UN Crimes Against Humanity Preparatory Committee: Confronting Past Atrocities,
“Comfort Women” System, and Current China-Japan Debates
Introduction
The first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity was held at the UN Headquarters in New York from January 19–30, 2026. Civil society participation was restricted to invited NGOs in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), following a selective application process. The Education for Social Justice Foundation was among the 117 NGOs invited to participate in this conference.[1]
In 2017, I co-founded the Education for Social Justice Foundation (ESJF) based in San Francisco, the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone. I have since served as its executive director. Beginning in 2023, I have represented ESJF as an NGO in special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Our mission is to provide education on past injustices relegated to the sidelines of history. Our focus areas include: countering sexual and gender-based violence, preserving Asian American history and legacy, and highlighting grassroots movements that have shaped history.
This summary of my participation in the conference has two parts. First, I’ll discuss the debates between China and Japan on the first day of the conference, their background, and their implications. Second, I’ll highlight the standalone crimes against humanity treaty, a brief history of crimes against humanity, and efforts made by the UN Member States and civil society to make the crimes against humanity treaty more inclusive, effective, and accountable.
China and Japan: Tensions at the UN
During the afternoon session on the first day, chaired by Declan Smyth of Ireland, Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of China to the UN, Ambassador Sun Lei, began his remarks by commenting on Japan’s war crimes in the 1930s and ’40s and their impacts. The following transcriptions are from the UN Web TV recording of the meeting.[2] The full remarks are also available on the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries website and the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN website.[3] Ambassador Sun Lei stated:
“During the Second World War, Japanese militarism inflicted profound calamities upon the peoples of China, Asia, and the world. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the work of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (“Tokyo trials”). The Tribunal systematically adjudicated and exposed the crimes of Japanese militarism in planning, preparing for, and invading China and other Asian nations, as well as in launching the Pacific War.” … “The international community should jointly safeguard the victorious outcomes of the Second World War, including the Tokyo trials, uphold the international order based on international law, and prevent Japan from reverting to the old and pernicious path of militarism.”
In response, after reading what she had prepared, Japan’s representative—identified in delegation records as Hibiki Urano—responded: “It’s regrettable that the Chinese delegation made a groundless statement against Japan. Since the end of WWII, Japan has consistently followed the path of a peace-loving nation and made innumerable contributions to the peace and prosperity of the international community. With respect to China’s unsubstantiated claims regarding history, I will refrain from refuting each one individually. The current administration has upheld in its entirety the position of the previous cabinets on history and will continue to do so.”
Then, during the right of reply session at the end of the day, Li Linlin, a senior legal counselor at the Chinese Mission to the UN, stated that the history of “comfort women” and the Tokyo Tribunal were not just a matter of historical memory, but a foundational legal precedent for the draft articles on crimes against humanity currently under debate. He stated:
“Just now, the Japanese delegate said that China’s allegations are baseless. We do not accept this statement. During WWII, Japan committed crimes, which are irrefutable. The notion of crimes against humanity was born out in international trials, which include Germany, France, and Liechtenstein, among many other countries, have mentioned the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo trials, which are proof of that point. In particular, the charter of IMT (International Military Tribunal) for the Far East clearly stipulates crimes against humanity, which is a high-level summary and accurate description of the heinous crimes committed by Japanese militarists. As is known to all, during WWII, the Japanese military systematically killed civilians in China and recruited ‘comfort women’ forcibly. These are irrefutable evidence of their crimes against humanity. Just now, the Japanese representative mentioned that their government treats history in a holistic manner. We have to ask what attitude they have toward history, especially the history of WWII. As a matter of fact, Japan has never repented or pleaded guilty in terms of its crimes. Recently, Japan’s erroneous remarks have further exposed its dangerous trend of reviving militarism. China solemnly urges Japan to face up to the irrefutable evidence of history and deeply reflect on its crimes, instead of further going down the wrong path.”
Japan then immediately responded, “What was said by the Chinese delegation against Japan is unacceptable. Japan’s position is already stated in our previous statement. I will thus not repeat it.”
