From ... in Research History — Sep 4, 2025

Q&A: Reparations for Historical and Ongoing Colonial Atrocities

In this Q&A, Human Rights Watch examines the application of the right to reparation to redress past and present harms stemming from colonial atrocities, including enslavement,[1] systemic racial inequalities, and other related human rights violations. It examines the right globally, not specific to one geographic or historical context. The term “reparations” refers to the right under international human rights law to a remedy for those who have been harmed.

The term “reparatory justice” is intrinsically linked with the right to reparations and refers to a broader, more comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of harm and systemic inequalities to seek broader social and political change.

There is no single model to reparations or reparatory justice processes, but they should fulfill, at the very least, the following criteria to align with international human rights standards: This Q&A will address existing international standards that apply to and should guide all reparatory processes. Although this Q&A focuses on state responsibility, non-state actors that contributed to, benefitted from, and continue to benefit from colonialism are also being called upon to provide reparations. This may include universities, faith-based institutions, museums, businesses, and private individuals. Reparations are measures that acknowledge and remedy the harm and losses caused by human rights violations that impact individuals, groups, and peoples. Reparations are rooted in a long-standing principle of justice that requires those responsible for harm and losses to right those wrongs. Reparations, under human rights law, can range from repair for harm and losses caused by a relatively minor and recent human rights violation affecting one or more individuals, to repair for harm and losses caused by human rights atrocities that were committed many years ago against a people, the harm, however, does not have to be ongoing. Reparations thus also apply to historical injustices including atrocities committed under European and other colonial rule.

There is ample evidence linking the legacies of colonialism, enslavement and the slave trade with contemporary forms of systemic racism including against Africans, people of African descent, people of Asian descent, and Indigenous peoples. UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif said in 2022 that “[w]hile many former colonies have gained independence since the establishment of the United Nations, the process of decolonization remains incomplete.” She also noted that “[n]o State has comprehensively accounted for the past or the ongoing consequences of systemic racism, including the socioeconomic and political marginalization that shapes the lives of people.” Exploitation during colonialism resulted in the forced displacement of people from their homelands, the destruction of ecosystems and cultural structures, and the extraction of raw materials and natural resources from colonies, while enriching colonizing states, institutions, and companies.

The negative impacts of these practices continue to affect people and affected states in the present.

These historical injustices have resulted in deep-seated and enduring psychological harms and trauma with affected communities. Tendayi Achiume described reparations as “a vital aspect of a global order genuinely committed to the inherent dignity of all, irrespective of race, ethnicity or national origin.” In 2001, the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,[2] which codified customary international law, set out a contemporary understanding of the obligation of states “to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act” where “injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.” In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law (“UN Guidelines”),[3] setting out international standards applicable to reparations specifically designed to address serious human rights violations.

The UN Guidelines specify that “a State shall provide reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the State and constitute gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.” They also say that reparations should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered.

The UN Guidelines reflect a broad international consensus on the importance of reparations as a fundamental right with at least some of the principles reflecting customary international law, including the obligation to make reparation for violations, and also reflect the consensus in regional and other human rights institutions, such as the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights. Article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) provides for a right to reparation specific to violations that amount to racial discrimination and related human rights violations, including those rooted in legacies of enslavement and colonialism. ICERD’s preamble enshrines that the Convention seeks to bring these legacies “to a speedy and unconditional end.” The UN General Assembly-endorsed Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA)[4] of 2001 linked these historical legacies as the root causes of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against Africans and people of African descent, people of Asian descent, and Indigenous peoples.

The Durban Declaration sets out “that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity” and recognizes that “colonialism has led to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” It calls on former colonial and enslaving states to grant access to “just and adequate reparation” and “to take appropriate and effective measures to halt and reverse the lasting consequences.” During her tenure as UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and racial intolerance, Tendayi Achiume emphasized that the approach to reparations for racial discrimination should not only seek to provide justice, accountability, and redress for specific harms but also address broader, systemic and contemporary structures as well as systems of racial injustice, subordination, discrimination and inequality, most of which have their roots in enslavement, the slave trade and colonialism. For decades, various UN rights mandates have stressed the importance of redressing historical harms and injustices, including the UN Secretary-General; the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism; and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; the Advisory Committee to the Human Rights Council; the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; and the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent. Reparations is an umbrella designation for many forms of redress, including, but not limited to, apology, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

