The United Nations' top judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has dismissed a case brought by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of supporting genocide in the Darfur region. The court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims due to a reservation the UAE made upon joining the Genocide Convention.
In a 14-2 vote, the ICJ rejected Sudan’s request for emergency measures aimed at halting alleged genocidal acts against the non-Arab Masalit community in West Darfur. The Sudanese government alleged that the UAE had supplied weapons and support to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which is accused of orchestrating ethnic attacks in the region.
Court Cites UAE’s Legal Opt-Out from Genocide Convention Disputes:
ICJ President Judge Iwasawa Yuji said the court was “precluded by statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan,” due to the UAE’s reservation upon acceding to the Genocide Convention. This reservation excludes the jurisdiction of the ICJ in disputes related to interpretation or application of the treaty. Because of this legal technicality, the court removed the case from its docket, effectively terminating proceedings.
Sudan’s Allegations: Genocide and Complicity in War Crimes :
Sudan’s application to the ICJ accused the UAE of being “complicit in the genocide on the Masalit through its direction of and provision of extensive financial, political, and military support for the rebel RSF militia.” The Sudanese government also sought reparations for alleged wrongful acts and compensation for victims of war. The conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF, has created what the U.S. government calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with estimated deaths exceeding 150,000.
UAE Responds Hails Dismissal as Legal Victory :
Following the ruling, the UAE welcomed the court’s decision, calling it a vindication. “This decision is a clear and decisive affirmation of the fact that this case was utterly baseless,” said Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister of Political Affairs at the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “The court’s finding that it is without jurisdiction confirms that this case should never have been brought.” Ketait further criticized Sudan for allegedly attempting to use the court for political purposes, accusing the SAF of trying to shift blame away from its own actions in the war.
Call for Peace and International Action :
Despite the legal victory, the UAE called on all parties in Sudan to prioritize peace. “As Sudan’s devastating civil war enters its third year, the UAE calls on the SAF and RSF to end the war without preconditions, commit to negotiations, and allow unhindered humanitarian access,” Ketait stated. She also urged the international community to facilitate a civilian-led political process in Sudan, independent of military influence, and to hold accountable those responsible for atrocities.
Genocide Convention and ICJ Jurisdiction:
Both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the 1948 Genocide Convention. However, when joining, the UAE entered a reservation rejecting the ICJ’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning the treaty’s interpretation or application. This legal caveat was pivotal in the court’s dismissal of the case. The ICJ, based in The Hague, resolves disputes between UN member states on issues of international law. While its rulings are binding and final, the court does not have enforcement powers to compel compliance.