Background
The diplomatic exchanges at the January 2026 Preparatory Committee seem to have been a direct consequence of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s November 7, 2025, remarks regarding Taiwan, Province of China, the official nomenclature utilized by the United Nations. During deliberations in the National Diet, the prime minister stated that a contingency in Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening crisis” for Japan, suggesting a basis for military action in self-defense. Since then, China has expressed its discontent with the comment.[4]
These exchanges were far from unexpected; diplomatic tensions between the two nations have risen at the United Nations since late 2025. Tension began on November 18 when China issued a declaration, labeling Japan “unqualified” for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.[5] On November 21, China’s UN Ambassador, Fu Cong, took the significant step of writing directly to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, warning that any Japanese armed intervention regarding Taiwan would be classified as an “act of aggression.”[6] Japan issued a formal rebuttal on November 24, stating that it adheres to a “consistent position” on the Taiwan question, without specifying further.[7]
The diplomatic sparring intensified throughout December. On December 1, Ambassador Fu Cong sent a second letter to the secretary-general, this time calling for “global vigilance” against Japan’s regional activities.[8] Japan’s UN Ambassador, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, responded in kind on December 5 with a formal letter of rebuttal to the UN, stating that “the assertions contained therein are inconsistent with the facts, unsubstantiated, and are categorically unacceptable.”[9]
The friction between the two nations increased further during an open Security Council debate on December 15, 2025. The Chinese ambassador used the floor to issue a sharp condemnation of Japan, specifically demanding that Japan’s prime minister retract comments concerning a potential Taiwan contingency.[10] Invoking the crimes of the past, he declared, “We must never allow the resurgence of militarism and fascism.”
On March 6, 2026, sixteen UN experts issued a joint statement through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing grave concern over the continued lack of justice for survivors of the “comfort women” system established and controlled by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II.[11] The experts urged all relevant states to act without further delay.
Implications
The timing and nature of these developments suggest a possible, yet complex, intersection of current geopolitical tensions surrounding the historical trauma of the state-operated “comfort women” system. The recent diplomatic friction between China and Japan is likely to have been precipitated by the Japanese prime minister’s stance on regional security and the status of Taiwan, the Province of China. While the politicization of victim narratives risks prioritizing state interests over genuine advocacy for survivors, this approach nonetheless marks an opening for delayed justice by elevating the legal discourse on state accountability and the fundamental rights of victims. Simply put: Failure to fully resolve past atrocities, especially crimes against humanity, impedes the realization of justice today and tomorrow.
Crimes Against Humanity Treaty
Rome Statute and the Definition of CAH
Prior to 1998, definitions of crimes against humanity (CAH) were fragmented and often restricted to specific historical conflicts. The Rome Statute of 1998 fundamentally unified this legal framework by providing the first permanent and universal definition. Under Article 7, a Crime Against Humanity is defined as any of eleven prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. These acts are listed in bold in a simplified manner; for their full legal description, refer to Article 7.[12]
The eleven prohibited acts are: murder; extermination; enslavement; imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical liberty; torture; a broad spectrum of sexual violence (including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, and enforced sterilization); deportation or the forcible transfer of population; persecution against identifiable groups—based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds; enforced disappearance; the crime of apartheid; and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. By codifying these acts, the Rome Statute established a comprehensive global standard for accountability and the protection of civilian populations. Significantly, the UN clarifies that “crimes against humanity need not be linked to armed conflict and can also occur in times of peace, as can the crime of genocide.”[13]
While the 1998 legal framework established a universal standard and a system for victim reparations, it remains a constrained mechanism for addressing global justice. Significant gaps in preventative mandates, horizontal enforcement, and state-level accountability persist. These gaps hinder the international community’s ability to move beyond reactive punishment toward a proactive, inclusive, and victim-centered system of justice. To close these gaps, the UN and civil society have built a collaborative partnership, with each side taking specific actions. The shared end goal is a dedicated, stand-alone treaty.
