A 10-year old boy from the Jabal area of Geneina in Darfur, West Sudan who was shot in the chest by … More
On May 5, 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ, also referred to as the Court) delivered its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Sudan in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in Sudan (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates (UAE)). The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.
The case concerns the application, filed by Sudan in March 2025, instituting proceedings against the UAE concerning alleged violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, most notably in West Darfur. Sudan’s application concerned “acts which have been perpetrated by (…) Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and militias allied with it, including, but not limited to, genocide, murder, theft of property, rape, forcible displacement, trespassing, vandalism of public properties, and violation of human rights.” According to the application, all such acts have been “perpetrated and enabled by the direct support given to the rebel RSF militia and related militia groups by the United Arab Emirates.” The application also concerned “acts adopted, condoned, taken, and being taken by the Government of the UAE in connection with the genocide against the Masalit group in the Republic of the Sudan since at least 2023.” Sudan submitted that the UAE “is 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.”
In its order released on May 5, 2025, the ICJ rejected the case. When announcing the order, the Court explained it may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded. The Court noted that the UAE, when acceding to the Genocide Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX, seeking to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court. Having regard to the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, the Court observed that Article IX of that Convention cannot constitute, prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case. As such, the Court could not indicate the provisional measures requested.
Moreover, the Court considered that, in light of the UAE’s reservation and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s application. The case will therefore be removed from its docket.
In its order, the Court emphasized that there is a fundamental distinction between the question of acceptance by States of the Court’s jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law. Whether or not States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, they are required to comply with their obligations under that instrument, and they remain responsible for acts attributable to them which are contrary to their international obligations. To put it simply, the UAE is under the obligations enshrined in the Genocide Convention, namely, the obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. However, without the ICJ being involved, the obligations under the Genocide Convention cannot be enforced in relation to the UAE.
The situation in Darfur and the wider Sudan requires urgent consideration and responses. As the war in Sudan entered its third year, the country is facing the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world today. The atrocities committed so far continue to enjoy impunity, including the alleged genocide against the small ethnic minority group – the Masalit. The very serious risk of genocide should trigger States’ obligation to prevent, in accordance with the obligations under the Genocide Convention. The inaction cannot be justified.
