By Alex Ababio
At a moment many African states describe as long overdue, a diplomatic push led by Ghana at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has reignited a global debate: how should the world formally recognise and respond to the transatlantic slave trade?
During the 80th session of the UNGA on March 25, 2026, Ghana—backed by the African Union—introduced a resolution seeking to have slavery and the transatlantic slave trade recognised as the “greatest crime against humanity.” But in a move that has drawn criticism across Africa and the diaspora, two of Ghana’s former colonial rulers—the United Kingdom and the Netherlands—refused to support the resolution.
Their opposition, grounded in legal doctrine and political caution, has exposed a widening divide between calls for moral reckoning and the constraints of international law.
A Resolution Rooted in History—and Justice
Ghana’s resolution was not merely symbolic. For policymakers and historians across Africa, it forms part of a broader push for recognition, reparative justice, and a rebalancing of historical narratives long shaped by European powers.
The transatlantic slave trade, which forcibly displaced over 12 million Africans between the 15th and 19th centuries, remains one of the most devastating systems of exploitation in human history. Coastal forts in Ghana—once operated by European traders, including the British and Dutch—served as key departure points for enslaved Africans.
For many African leaders, formally recognising slavery as the “greatest crime against humanity” is a necessary step toward addressing its enduring socio-economic consequences.
Yet, despite broad support from African and Caribbean nations, the resolution failed to achieve consensus—largely due to resistance from several European states.
The UK’s Legal Argument: No “Hierarchy of Atrocities”
The United Kingdom, represented at the UN, articulated a position rooted firmly in legal principles rather than moral denial.
“The UK is firmly of the view that we must not create a hierarchy of historical atrocities,” its representative stated. “No single set of atrocities should be regarded as more or less significant than another.”
At the core of Britain’s argument is a long-standing concern within international law: the risk of selectively ranking historical crimes. British officials argue that designating slavery as the “greatest” crime could inadvertently diminish other atrocities, including genocides and war crimes.
The UK also invoked the principle of intertemporality—a doctrine in international law which holds that actions must be judged according to the laws in force at the time they were committed.
“According to the intertemporal rule, the applicable law is the law of the relevant time,” the UK stated, adding that prohibitions against slavery were not codified in international law during the height of the transatlantic slave trade.
This argument extends to reparations. The UK maintains that there is “no duty to provide reparation for historical acts that were not, at the time those acts were committed, violations of international law.”
The Netherlands: Apology Without Legal Liability
Echoing Britain’s stance, the Netherlands also declined to support the resolution, though it placed greater emphasis on prior acknowledgments of wrongdoing.
“In December 2022, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands offered formal apologies,” its representative noted, referencing a landmark speech that acknowledged the Dutch state’s role in slavery. This was followed in July 2023 by an apology from King Willem-Alexander.
Despite these gestures, the Netherlands drew a clear line when it came to legal implications.
“We cannot support references that suggest the retroactive application of international law,” the representative said, warning that such language could imply obligations for reparations.
Like the UK, the Netherlands also rejected the idea of elevating slavery above other crimes against humanity, arguing against “the introduction of a hierarchy among crimes.”
A Clash Between Law and Morality
The positions taken by both countries highlight a central tension: the gap between legal frameworks and moral accountability.
From a strictly legal standpoint, their arguments are not new. International courts, including the International Court of Justice, have consistently upheld principles like non-retroactivity. These principles are designed to ensure stability and predictability in international law.
But critics argue that such legal reasoning risks ignoring the moral magnitude of slavery and its ongoing impact.
African scholars and reparations advocates contend that the legacy of slavery cannot be confined to the past. Structural inequalities, racial discrimination, and economic disparities are widely seen as direct consequences of centuries of exploitation.
For them, the debate is not only about legal liability—it is about recognition, dignity, and historical truth.
The African Union’s Position
Ghana’s initiative reflects a broader continental agenda led by the African Union (AU), which has increasingly pushed for global acknowledgment of slavery’s enduring effects.
Importantly, AU representatives stressed during negotiations that the resolution was intended as a political declaration, not a legally binding document.
“The resolution was not to be read as a legal document,” Ghana and AU delegates repeatedly clarified.
However, the UK noted that despite these assurances, concerns about legal interpretation remained unresolved.
“The United Kingdom is keen to underscore this point on the AU’s intention, while we continue to regret the failure to accept language that would have put the matter beyond doubt,” the UK stated.
Colonial Legacies Still Shape Diplomacy
The refusal by former colonial powers to support the resolution carries symbolic weight—especially in Ghana, where British and Dutch colonial rule left deep historical imprints.
The involvement of figures such as King Charles III and King Willem-Alexander—both of whom lead constitutional monarchies tied to colonial-era institutions—adds another layer of complexity.
While both nations have taken steps toward acknowledging their past, critics argue that these actions fall short of meaningful accountability.
In recent years, global movements—including the Caribbean Community’s reparations campaign and growing academic consensus—have intensified pressure on European governments to go beyond apologies.
Global Reactions and Expert Perspectives
International reactions to the vote have been mixed.
Some legal experts support the UK and Netherlands, arguing that undermining foundational principles like non-retroactivity could create dangerous precedents in international law.
Others, however, see the refusal as emblematic of a broader reluctance among former colonial powers to fully confront their past.
“Legal arguments should not become shields against moral responsibility,” one African policy analyst noted in post-session discussions. “The law evolves—and it often evolves because societies demand justice.”
Human rights advocates also point to precedents where historical injustices have been addressed through political, rather than strictly legal, mechanisms—such as truth commissions and reparations programs.
Beyond the Vote: What Comes Next?
Although the resolution did not achieve unanimous support, analysts say the debate is far from over.
For Ghana and its allies, the effort has already succeeded in bringing renewed global attention to slavery’s legacy. It has also exposed fault lines that may shape future negotiations on reparations, historical justice, and international law.
There is growing expectation that the issue will resurface in other multilateral forums, including UNESCO and regional bodies.
Meanwhile, pressure continues to mount on European nations to move beyond symbolic gestures toward more substantive forms of redress—whether through development partnerships, educational initiatives, or formal reparations frameworks.
Conclusion: An Unfinished Reckoning
The debate at the UNGA underscores a fundamental question facing the international community: how should history be judged—and who gets to decide?
For Ghana and the African Union, recognising slavery as the “greatest crime against humanity” is a moral imperative rooted in lived experience and historical truth.
For the UK and Netherlands, the issue is constrained by legal doctrines designed to preserve the integrity of international law.
Between these positions lies an unresolved tension—one that reflects the broader struggle to reconcile justice with legality, memory with policy, and history with the present.
As the world continues to grapple with the legacy of slavery, one thing is clear: the conversation is far from over.