The International Court of Justice in The Hague
THE HAGUE: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today rejected Sudan’s request for the indication of provisional measures against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in Sudan (Sudan versus United Arab Emirates). The court, by a vote of 14 to 2, also ordered the case to be removed from its General List due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction.
The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, delivered its order at the Peace Palace, stating that it could not indicate provisional measures because the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention excludes the court’s jurisdiction. The vote to reject Sudan’s request saw Judges Yusuf and ad hoc Judge Simma dissenting. The decision to remove the case from the General List was passed by a 9 to 7 vote, with Judges Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Dalveer Bhandari, Hilary Charlesworth, Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, Sarah Hull Cleveland, Dire Tladi, and ad hoc Judge Bruno Simma dissenting.
On March 5, 2025, Sudan filed an application instituting proceedings against the UAE, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in relation to the Masalit group, primarily resident in West Darfur, amid an ongoing conflict in Sudan that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Sudan claimed that the RSF, allegedly supported by the UAE, engaged in extrajudicial killings, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, rape, burning of villages, and systematic murder of men and boys on an ethnic basis, as well as deliberate targeting of women and girls for sexual violence.
Sudan’s application sought declarations that both nations are bound by the Genocide Convention, that the UAE breached its obligations under the convention and Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, and that the UAE must cease such acts, ensure accountability, provide reparations for damages caused by its alleged support to the RSF, and give assurances of non-repetition. Sudan invoked Article 36, paragraph 1, of the ICJ Statute and Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction.
Sudan’s request for provisional measures, filed alongside the application, asked the court to order the UAE to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide against the Masalit group, including killing, causing serious harm, inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births. Sudan also requested that the UAE ensure that irregular armed units or persons under its control refrain from such acts or complicity in genocide, and submit regular reports to the court on measures taken. On April 3, 2025, Sudan amended its request to include an explicit obligation for the UAE to refrain from complicity in genocide.
The UAE, in response, argued that its reservation to Article IX, made upon acceding to the Genocide Convention on November 11, 2005, excludes ICJ jurisdiction over disputes related to the convention’s interpretation, application, or fulfilment. The UAE maintained that the reservation’s wording is clear and precise, and that Sudan’s failure to object to it signifies acceptance. The UAE further contended that the reservation is compatible with the convention’s object and purpose, citing prior ICJ rulings upholding similar reservations. The UAE requested the court to reject Sudan’s provisional measures and remove the case from the General List.
Public hearings on the request for provisional measures were held on April 10, 2025, at the Peace Palace. Sudan was represented by Muawia Osman Khair, Eirik Bjorge, Samuel Wordsworth, Sean Aughey, and Paolo Palchetti. The UAE was represented by Reem Ketait, Mathias Forteau, Sir Michael Wood, Alison Macdonald, and Ameirah Al Hefeiti. Two judges posed questions to the UAE, with written replies provided and comments submitted by Sudan.
The ICJ found that the UAE’s reservation to Article IX, which Sudan did not object to, clearly seeks to exclude the court’s jurisdiction over disputes under the Genocide Convention. The court noted that the reservation’s omission of the phrase “including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide” does not create uncertainty, as the reference to “interpretation, application and fulfilment” encompasses state responsibility. The court further held that the reservation does not affect substantive obligations under the convention and is not incompatible with its object and purpose, consistent with prior ICJ jurisprudence.
Consequently, the ICJ concluded that Article IX cannot provide a prima facie basis for jurisdiction, precluding the indication of provisional measures. In the absence of any other jurisdictional basis, the court determined that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s application, justifying the case’s removal from the General List to ensure the sound administration of justice.
The court emphasised a fundamental distinction between its jurisdiction and states’ obligations under international law. It stated that, regardless of whether states accept ICJ jurisdiction under Article IX, they remain bound by the Genocide Convention and are responsible for acts attributable to them that violate international obligations. The ICJ expressed deep concern about the human tragedy in Sudan, particularly in West Darfur, but noted that the scope of the case is limited by the invoked jurisdictional basis.
Dissenting opinions were appended by Judge Yusuf, a joint partly dissenting opinion by Judges Bhandari, Charlesworth, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi, and ad hoc Judge Simma, a separate dissenting opinion by Judge Gómez Robledo, and a declaration by ad hoc Judge Simma.
– global bihari bureau
