When Canada abstained from a recent vote at the United Nations on a resolution recognizing the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity, the decision may have appeared cautious, even procedural.
It was neither.
Abstention, in this situation, is not neutral position. It’s a firm stance — one that carries legal, political and historical consequences.
A vote about legal meaning, not just history
At first glance, the resolution might seem symbolic; a statement about a past atrocity with a moral status that’s already globally accepted. But in international law, recognition is never merely descriptive. It helps define legal norms and the scope of responsibility.
The category of “crimes against humanity” has evolved significantly since its early articulation at the Nuremberg Trials in the 1940s. What began as a response to the atrocities of the Second World War has developed into an important pillar of international criminal and human rights law.
Identifying the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity isn’t simply restating history. It situates that history within the legal architecture that governs how we understand atrocity, responsibility and redress today.
The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour. The United States, Argentina and Israel voted against it, while 52 states abstained, including the United Kingdom, Canada and all European Union member states, including Spain.
By abstaining, Canada did not opt out of a symbolic gesture. It declined to participate in shaping the legal meaning of one of international law’s most significant categories.
(AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)
The myth of absention as neutrality
In multilateral diplomacy, absention is usually framed as a middle ground; a way to avoid taking sides. But in practice, especially in process of creating legal norms, absention can function as a form of resistance.
Votes at the UN General Assembly are part of how international norms are consolidated, clarified and sometimes contested. When states abstain from resolutions that seek to expand or develop those norms, they signal hesitation about the direction of that particular legal development.
Canada’s absention therefore raises questions about alignment. It places the country neither among those states affirming a stronger legal characterization of the slave trade nor among those openly opposing it. Instead, Canada now occupies a position of ambiguity — one that may reflect concerns about legal implications, including potential claims for reparations.
But ambiguity isn’t without impact. In the politics of international law, declining to affirm a legal norm can slow its consolidation and weaken its force.
Why recognition still matters
If the transatlantic slave trade is widely acknowledged as a profound injustice, why does formal recognition matter? Because recognition is tied to how harm is measured, narrated and addressed.
Efforts to grapple with the legacies of slavery increasingly involve questions of quantification, of loss, of dispossession and of enduring inequality. Legal recognition, including reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, shapes these process by establishing what counts as a harm of the highest order and therefore what kinds of responses are justified.
This is particularly evident in ongoing debates about reparations, where claims are often grounded in the characterization of slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity. Without clear and consistent recognition, these claims face higher legal and political barriers.
In this sense, the resolution isn’t only about the past. It’s about the frameworks through which historical injustice is made visible in the present.
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
A choice with consequences
Canada has long positioned itself as a supporter of international human rights and the rule of law. Abstaining on the UN’s slavery resolution is at odds with that self-perception.
States may have reasons to be cautious in endorsing specific resolutions about legal responsibility. But those reasons should be clearly stated and open to scrutiny.
Absention avoids that scrutiny. It allows states to sidestep difficult questions about history, law and accountability while maintaining the appearance of neutrality.
But there is no neutral ground in the recognition of crimes against humanity. There are only choices about what to affirm, what to resist and what to leave unresolved.
Canada has made one such choice. It should be prepared to explain it.