Efforts from the UN
The UN has spent more than a decade constructing the legal architecture for a dedicated convention. This process represents a shift from theoretical research to the current stage of multilateral negotiation.
This began in 2014, when the UN appointed Sean D. Murphy as Special Rapporteur to lead the research and drafting of new global rules. Following this appointment, the International Law Commission (ILC) underwent a rigorous technical review, completing a “First Reading” of the draft articles between 2015 and 2017. This phase ensured that the proposed treaty would complement, rather than conflict with, existing international law.
To ensure global agreement and legitimacy, the drafts were circulated in 2017 and 2018 among international governments and organizations for feedback. This consultative process culminated in May 2019 when the UN adopted the “Second Reading,”[14] effectively finalizing the technical legal text. On August 5, 2019, the ILC submitted these finalized drafts to the UN General Assembly (UNGA).
A historic turning point occurred on December 4, 2024, when the UNGA passed Resolution 79/122.[15] This resolution set the wheels in motion for the final stage, establishing a Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries, where state representatives will convene to adopt the definitive text, transforming a decade of legal preparation into a binding global instrument.
Efforts from Civil Society
Civil society has played a vital role in driving this process forward. The Coalition for a Convention on Crimes Against Humanity (C-CAH) deserves special recognition for its leadership in strengthening the proposed treaty to be more inclusive and effective. The coalition was founded in 2025 to coordinate civil society organizations and individuals working to advance and strengthen the proposed convention. The C-CAH is co-chaired by Leila Sadat, who in 2008 launched the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, the first dedicated effort to achieve a treaty on crimes against humanity. C-CAH members, such as the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Asia Justice Coalition, and the End Gender Apartheid Campaign, are working to close long-standing legal gaps that have left many populations unprotected, both through advocacy for treaty advancement and for specific amendments to the current draft text. ESJF joined the coalition in January 2026.
The second session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity is scheduled for April 2027 at the UN Headquarters in New York. Civil society organizations, including ESJF, are collaborating to secure a legally-binding global treaty, with finalization projected for 2029 to 2030.
Conclusion
State immunity was one of the primary focuses during the first session of the Preparatory Committee. A standalone treaty on crimes against humanity that prioritizes human rights over state immunity would allow victims to seek redress without the obstacle of an “immunity gap.” The significance of this legal shift is demonstrated by recent litigation regarding “comfort women” in South Korea.
In a landmark January 2021 ruling (Bae et al. v. Japan), the court held that sovereign immunity does not extend to crimes against humanity. The court held the Japanese government accountable for the military sexual slavery system operated before and during WWII, ordering a payment of 100 million KRW per plaintiff. This victory was finalized in late January 2021 after Japan declined to appeal. While the second lawsuit (Kim et al. v. Japan) was initially dismissed on immunity grounds in April 2021, the twenty plaintiffs secured a historic appellate victory on November 23, 2023. In its reversal, the court prioritized the victims’ constitutional right to a trial, affirming that customary international law is evolving to deny sovereign immunity for grave human rights violations categorized as crimes against humanity. This decade-long legal struggle reached its conclusion on December 9, 2023.
With only five registered survivors of the Japanese military sexual slavery system remaining in South Korea as of April 2026, these court decisions represent a critical, long-awaited recognition of their rights. Their legal victories, grounded in the prioritization of human rights over state immunity, underscore the necessity of ensuring that other victims of crimes against humanity—past and present—have a viable path to justice. Establishing a standalone global treaty on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity is a vital instrument for achieving this goal. It is essential to build a global community committed to peace, security, and the protection of all, especially future generations, who deserve the best of our collective humanity.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
[1] UN General Assembly, “Information for Participation of Relevant Non-Governmental Organizations,” Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, First Session, 2026, https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/cah/prepcom_1sess/ngos.pdf.
[2] “Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity - General Assembly, First Session, 2nd Plenary Meeting,” UN Web TV, January 19, 2026. I thank my colleague Jill Follows, the International Alliance of Women’s main representative to the UN. She saw these verbal exchanges and brought them to my attention before the media reported on the exchange. Due to scheduling constraints, I arrived at the UN HQ late and missed witnessing these exchanges firsthand.
