The First Step Toward a Global Law on Crimes Against Humanity

A two‑week gathering in New York marked the start of a long journey to write a treaty that would make crimes against humanity punishable under international law. The meeting, called the first Preparatory Committee (PrepCom I), ran from January 19 to 30 and set up the framework for a later diplomatic conference. Its job was to decide how the conference would run, who could speak, and what rules would apply—decisions that can shape the final treaty. Delegates from 127 states and dozens of civil‑society groups gathered in the UN Trusteeship Council. The weather was bitterly cold, but people were determined. Most civil‑society members could only arrive after a frantic last‑minute accreditation rush, and only 14 of them spoke at the general debate. The mood was hopeful because this treaty would close an eight‑decade gap in international law that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters. The PrepCom was created by Resolution 79/122, adopted in December 2024 after hard talks in the UN Sixth Committee. Russia led a group that objected to the treaty’s text and process, but the resolution still passed by consensus. The committee had five tasks: elect a chair, choose bureau officers, set the agenda, let states comment on the International Law Commission’s 2019 draft articles, and decide if non‑ECOSOC civil‑society groups could join. The first day saw a fight over the chair: Russia challenged Declan Smyth of Ireland. After a tense debate, Smyth won and then moved on to the bureau election. Again, Russia, China and Egypt pushed to expand the bureau from one to three representatives per region, threatening a delay. The chair postponed the vote and moved straight to the general debate; later, on January 27, a new bureau with eight vice‑chairs was elected.

In the Working Group of the Whole—a closed session for states and accredited civil society—61 states spoke on the draft articles. The discussion covered five main clusters: introductory text, definition of crimes, national measures, international measures and safeguards. States debated adding new crimes like gender apartheid or environmental harm, tightening liability rules, and setting up a monitoring mechanism. Some states wanted to keep the treaty simple, others demanded more detailed provisions. Civil society used the spare time for side events on protecting vulnerable groups and forced marriage, while diplomats held closed‑door talks on gender issues and how to turn comments into proposals before the April 30, 2026 deadline. A key procedural victory was deciding that non‑ECOSOC civil society could participate. A South African coordinator negotiated a consensus text allowing NGOs, academic groups and the private sector to join if states had no objections. Some countries still objected, but the decision opened the floor for survivors and experts to influence the treaty. The overall tone was positive, despite occasional disputes over procedure and content. States now have until April 2026 to submit proposals that will shape the treaty sent to the diplomatic conference in 2028. Civil‑society groups have already offered analyses and proposals on topics like starvation, dispute settlement and gender competence. The next PrepCom will meet in 2027 to finalize the text.

Actions