The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.
Fifty-two countries abstained, including the United Kingdom and European Union member states.
*Sigh*
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
171 points (97.8% liked)
news
809 readers
1010 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
the United States,
Wonder why... Other than they vote against literally everything that a normal person would recognize as good.
Oh, right:
13th amendment
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Abstaining also means no
Well yes, but no.
Yes but yes
It's probably mostly because it says "the gravest crime against humanity" and not "a grave crime against humanity". Except for the US, which always seems to vote against anything that might bind it.
There are 11 types of crimes against humanity in the Rome charter (must be widespread/systemic and targeted against civilian population):
- Murder;
- Extermination (including "the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population");
- Enslavement;
- Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
- Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
- Torture;
- Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
- Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
- Enforced disappearance of persons;
- The crime of apartheid;
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Should also be noted that it's specifically about african slavery in the transatlantic slave trade, not a general ranking of slavery above the rest. I think there's merit to that actually just being the worst we've done due to its sheer scale and cruelty (not to mention its effects still lingering to this day), but it carries the usual issues of potentially feeling like it diminishes other horrible things (irish potato famine, holocaust, ...). So this might be a rare case where I actually agree with my government voting abstain. I'm a little surprised even that, in their usual israel bootlicking, they didn't just vote against because "clearly holocaust was the worst".
Edit: it seems the meat of it is also about recognizing that there have never been any reparations, and that there really should be some. Which I absolutely agree with, and I figure votes wouldve looked the same regardless of whether it also recognizes it as the greatest crime against humanity (maybe israel wouldve actually been the exception, since their against vote was probably "but holocaust", and I don't think they'd really be on the hook for reparations). So you can now pretty clearly see the map as "how much did the country benefit from transatlantic slave trade, ergo how scared are they that they might actually have to pay reparations for the still lasting economic advantages they gained". All while africa is still largely being exploited by those same countries (plus others, now).
... no mention of environmental crimes that impact humanity/human groups?
Toxic pollutants & climate change I mean.
The water wars & subsequent great migrations are gonna fuel the above list directly (+ the additional loss of habitat, biodiversity, and possibly the ability to raise children).
But all that would hint at megacorps of today being at fault. Which we apparently can't have.
(Saying megacorps of the past benefiting from slavery is "victimless" ... and ofc isn't counting forced prison labour some countries like the USA practice today.)
Not sure if they would come under #11?
Oh, yeah, possibly.
I read 11 as directly intentional and toward a specific individual or groups - like building a damn to starve ppl, not to feed your own ... and with climate change I meant that a "weapon of mass destruction" version of that indirect, non-targeted destruction (that inevitably leads to an environment where more of the 11 points happen - more killing, more slavery, more rapes, etc).
Yeah fair enough, no doubt getting countries to agree that corporations should be accountable for "accidental" damage to the enviroment would be even more difficult than getting them to sign up to this!
Finally! We've all been waiting for this! Now, we can... um...
I mean, genocide is probably worse. Not to imply that slavery is good in any way. (Although slavery likely does fit the definition of genocide.)
This vote was specifically about the transatlantic trade, which was a genocide.
I was thinking of this - Yes, slavery is bad. But is there truly nothing worse that can be done?
I'm guessing it might be because slavery was institutionalized over such a long period, that the generational exploitation makes it worse.
Once several generations of a lineage are treated like property, I guess one could argue that it's worse than a single murder. Now, extrapolate this past a single individual/lineage, and I would reason that along the same logic, slavery is worse than genocide.
I could see arguments either way. But slavery has numbers and sheer length of time.
yeah there is a lot of variables. Im kinda more pissed off if you keep me in horrid conditions and for me to work by force of pain than kill me painlessly but if I had a lot of rights and was taken pretty good care of vs being killed slowly and painfully. When it comes down to it I don't want any of those scenarios. I mean maybe the quick and painless death in some scenarios of life.
America will vote 'present'
I was wrong. They voted against it.
- What does this do for anyone
- What does Ja Rule think about this?
surprise at ukraine not voting against
Trump and Republicans are going to take this personally.