[3] Sun Lei, “Remarks by Ambassador Sun Lei, Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Jan. 19, 2026.
[4] Shin Kawashima, “Japanese Academic: What Sanae Takaichi Meant by ‘a Survival-Threatening Situation’,” Think China, Nov. 17, 2025.
[5] Jing Wang, “China Says Japan ‘Unqualified’ for U.N. Security Council Seat,” Caixin Global, Nov. 19, 2025.
[6] “Ambassador Fu Cong Sends a Letter to the UN Secretary-General Expressing China’s Position Regarding Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Erroneous Remarks on China,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Nov. 21, 2025.
[7] Jingxi Mo and Minlu Zhang, “Japan’s ‘Erroneous Arguments’ Rebutted in UN Letter,” China Daily, Dec. 2, 2025.
[8] Fu Cong, “Ambassador Fu Cong Sends a Letter to the UN Secretary-General Refuting Japan’s Unreasonable Arguments,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Dec. 1, 2025.
[9] “Japanese Envoy Sends U.N. Chief Another Letter Over China’s Claim,” The Japan Times, Dec. 5, 2025.
[10] Fu Cong, “Remarks on Leadership for Peace by Ambassador Fu Cong at the UN Security Council Open Debate,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Dec. 15, 2025.
[11] “Justice, truth and reparations long overdue for survivors of so-called ‘comfort women’ system: UN experts,” UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, March 6, 2026.
[12] UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, art. 7, https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdf.
[13] United Nations, “International Law and Justice,” accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/international-law-and-justice.
[14] International Law Commission, “Report of the International Law Commission on its Seventy-first Session,” Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2019, vol. II, pt. 2, UN Doc. A/74/10, chap. IV: Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, with commentaries (2019), https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/7_7_2019.pdf.
[15] UN General Assembly, “United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity,” A/RES/79/122 (Dec. 4, 2024), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/400/18/pdf/n2440018.pdf.
The first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity was held at the UN Headquarters in New York from January 19–30, 2026. Civil society participation was restricted to invited NGOs in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), following a selective application process. The Education for Social Justice Foundation was among the 117 NGOs invited to participate in this conference.[1]
In 2017, I co-founded the Education for Social Justice Foundation (ESJF) based in San Francisco, the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone. I have since served as its executive director. Beginning in 2023, I have represented ESJF as an NGO in special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Our mission is to provide education on past injustices relegated to the sidelines of history. Our focus areas include: countering sexual and gender-based violence, preserving Asian American history and legacy, and highlighting grassroots movements that have shaped history.
This summary of my participation in the conference has two parts. First, I’ll discuss the debates between China and Japan on the first day of the conference, their background, and their implications. Second, I’ll highlight the standalone crimes against humanity treaty, a brief history of crimes against humanity, and efforts made by the UN Member States and civil society to make the crimes against humanity treaty more inclusive, effective, and accountable.
China and Japan: Tensions at the UN
During the afternoon session on the first day, chaired by Declan Smyth of Ireland, Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of China to the UN, Ambassador Sun Lei, began his remarks by commenting on Japan’s war crimes in the 1930s and ’40s and their impacts. The following transcriptions are from the UN Web TV recording of the meeting.[2] The full remarks are also available on the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries website and the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN website.[3] Ambassador Sun Lei stated:
“During the Second World War, Japanese militarism inflicted profound calamities upon the peoples of China, Asia, and the world. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the work of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (“Tokyo trials”). The Tribunal systematically adjudicated and exposed the crimes of Japanese militarism in planning, preparing for, and invading China and other Asian nations, as well as in launching the Pacific War.” … “The international community should jointly safeguard the victorious outcomes of the Second World War, including the Tokyo trials, uphold the international order based on international law, and prevent Japan from reverting to the old and pernicious path of militarism.”
