoning is a crucial part of restorative justice.

"It is important to create a remembrance culture that doesn't just doesn't cherry-pick certain chapters of a country's history."

Additional reporting by Thomas Naadi in Ghana