The US representative, Dan Negrea, claimed that the resolution was “highly problematic in countless respects”, the UN News agency reported.
The US government stressed 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 representative of the European Union made the same argument on the floor of the UN.
The EU criticized the resolution for implying “suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law”.
“References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis”, the EU argued, stressing that the “principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld”.
The UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said the same, in a statement explaining its decision to abstain.
The British representative argued 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 UK insisted “that the prohibitions on slavery, the slave trade, and what are now considered crimes against humanity had not yet been established in international law at the time of the transatlantic slave trade”.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 