CLA News / President’s Message (June 2026) From Acknowledgement to Accountability and Action: Why Reparatory Justice Matters by CLA President Steven Thiru
Because for them and for the world, there can be no peace without justice — reparatory justice — and that call is answered only when words are turned into action. The question is, what will you do?
Esther Phillips, Poet Laureate of Barbados (25 March 2026)
The Unfinished Legacy of Slavery
Some wounds never truly heal — slavery belongs in this category. The scale and brutality of the harms inflicted mean that acknowledgement alone is insufficient. As Esther Phillips reminds us, healing requires action, and it must be grounded in the principles of reparatory justice.
The recent observance of Juneteenth on 19 June presents a fitting opportunity to reflect on the vital imperatives of reparatory justice. Commemorating the abolition of legalised slavery in Texas on 19 June 1865, Juneteenth symbolises liberation and the enduring pursuit of equality in the United States of America (‘USA’).
Yet recent developments demonstrate that progress is neither inevitable nor secure. On 25 March 2026, the United Nations (‘UN’) General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/80/250 (‘Resolution’), which formally designated the transatlantic slave trade and chattel enslavement as humanity’s gravest crime. The Resolution, led by Ghana and unanimously co-sponsored by all 54 African Union Member States, secured a majority with 123 votes in favour. However, it faced opposition from a trio of dissenting nations — the USA, Israel, and Argentina —while 52 states abstained, which notably included Canada, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the entire European Union delegation.
The importance of reparatory justice becomes apparent when one considers the objections raised, such as the USA’s disappointing and unpersuasive argument that it “does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred”. The United Kingdom advanced similar reasoning to evade reparative responsibility. But were these not the very arguments already invoked and decisively dismissed in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials?
By contrast, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (‘CLA’) unequivocally supported the Resolution in our statement dated 10 April 2026. International criminal law routinely recognises a hierarchy of crimes, and there is therefore no principled basis for objecting to the Resolution’s characterisation of the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”.
Understanding Reparatory Justice
Reparatory justice, as defined by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, involves “ensuring accountability and redress” through measures such as “apologies, truth-seeking and reparations in various forms”. At its core lies a simple but powerful proposition: where a grave wrong has been committed, justice requires more than acknowledgement — it demands repair.
This principle is deeply embedded in international law. In the landmark Chorzów Factory case in 1928, the Permanent Court of International Justice held that reparation must, as far as possible, “wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act” and restore the position that would otherwise have existed. The same principle is reflected in Article 31 and Chapter II of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which provide that every internationally wrongful act entails State responsibility and that full reparation may take the form of restitution, compensation, and/or satisfaction.
Although the EU delegation’s refusal to fully support the UNGA Resolution marks a troubling setback for global consensus, it remains significant that the European Union itself has recognised, within its own policy framework on transitional justice, that victims of human rights violations possess a right to an effective remedy and reparation. Reparatory justice is therefore not an abstract moral aspiration. It is firmly rooted in international legal standards and explicitly reinforced by the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
Modern reparations programmes generally encompass several key forms of restitution and healing:
1) Financial and material redress, including compensation and restoration of property.
2) Rehabilitation and social support, including medical care, psychological counselling, educational assistance, and socio-economic reintegration.
3) Symbolic restitution, including apologies, memorials, museums, and official remembrance initiatives.
Importantly, reparations are concerned not only with punishment, but also with alleviating suffering and promoting recovery.
Judicial decisions around the world have progressively expanded the scope of reparatory justice.
In the Rawagede case, the Dutch courts ordered State reparations for the victims’ families, arising from a 1947 massacre in Indonesia. It rejected limitation arguments, citing the gravity of the wrongdoing and the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility.
In the Mau Mau litigation, Kenyan victims of torture during the Mau Mau Uprising of the 1950s successfully pursued claims against the United Kingdom, resulting in a £19.9 million settlement by the British Government after the court allowed the claims to proceed despite the passage of time.
In Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights went beyond compensation and ordered institutional measures aimed at identifying victims and monitoring State compliance.
Similarly, in the Ogiek case, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights required the Kenyan Government to provide compensation, grant collective land rights, and ensure consultation protections following the unlawful displacement of the Ogiek community.
Taken together, these decisions demonstrate how reparatory justice has evolved beyond financial compensation. It increasingly encompasses structural reform, institutional change, land restitution, rehabilitation, guarantees of non-repetition, and broader measures aimed at addressing historical injustice and facilitating societal healing.
Reparatory Justice vis-à-vis Slavery
The movement for reparatory justice in relation to slavery has evolved through sustained engagement by African institutions, international bodies, and scholarly inquiry.
The Organisation of African Unity first formally advanced the issue in 1991 by calling upon states responsible for centuries of exploitation and enslavement to undertake reparative measures. This was followed by the appointment of experts to develop reparations claims and by the 1993 Abuja Proclamation, which characterised slavery as giving rise to a unique moral debt owed to African peoples.
More recently, the 2022 Dakar Declaration linked reparatory justice to broader questions of African economic and monetary sovereignty. The African Union intensified these efforts in 2023 by establishing an African Committee of Experts on Reparations and convening the Accra Reparations Conference later that year, which affirmed reparations as both a moral and legal imperative grounded in justice, human rights, and human dignity, as contained in the Accra Proclamation on Reparations.
Beyond the regional sphere, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action recognised slavery as a crime against humanity, and acknowledged its enduring contribution to racism and discrimination. The UN further reinforced this agenda through the International Decade for People of African Descent 2015–2024, under the theme of ‘recognition, justice and development’.
