Authored By: Puseletso Agnes Mpeisa
CASE NAME: THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)’S DISMISSAL OF SUDAN’S GENOCIDE
CASE AGAINST: UAE DUE TO JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS NO.001 OF 2025
Sudan v. United Arab Emirates, International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Hague, Dismissal Order No. 001 of 5 May 2025
SUMMARY (FACTS)
- On the 5th of March 2025, the Republic of the Sudan (hereinafter ‘Sudan’) filed in the registry of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ‘ICJ’ an application instituting proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (hereinafter the ‘UAE’) regarding alleged violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the ‘UN Genocide Convention’) in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, most notably in West Darfur.[1]
- Sudan accuses the UAE of arming and funding the Rapid Support Forces (hereinafter ‘RSF’), which has been fighting Sudanese army in a civil war to commit genocide in Sudan and committing acts that amount to genocide, in violation of the UN Genocide Convention.’[2]
- On the 5th of May 2025, the ICJ accepted the UAE’s arguments, rejected the Sudan’s request for emergency measures and ordered the Sudan vs. UAE genocide case to be removed from its docket due to lack of jurisdiction, as ICJ is precluded by its statute from ruling on the merits of the claims made by Sudan because the UAE had entered the reservation on Article IX of the UN Genocide Convention which was never contested by any state prior.
SUBMISSIONS SOUGHT (LEGAL ISSUES)
Sudan requests the court to declare that the both Sudan and the UAE are bound by international agreements and conventions, including among others the UN Genocide Convention among which the UAE has breached its obligations and also violated Article 1 of the United Nations Charter.[3]
Secondly, the UAE must cease genocide acts not limited to brutal killings, and torture,[4] as defined by Article II of the UN Genocide Convention which has led to the alarming refugees’ rates to the neighbouring countries as well as omissions that breach the above mentioned agreements.
Lastly, instruct individuals committing genocide to cease, compensate for the damages caused by its actions, and assure non-repetition of breaches assurances and commitments to non-repetition.
ANALYSIS (LEGAL REASONING)
According to Sudan, Article IX of the UN Genocide Convention appears, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the ICJ’s jurisdiction could be founded in these proceedings, with an observation of an extension to the ICJ’s fulfillment role that is pivotal.
Contrary, the UAE, for its part, observes that Article IX of the UN Genocide Convention is the only basis of jurisdiction relied upon by Sudan as a matter the UAE notes, that, due to the reservation to Article IX of the UN Genocide Convention that it entered in 2005, Article IX is not in force between the parties and cannot provide a basis of jurisdiction for the applicant’s claims against the UAE.
In addition, according to the UAE, the formulation of the reservation is precise as to its object and effects, and it can only be interpreted as expressing the intention of the UAE not to be bound by Article IX OF THE un Genocide Convention.
The UAE contends, moreover, that the absence of an objection by Sudan signifies that it has accepted the reservation.
The ICJ recalls that it has jurisdiction in respect of states only to the extent that they have consented thereto prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the present case.
As a matter, the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the ICJ on the Sudan vs. UAE genocide case does not absolve the UAE of genocide allegations accusations proposed by Sudan.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS (RATIO DECINDENDI / RULE OF LAW)
UN Genocide Convention[5]
Both Sudan and the UAE are parties to the UN Genocide Convention, with Sudan having acceded on the 13th of October 2003 and the UAE on the 11th of November 2005.[6] The UAE, when acceding to the UN Genocide Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX.[7]
Statute of the ICJ particularly Article 36 on jurisdiction[8]
The ICJ’s jurisdiction relies on state consent, as outlined in Article 36 of its Statute as the state cannot be compelled to appear before the ICJ unless it has accepted its jurisdiction, either through a treaty or a declaration under Article 36(2), which both allows for compulsory jurisdiction over legal disputes.
UN Charter (Articles 92 – 96) on establishing ICJ jurisdiction[9]
The UN Charter, specifically Articles 92-96, establish the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the UN. These articles outline the court’s functions, including settling legal disputes submitted by states. However, the ICJ’s jurisdiction is not automatic. States must explicitly consent to the court’s jurisdiction in specific disputes.
Customary International Law Principles on state responsibility and the prohibition of genocide[10]
The prohibition of genocide is a both a recognised principle and peremptory norm of customary international law, binding on all states regardless of the UN Genocide Convention (treaty) status, and it imposes a universal duty to prevent genocide by all, even beyond a state’s own territory, which cannot be overridden by any treaty or agreement.