The UN Guidelines highlight five forms of reparation: Every reparatory process should seek full acknowledgment of the past and present harms of historical legacies. Those responsible should also assume legal responsibility to achieve full accountability. Depending on affected communities and survivors’ demands for reparations, the outcome of a reparatory process may see a combination of different forms of reparations. Financial compensation is just one element of reparations. Reparations can be financial to address ongoing economic disparities caused by colonial atrocities, but demands can also extend far beyond monetary sums. Some calls for reparations can be very straightforward. Communities may request to return to their homeland after colonial policies resulted in their forced resettlement. Communities may look for acknowledgment of past and present harm. While acknowledgment may seem like a minor request, colonial history is largely marked by what some experts refer to as “colonial amnesia” because many people today lack knowledge about these chapters in history, there is little to no recognition of its ongoing impacts, and school curricula in many European and other countries with colonial histories do not teach it adequately. Affected communities often seek transformative change to address the root causes of contemporary systemic racism and inequalities. Governments that are called upon for reparations often treat these calls as impossible or unrealistic. It is noteworthy that similar assessments did not apply to decisions to compensate former owners of enslaved people–not the enslaved people themselves–based on allegations that they had “lost” property after the abolition of chattel enslavement. No, a duty of reparation arises regardless of a finding that wrongdoing amounted to an international crime.

The UN Guidelines apply when gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law have been committed.

These violations would include, but are not limited to, international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. An official apology can be a vehicle to acknowledging past and present harms. An official apology, by itself, however, will almost invariably fail to comprehensively redress past and present harms. A few examples illustrate this: In response to the Dutch government’s formal apology in 2022, acknowledging the country’s historical involvement in the slave trade and its lasting impacts, affected Surinamese and Caribbean community groups criticized the government for not previously consulting them nor providing full reparations. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy in 2024 reiterated previous government statements of “regret” for colonial wrongs, including the forced removal of Chagossians from their islands in the 1960s. Yet during the recent process of agreeing to a treaty between the UK and Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, the UK government failed to meaningfully consult Chagossians and to recognize or address the right of Chagossians to full reparations. In 2021, the German government formally apologized for what it recognized as the colonial-era genocide in Namibia.

The apology, however, was framed as part of a “historical and moral responsibility,” not a legal responsibility. Germany maintains that the affected Nama and Ovaherero peoples or any other communities affected by colonial atrocities do not have a right to reparations.

These examples show that governments may choose apologies to avoid implying legal responsibility, even when there is striking evidence of culpability and atrocities having been committed. Apologies have also been issued to bring an end to public pressure rather than out of a desire to take responsibility. Reparations and reparatory processes should center the needs of communities affected by the harm, while recognizing their individual and collective right to reparation under international human rights law.

The form of reparations, guided by affected communities’ calls, will vary depending on different factors, including the violations suffered, their gravity, the harm caused, and the persons affected. Communities should be involved in the design and implementation of reparations, including decisions on the form of reparations, their appropriateness, and adequacy.

The process should not be determined by those who owe reparations, nor by the governments of countries that were previously colonized. During his tenure as UN special rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff stated that reparatory processes that intentionally or inadvertently exclude affected communities are not in line with international human rights law and standards. He noted that victim participation strengthens reparatory processes. Other UN rights mandates also emphasized the importance of survivor and victim-centered processes, including the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on recognition, reparation and reconciliation, which focused on Indigenous peoples’ specific right to meaningful participation in decision-making that impacts their lives and futures, engrained in their right to self-determination. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa in 2024, 55 Commonwealth nations issued a communiqué that affirmed the need to discuss “reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement.” The communiqué went on to state, “that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.” Two regional examples of inter-governmental and institutional initiatives on reparations are worth highlighting: While the above groups of states have been helpful in raising awareness of the importance of reparations, civil society organizations have called for their and communities’ participation in shaping regional reparations agendas to put people at the heart of reparations processes. It is important to highlight the distinct right to reparations of peoples who have experienced colonial atrocities, like the Chagossians, Ovaherero and Nama, as opposed to any reparatory state-to-state claims that former colonized states like Mauritius and Namibia, respectively, may also make. Governments faced with calls for reparations to address colonial atrocities continue to dismiss them. Political and public arguments against reparations in the UK include that reparations should not come at a cost to taxpayers today, which ignores the ongoing benefits derived from enslavement and colonization. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also claimed that his government “can’t change history,” which reflects the government’s argument that it is not responsible for past crimes or their ongoing impacts. Some governments have also dismissed claims for reparations based on an interpretation of the doctrine of intertemporal law.