These developments share a common premise: slavery is not merely a historical episode. Its consequences remain visible today, long after its formal abolition. The wealth extracted through enslaved labour helped build and strengthen imperial powers and European economies, while many societies subjected to exploitation were left with long-term patterns of underdevelopment, dispossession, and inequality.
The concept of continuing harm is therefore central. Reparatory justice does not require international law to depart from its established principles. Rather, it requires existing principles to be applied with intellectual coherence and moral consistency. If international law recognises that harm may be material or moral, immediate or enduring, it must also be capable of addressing harms whose effects have persisted across generations and become entrenched within institutions, economic systems, and global structures.
Overcoming Barriers to Reparatory Justice
Despite growing acceptance of reparatory justice as a legal and moral claim, resistance remains strong. Critics frequently argue that reparations for historical wrongs would introduce an unmanageable precedent — and open a legal ‘Pandora’s box’.
History suggests otherwise.
States have repeatedly addressed historical injustices through structured forms of compensation and restitution. Reparative measures are neither novel nor unworkable. They are a familiar feature of international diplomacy and domestic legal practice.
Australia provides an instructive example. Legislative frameworks such as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) enable land to be returned to Aboriginal communities through administrative processes designed to address historical dispossession.
At the federal level, the boundaries of reparatory justice were profoundly expanded by the High Court of Australia’s pivotal decision in Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu [2025] HCA 6. The Court affirmed that native title is an enduring property right that existed prior to Australian law, and held that governmental property acquisition must occur on ‘just terms’. While the litigation concerned constitutional principles, its broader significance lies in affirming that the ‘just terms’ principle applies equally to all Australians, ensuring that the Government cannot seize property without fair and just restitution.
An example more directly connected to historical foreign rule is the 2008 Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Italy and Libya. The agreement sought to close the “painful ‘chapter of the past’” and address harms arising from Italy’s control of Libya from 1911 to 1943. Italy committed approximately USD5 billion over 20 years, largely through Italian-built infrastructure projects within Libya. The treaty also incorporated symbolic measures of cultural restitution such as the return of the Venus of Cyrene, and a formal apology from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi acknowledging the deep suffering inflicted.
The treaty was not without controversy. Critics argued that it was influenced by a convergence of contemporary political, economic, and security interests, including migration control and commercial cooperation. Nonetheless, it remains an important example of negotiated historical redress. It demonstrates that states are capable of acknowledging past harms and providing reparative measures through diplomatic agreement.
Indeed, the lesson may be that negotiated settlements are often preferable to prolonged adversarial litigation. Requiring victims to pursue justice by navigating protracted, decades-long judicial battles may compound rather than alleviate historical injury. States with responsibility for historical injustices bear a profound ethical obligation to proactively initiate diplomatic discussions concerning repair, and to lead the way in crafting cooperative frameworks that address historical wrongs in a principled, practical, and mutually constructive manner.
A more recent example is France’s ongoing reckoning with its historical involvement in slavery. In May 2026, the French National Assembly unanimously voted to repeal the Code Noir (‘Black Code’), a 1685 decree that regulated slavery in French colonies and classified enslaved persons as property. Although slavery itself had been abolished in 1848, the decree had never been formally repealed. President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged — albeit in a vague manner — the need to confront the legacy of slavery and discuss possible forms of reparatory justice, but fell short of offering an apology.
However, the initiative has also attracted criticism for exemplifying the limitations of symbolic redress. Critics argued that while acknowledgement is important, the repeal offers only a partial response as it excludes financial reparations, compensation mechanisms, and targeted socio-economic measures. As a result, attention has increasingly shifted towards addressing the material and structural consequences of slavery.
These examples underscore that as demands for accountability continue to gain international traction, the central question is no longer whether reparatory justice is possible, but whether states implicated in historical injustices are prepared to participate in shaping its inevitable development.
Realising the Promise of Reparatory Justice
Reparatory justice is essential to fully realising the promise of the Resolution.
The USA has argued that applying contemporary concepts such as jus cogens norms [peremptory norms] to the transatlantic slave trade is historically anachronistic. However, this objection confuses the formal development of legal terminology with the existence of the underlying prohibition against slavery itself. Historical instruments such as the 1815 Declaration Relative to the Universal Abolition of the Slave Trade and the 1890 Brussels Conference Act provide evidence that a customary international law prohibition had begun to emerge long before the technical modern vocabulary of jus cogens crystallised.
For CLA members, it bears remembering the Commonwealth Charter, which binds its member states to a common history and inheritance under the rule of law, human rights, and equality. Specifically, Article II (Human Rights) emphasises a strict commitment to equality and non-discrimination. Insofar as the development-based model of reparations seeks to correct structural imbalances in education, health, and economic resilience that are rooted in historic exploitation, it represents a practical means of giving effect to these shared pledges.
The momentum generated by the Resolution continues to gather pace, with recent reports indicating that Ghana is hosting an international conference in Accra, titled Next Steps. For the CLA, such an initiative represents an important opportunity to transform the Resolution’s recognition of historical wrongs into meaningful dialogue, structured cooperation, and tangible measures aimed at addressing the enduring consequences of slavery through principles of accountability, restitution, and historical repair.
Reparatory justice is not an exercise in revisiting history, but in ensuring that its enduring consequences are finally and meaningfully addressed. The challenge for states is not conceptual, but legal, moral, and political: to translate acknowledgement into accountability, and accountability into action.
Steven Thiru
President
Commonwealth Lawyers Association
25 June 2026
Steven Thiru records his appreciation to Jaishanker Sadananda and Chin Oy Sim for their assistance in preparing this article.