STATUS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS (OUTCOME / FINAL DECISION)
The ICJ found that the UAE’s reservation to a key clause of the UN Genocide Convention, specifically the clause allowing countries to sue others at the ICJ over disputes, was unambiguous. As a result, the reservation blocked the ICJ’s jurisdiction, and Sudan’s case against the UAE for alleged support of the RSF in Sudan could not proceed as the ICJ did not have the authority to intervene.
An UAE official hailed the ICJ judges’ ruling on the reservation.
Sudan pledged to pursue all legal avenues to protect its people and state.
RECOMMEDNATIONS (ANALYSIS)
- International organisations such as Amnesty international, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and Human Rights Watch can continue serving as persuasive coordination for real-time data for generating evidence through documentation efforts on complicit of UAE genocide in Sudan for future prosecution and accountability.
- Sudan may seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ via the UN General Assembly or African Union.
- Supporting existing proceedings brought by other states, such as South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.
- AU PSC to act in accordance with its guiding principles as highlighted in article 4(b) of the PSC Protocol to implement proactive measures such as through peace talks, and peace enforcement operation, possibly with support from willing AU Member States or regional blocs.
- Humanitarian bodies should kindly coordinate relief efforts across agencies like WFP, UNICEF, WHO, and the AU to support displaced Sudanese and refugees in Sudan and neighbouring countries, Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan and apply diplomatic pressure for unhindered humanitarian access.
- The AU PSC is empowered by article 4(j) of the PSC Protocol and article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act to intervene so in this scenario it could possibly provide redress through reparations (as ICCPR recognises the right to a remedy for victims of human rights violations), assure non-repetition, and impose travel bans and asset freezes on individuals and commanders responsible for atrocities.
- Leverage on an initial draft of the Model Law on Gender Equality and Equity in Africa to argue that states have a duty under customary international law and jus cogens norms to prevent and respond to genocide and its gendered consequences, even beyond treaty obligations in support of regional legal mechanisms.
Puseletso A. Mpeisa
Legal intern
Record of Law
REFERENCE(S):
Cambridge University Press ‘Genocide in International law’ the crimes of crimes (June, 17, 2025, 21:07hrs SAST) https://tinyurl.com/y4h8bzkz.
Human Rights Watch ‘The Massalit Will Not Come Home’ Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes Against Humanity in EL Geneina, West Darfur, Sudan (June, 14, 2025, 18:57hrs SAST), https://encr.pw/vHb4J.
International Court of Justice (June, 14, 2025, 17:05hrs SAST) https://rb.gy/4fo41q.
Opinio Juris ‘Art. IX Reservations to the Genocide Convention Are Here To Stay: A Response to Diamond’ (June, 17, 2025, 18:07hrs SAST), https://tinyurl.com/26rfv37e.
United Nations ‘Ratification status of UN Genocide Convention’ (June, 14, 2025, 19:30hrs SAST), https://shorturl.at/1kfZS.
United Nations ‘Statute of the International Court of Justice’ (June, 17, 2025, 20:19hrs SAST), (https://www.icj-cij.org/statute.
United Nations Charter (June, 14, 2025, 18:40hrs SAST) https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (June, 14, 2025, 17:37hrs SAST) https://shorturl.at/nJbgW.
[1] International Court of Justice (June, 14, 2025, 17:05hrs SAST) https://rb.gy/4fo41q.
[2] United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (June, 14, 2025, 17:37hrs SAST) https://shorturl.at/nJbgW.
[3] United Nations Charter (June, 14, 2025, 18:40hrs SAST) https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[4] Human Rights Watch ‘The Massalit Will Not Come Home’ Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes Against Humanity in EL Geneina, West Darfur, Sudan (June, 14, 2025, 18:57hrs SAST), https://encr.pw/vHb4J.
[5] United Nations ‘Ratification status of UN Genocide Convention’ (June, 14, 2025, 19:30hrs SAST), https://shorturl.at/1kfZS.
[6] As above.
[7] Opinio Juris ‘Art. IX Reservations to the Genocide Convention Are Here To Stay: A Response to Diamond’ (June, 17, 2025, 18:07hrs SAST), https://tinyurl.com/26rfv37e.
[8] United Nations ‘Statute of the International Court of Justice’ (June, 17, 2025, 20:19hrs SAST), (https://www.icj-cij.org/statute.
[9] United Nations, n3 above.
[10] Cambridge University Press ‘Genocide in International law’ the crimes of crimes (June, 17, 2025, 21:07hrs SAST) https://tinyurl.com/y4h8bzkz.