In response, after reading what she had prepared, Japan’s representative—identified in delegation records as Hibiki Urano—responded: “It’s regrettable that the Chinese delegation made a groundless statement against Japan. Since the end of WWII, Japan has consistently followed the path of a peace-loving nation and made innumerable contributions to the peace and prosperity of the international community. With respect to China’s unsubstantiated claims regarding history, I will refrain from refuting each one individually. The current administration has upheld in its entirety the position of the previous cabinets on history and will continue to do so.”
Then, during the right of reply session at the end of the day, Li Linlin, a senior legal counselor at the Chinese Mission to the UN, stated that the history of “comfort women” and the Tokyo Tribunal were not just a matter of historical memory, but a foundational legal precedent for the draft articles on crimes against humanity currently under debate. He stated:
“Just now, the Japanese delegate said that China’s allegations are baseless. We do not accept this statement. During WWII, Japan committed crimes, which are irrefutable. The notion of crimes against humanity was born out in international trials, which include Germany, France, and Liechtenstein, among many other countries, have mentioned the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo trials, which are proof of that point. In particular, the charter of IMT (International Military Tribunal) for the Far East clearly stipulates crimes against humanity, which is a high-level summary and accurate description of the heinous crimes committed by Japanese militarists. As is known to all, during WWII, the Japanese military systematically killed civilians in China and recruited ‘comfort women’ forcibly. These are irrefutable evidence of their crimes against humanity. Just now, the Japanese representative mentioned that their government treats history in a holistic manner. We have to ask what attitude they have toward history, especially the history of WWII. As a matter of fact, Japan has never repented or pleaded guilty in terms of its crimes. Recently, Japan’s erroneous remarks have further exposed its dangerous trend of reviving militarism. China solemnly urges Japan to face up to the irrefutable evidence of history and deeply reflect on its crimes, instead of further going down the wrong path.”
Japan then immediately responded, “What was said by the Chinese delegation against Japan is unacceptable. Japan’s position is already stated in our previous statement. I will thus not repeat it.”
Background
The diplomatic exchanges at the January 2026 Preparatory Committee seem to have been a direct consequence of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s November 7, 2025, remarks regarding Taiwan, Province of China, the official nomenclature utilized by the United Nations. During deliberations in the National Diet, the prime minister stated that a contingency in Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening crisis” for Japan, suggesting a basis for military action in self-defense. Since then, China has expressed its discontent with the comment.[4]
These exchanges were far from unexpected; diplomatic tensions between the two nations have risen at the United Nations since late 2025. Tension began on November 18 when China issued a declaration, labeling Japan “unqualified” for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.[5] On November 21, China’s UN Ambassador, Fu Cong, took the significant step of writing directly to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, warning that any Japanese armed intervention regarding Taiwan would be classified as an “act of aggression.”[6] Japan issued a formal rebuttal on November 24, stating that it adheres to a “consistent position” on the Taiwan question, without specifying further.[7]
The diplomatic sparring intensified throughout December. On December 1, Ambassador Fu Cong sent a second letter to the secretary-general, this time calling for “global vigilance” against Japan’s regional activities.[8] Japan’s UN Ambassador, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, responded in kind on December 5 with a formal letter of rebuttal to the UN, stating that “the assertions contained therein are inconsistent with the facts, unsubstantiated, and are categorically unacceptable.”[9]
The friction between the two nations increased further during an open Security Council debate on December 15, 2025. The Chinese ambassador used the floor to issue a sharp condemnation of Japan, specifically demanding that Japan’s prime minister retract comments concerning a potential Taiwan contingency.[10] Invoking the crimes of the past, he declared, “We must never allow the resurgence of militarism and fascism.”
On March 6, 2026, sixteen UN experts issued a joint statement through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing grave concern over the continued lack of justice for survivors of the “comfort women” system established and controlled by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II.[11] The experts urged all relevant states to act without further delay.
