THE HAGUE – 2025/06/08 08:07:49 – The International Court of justice (ICJ) has dismissed a case brought by Sudan against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which alleged that the UAE violated the Genocide Convention. The ICJ stated it lacked jurisdiction due to a prior reservation made by the UAE concerning the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism.This decision effectively halts judicial proceedings at the ICJ regarding this matter.

The lawsuit centered on Sudan’s claims that the UAE supported the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the ongoing Sudanese civil war through funding and armaments. representatives from Sudanese civil society organizations have commented on the implications of the court’s ruling.

legal Technicality Halts Genocide Case

The ICJ’s dismissal hinged on a legal technicality. The court stated it lacked jurisdiction as the UAE had strategically excluded Article 9 of the Genocide Convention when it acceded to the treaty in 2005. Article 9 grants the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes related to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention.

By excluding Article 9, the UAE did not consent to the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction in such disputes. The court clarified that its decision was procedural and did not reflect a judgment on the substance of Sudan’s accusations.

“The ICJ’s dismissal doesn’t grant impunity or represent a judgement on the accusations,and Sudan can still pursue other avenues.”

Sudan’s Accusations Against the UAE

sudan accused the UAE of being complicit in genocide and other severe violations of the Genocide Convention in the Darfur region. The accusations included providing extensive military, financial, and logistical support to the RSF, which allegedly enabled them to commit systemic killings, rape, forced displacement, and looting, particularly targeting the Masalit community in West Darfur. Sudan also referenced a recent siege of civilians in Al-Fasher,North Darfur.

UAE’s Defense

During a public hearing on April 10, the UAE refuted the allegations, calling the case baseless and a publicity stunt. The UAE also argued that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction due to its reservation to Article 9 of the genocide Convention. The UAE has also presented itself as a humanitarian actor, highlighting its role as a major donor to sudan.

Implications for accountability in Sudan’s Conflict

The ICJ’s decision closes one legal avenue for Sudan, but does not preclude other options for seeking justice. Sudan can still pursue cases through the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction over individuals and maintains a mandate for darfur. The ICC could investigate individuals for war crimes and perhaps expand existing investigations.

For Sudanese victims, the dismissal is a setback, as it means the ICJ will not examine evidence of potential genocide. The case highlights systemic issues in international justice,exposing the limitations of international law and the ability of states to avoid scrutiny through strategic reservations. This dynamic raises concerns that international bodies may neutralize conflicts rather than deliver justice.

The case underscores the need to reassess how the international community approaches justice in conflict zones and to develop mechanisms that can uphold human rights and ensure accountability.