On 5 May 2025, the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ” or “Court”) rejected the request for provisional measures by the Republic of the Sudan (“Sudan”) against the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). The Court also removed the case from its General List. The case arose in the context of an ongoing conflict in Sudan that broke out in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and a paramilitary organisation known as the “Rapid Support Forces” (the “RSF”), as well as armed groups aligned with them.
In its Application instituting proceedings, Sudan argued that the UAE had violated its obligations under Article 1 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”). Sudan alleged that the UAE had provided “extensive financial, political, and military support” to the RSF for unlawful conduct against the Masalit group, a people primarily resident in the Sudanese region of West Darfur. In particular, Sudan argued that the RSF had “engaged in extrajudicial killing, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement of civilians, rape, and burning of villages” and had “systematically murdered men and boys on an ethnic basis, and deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of sexual violence”. Sudan argued that the UAE had thus been “complicit in the genocide of the Masalit”.
By 14 votes to 2, the Court held that it lacked prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The Court reasoned that the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention (the dispute resolution provision) was “formulated in clear terms”, as it concerned the “interpretation, application and fulfilment” of the Genocide Convention. In the Court’s view, the omission of the text “including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide” within the UAE’s reservation did “not result in any uncertainty as to the effects of that reservation”. Because the UAE’s reservation referred to the “interpretation, application and fulfilment” of the Genocide Convention, the Court found that it encompassed State responsibility. Thus, the Court concluded that the UAE’s reservation sought to exclude the ICJ’s jurisdiction over all disputes to which the UAE may be a party under Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
The Court also found that the UAE’s reservation was compatible with the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention. This was because the UAE’s reservation “bears on the jurisdiction of the Court” and “does not affect substantive obligations relating to acts of genocide themselves under that Convention”.
By 9 votes to 7, the Court exercised its inherent power to protect the integrity of the judicial process by removing the case from its General List. The Court reasoned that, “[i]n a system of consensual jurisdiction, to maintain on the General List a case upon which it appears certain that the Court will not be able to adjudicate on the merits would not contribute to the sound administration of justice”. Previously, the ICJ removed from the General List the cases Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain) and Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America), both initiated under the Genocide Convention.
The ICJ’s Order of 5 May 2025 is here.
The Dissenting opinion of Judge Yusuf is here.
The joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bhandari, Charlesworth, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi and Judge ad hoc Simma is here.
The dissenting opinion of Judge Gómez Robledo is here.
The declaration of Judge ad hoc Simma is here.