They argue, the legality of an act should be assessed based on the laws in effect at the time the act occurred, not the laws in effect at a later date. Relying on this legal principle, current governments have dismissed any legal responsibility for colonial atrocities, claiming that these had not been recognized as international crimes when committed, or that domestic or international law treated these atrocities as lawful at the time. This argument has been challenged by many human rights experts because historical laws that governments rely on to deny responsibility today for past crimes were often racist and discriminatory. In 2023, seven UN special rapporteurs reminded the German and Namibian governments of their obligations under international human rights law that invoked, contrary to the governments’ arguments, a right to reparations of the Nama and Ovaherero peoples for ongoing impacts of Germany’s colonial-era genocide. On August 14, 2025, in response to a parliamentary question, the German government claimed that, as German colonial atrocities, at the time, did not violate international law, the concept of reparation was “not applicable in the context of Germany’s colonial past.” This starkly differs to its position paving the way for reparations for Nazi-era atrocities. Germany appears to apply a double standard by selectively invoking the principle, which risks setting a dangerous precedent that other governments may follow. Moreover, the reference to the intertemporal principle to deny a right to reparations fails to consider that some of the historic domestic and international laws evoked by governments to deny reparations also enabled and justified colonial domination. Tendayi Achiume highlighted this in her 2019 report, saying “t]he pursuit and achievement of reparations for slavery and colonialism require a genuine ‘decolonization’ of the doctrines of international law that remain barriers to reparations.” Also the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that states’ obligations under ICERD aimed at eliminating contemporary racial discrimination included the provision of reparations for colonial atrocities. Under the UN Guidelines, the right to remedy also applies when an act is ongoing and continues to a time when international law considered the act a violation, or the wrongful act’s direct consequences extend into a time when the act and its consequences are considered internationally wrongful. By that logic, the right to reparation should also apply to colonial atrocities. Even if international law at the time did not classify grave rights abuses as serious violations of international law or international crimes at the time they were committed, that does not mean the acts were considered “acceptable.” A positive example of recognition of a right to reparation to address harm inflicted by colonial atrocities is a 2024 Belgian high court decision in which the court found that the ongoing impacts on victims of crimes against humanity ensuing from Belgian racist colonial policies gave rise to victims’ claims for compensation by today’s Belgian government. Reparations are deeply connected to communities’ process of inter-generational healing of lasting trauma, the restoration of dignity and are instilled with a sense of long-awaited justice. European and other governments should not treat the right to reparations distinct from the right to a remedy, which is a key principle incorporated in their jurisdictions to ensure victims of rights violations have access to justice. Denying victims and survivors of abuses linked to colonial and enslavement legacies the right to a remedy would constitute a double standard and ignore their obligations under international human rights law. Human Rights Watch stands with social movements for reparations around the world and will continue to support their efforts to secure the rights of those impacted by colonialism and enslavement. [1] This Q&A will refer to the broader term “enslavement,” encompassing not just the institution of slavery and its impact but it also focuses on the lived experiences of enslaved people and the intergenerational impact of their bondage. It considers the broader cultural, social, and psychological effects of enslavement. Both “slavery” and “enslavement” are however used interchangeably in many reparations-related discussions.

The use of the term in a particular context should, at the end, be determined by affected communities. [2] The draft articles have since been widely accepted and are since referred to as the “Articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.” United Nations, International Law Commission, Report on the work of its fifty-third session, April 23-June 1, and July 2-August 10, 2001, UN General Assembly, Official Records, Fifty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10, A/56/10. [3] 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", adopted by the UN General Assembly in resolution A/RES/60/147. [4] Durban Declaration and Plan of Action, adopted at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Violence, A/CONF.189/12, September 8, 2001; endorsed by UN General Assembly resolution 56/266, May 15, 2002.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Q&A: Reparations for Historical and Ongoing Colonial Atrocities

Search Results

Bookmarks

Subscribe to The Article Feed