Implications
The timing and nature of these developments suggest a possible, yet complex, intersection of current geopolitical tensions surrounding the historical trauma of the state-operated “comfort women” system. The recent diplomatic friction between China and Japan is likely to have been precipitated by the Japanese prime minister’s stance on regional security and the status of Taiwan, the Province of China. While the politicization of victim narratives risks prioritizing state interests over genuine advocacy for survivors, this approach nonetheless marks an opening for delayed justice by elevating the legal discourse on state accountability and the fundamental rights of victims. Simply put: Failure to fully resolve past atrocities, especially crimes against humanity, impedes the realization of justice today and tomorrow.
Crimes Against Humanity Treaty
Rome Statute and the Definition of CAH
Prior to 1998, definitions of crimes against humanity (CAH) were fragmented and often restricted to specific historical conflicts. The Rome Statute of 1998 fundamentally unified this legal framework by providing the first permanent and universal definition. Under Article 7, a Crime Against Humanity is defined as any of eleven prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. These acts are listed in bold in a simplified manner; for their full legal description, refer to Article 7.[12]
The eleven prohibited acts are: murder; extermination; enslavement; imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical liberty; torture; a broad spectrum of sexual violence (including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, and enforced sterilization); deportation or the forcible transfer of population; persecution against identifiable groups—based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds; enforced disappearance; the crime of apartheid; and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. By codifying these acts, the Rome Statute established a comprehensive global standard for accountability and the protection of civilian populations. Significantly, the UN clarifies that “crimes against humanity need not be linked to armed conflict and can also occur in times of peace, as can the crime of genocide.”[13]
While the 1998 legal framework established a universal standard and a system for victim reparations, it remains a constrained mechanism for addressing global justice. Significant gaps in preventative mandates, horizontal enforcement, and state-level accountability persist. These gaps hinder the international community’s ability to move beyond reactive punishment toward a proactive, inclusive, and victim-centered system of justice. To close these gaps, the UN and civil society have built a collaborative partnership, with each side taking specific actions. The shared end goal is a dedicated, stand-alone treaty.
Efforts from the UN
The UN has spent more than a decade constructing the legal architecture for a dedicated convention. This process represents a shift from theoretical research to the current stage of multilateral negotiation.
This began in 2014, when the UN appointed Sean D. Murphy as Special Rapporteur to lead the research and drafting of new global rules. Following this appointment, the International Law Commission (ILC) underwent a rigorous technical review, completing a “First Reading” of the draft articles between 2015 and 2017. This phase ensured that the proposed treaty would complement, rather than conflict with, existing international law.
To ensure global agreement and legitimacy, the drafts were circulated in 2017 and 2018 among international governments and organizations for feedback. This consultative process culminated in May 2019 when the UN adopted the “Second Reading,”[14] effectively finalizing the technical legal text. On August 5, 2019, the ILC submitted these finalized drafts to the UN General Assembly (UNGA).
A historic turning point occurred on December 4, 2024, when the UNGA passed Resolution 79/122.[15] This resolution set the wheels in motion for the final stage, establishing a Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries, where state representatives will convene to adopt the definitive text, transforming a decade of legal preparation into a binding global instrument.
Efforts from Civil Society
Civil society has played a vital role in driving this process forward. The Coalition for a Convention on Crimes Against Humanity (C-CAH) deserves special recognition for its leadership in strengthening the proposed treaty to be more inclusive and effective. The coalition was founded in 2025 to coordinate civil society organizations and individuals working to advance and strengthen the proposed convention. The C-CAH is co-chaired by Leila Sadat, who in 2008 launched the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, the first dedicated effort to achieve a treaty on crimes against humanity. C-CAH members, such as the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Asia Justice Coalition, and the End Gender Apartheid Campaign, are working to close long-standing legal gaps that have left many populations unprotected, both through advocacy for treaty advancement and for specific amendments to the current draft text. ESJF joined the coalition in January 2026.
The second session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity is scheduled for April 2027 at the UN Headquarters in New York. Civil society organizations, including ESJF, are collaborating to secure a legally-binding global treaty, with finalization projected for 2029 to 2030.
