Apartheid named a crime against humanity
Formal international recognition (UN, 1966 & 1973)
In 1966 the UN General Assembly first condemned apartheid as a “crime against humanity”; in 1973 it adopted a binding treaty defining the crime. This is the source of the legal test later applied to South Africa, Namibia, and — by analysts — to other situations.
GA Resolution 2202 A (XXI)
16 December 1966Consensus / paradigmWhat happened
After years of annual condemnation, the General Assembly for the first time labelled South African apartheid a crime against humanity. The designation was later endorsed by the Security Council (Res. 556, 1984).
Condemns the policies of apartheid practised by the Government of South Africa as a crime against humanity. (GA Res. 2202 A (XXI), operative para. 1)
Under each definition
This designation was carried into the 1973 Convention.
The 1966 designation was later folded into Rome Statute Article 7.
The designation was made about, and modelled on, South African apartheid.
This act fixed “apartheid” as shorthand for institutionalized racial domination worldwide.
The case that the label applies
The formal, recorded act by which the UN’s plenary organ declared apartheid an international crime — the anchor for all later legal analysis.
The case against
A General Assembly resolution is not by itself binding law; it was the later Convention that codified the crime. (A caveat on legal force, not on the fact of the designation.)
The 1973 Apartheid Convention
30 November 1973 (in force 1976)Consensus / paradigmWhat happened
The General Assembly adopted a dedicated treaty criminalizing apartheid and defining it. It passed 91–4 (Portugal, South Africa, the UK and the US voting against) with 26 abstentions — reflecting Cold-War and Western unease about a treaty aimed at a specific state.
The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity… (Article I(1))
Under each definition
This is the Convention.
Its definition was carried into Rome Statute Art. 7.
It was drafted with South African apartheid specifically in view.
It cemented the word as shorthand for institutionalized racial domination.
The case that the label applies
A multilateral treaty, in force since 1976 and ratified by 100+ states, defines the crime and binds parties to suppress it — the clearest possible codification.
The case against
Several Western states (including the UK and US) voted against and never ratified, arguing the instrument was politicized. This does not affect its status among the many states that ratified it.
In their words
The Apartheid Convention was the ultimate step in the condemnation of apartheid as it not only declared that apartheid was unlawful… but in addition it declared apartheid to be criminal.
The verdicts above are how each definition would most likely classify this situation — illustrative guidance, not court rulings. Only South Africa is beyond dispute; every other legal characterization is attributed to the body that made it. The lenses diverge most on the treaties’ phrase “racial group” and on the difference between a legal finding and a moral analogy. See the Definition tab for each definition’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.