Conclusion
State immunity was one of the primary focuses during the first session of the Preparatory Committee. A standalone treaty on crimes against humanity that prioritizes human rights over state immunity would allow victims to seek redress without the obstacle of an “immunity gap.” The significance of this legal shift is demonstrated by recent litigation regarding “comfort women” in South Korea.
In a landmark January 2021 ruling (Bae et al. v. Japan), the court held that sovereign immunity does not extend to crimes against humanity. The court held the Japanese government accountable for the military sexual slavery system operated before and during WWII, ordering a payment of 100 million KRW per plaintiff. This victory was finalized in late January 2021 after Japan declined to appeal. While the second lawsuit (Kim et al. v. Japan) was initially dismissed on immunity grounds in April 2021, the twenty plaintiffs secured a historic appellate victory on November 23, 2023. In its reversal, the court prioritized the victims’ constitutional right to a trial, affirming that customary international law is evolving to deny sovereign immunity for grave human rights violations categorized as crimes against humanity. This decade-long legal struggle reached its conclusion on December 9, 2023.
With only five registered survivors of the Japanese military sexual slavery system remaining in South Korea as of April 2026, these court decisions represent a critical, long-awaited recognition of their rights. Their legal victories, grounded in the prioritization of human rights over state immunity, underscore the necessity of ensuring that other victims of crimes against humanity—past and present—have a viable path to justice. Establishing a standalone global treaty on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity is a vital instrument for achieving this goal. It is essential to build a global community committed to peace, security, and the protection of all, especially future generations, who deserve the best of our collective humanity.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
[1] UN General Assembly, “Information for Participation of Relevant Non-Governmental Organizations,” Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, First Session, 2026, https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/cah/prepcom_1sess/ngos.pdf.
[2] “Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity - General Assembly, First Session, 2nd Plenary Meeting,” UN Web TV, January 19, 2026. I thank my colleague Jill Follows, the International Alliance of Women’s main representative to the UN. She saw these verbal exchanges and brought them to my attention before the media reported on the exchange. Due to scheduling constraints, I arrived at the UN HQ late and missed witnessing these exchanges firsthand.
[3] Sun Lei, “Remarks by Ambassador Sun Lei, Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Jan. 19, 2026.
[4] Shin Kawashima, “Japanese Academic: What Sanae Takaichi Meant by ‘a Survival-Threatening Situation’,” Think China, Nov. 17, 2025.
[5] Jing Wang, “China Says Japan ‘Unqualified’ for U.N. Security Council Seat,” Caixin Global, Nov. 19, 2025.
[6] “Ambassador Fu Cong Sends a Letter to the UN Secretary-General Expressing China’s Position Regarding Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Erroneous Remarks on China,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Nov. 21, 2025.
[7] Jingxi Mo and Minlu Zhang, “Japan’s ‘Erroneous Arguments’ Rebutted in UN Letter,” China Daily, Dec. 2, 2025.
[8] Fu Cong, “Ambassador Fu Cong Sends a Letter to the UN Secretary-General Refuting Japan’s Unreasonable Arguments,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Dec. 1, 2025.
[9] “Japanese Envoy Sends U.N. Chief Another Letter Over China’s Claim,” The Japan Times, Dec. 5, 2025.
[10] Fu Cong, “Remarks on Leadership for Peace by Ambassador Fu Cong at the UN Security Council Open Debate,” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, Dec. 15, 2025.
[11] “Justice, truth and reparations long overdue for survivors of so-called ‘comfort women’ system: UN experts,” UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, March 6, 2026.
[12] UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, art. 7, https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdf.
[13] United Nations, “International Law and Justice,” accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/international-law-and-justice.
[14] International Law Commission, “Report of the International Law Commission on its Seventy-first Session,” Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2019, vol. II, pt. 2, UN Doc. A/74/10, chap. IV: Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, with commentaries (2019), https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/7_7_2019.pdf.
[15] UN General Assembly, “United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity,” A/RES/79/122 (Dec. 4, 2024), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/400/18/pdf/n2440018.pdf.