ICJ Throws Out Sudan’s Genocide Complaint Against UAE Citing Jurisdiction Hurdles
The Hague, Netherlands – May 6, 2025 | The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has formally rejected Sudan’s genocide case against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), citing a lack of jurisdiction due to the UAE’s reservation to the Genocide Convention.
In a landmark decision delivered on May 5, the court ruled that Sudan’s request for emergency measures against the UAE was inadmissible, and the case has been struck from its General List, effectively ending the proceedings.
The case, filed by Sudan in March 2025, alleged that the UAE violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by providing arms and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — a militia accused of orchestrating ethnic violence in Darfur amid Sudan’s ongoing civil war.
UAE’s Legal Shield: Article IX Opt-Out
The Court based its decision on the UAE’s opt-out from Article IX of the Genocide Convention — a key clause that grants the ICJ jurisdiction in disputes related to genocide. The 14-2 vote denied Sudan’s request for provisional measures, and a narrower 9-7 vote removed the case altogether from ICJ records.
“Given the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, the Court finds no prima facie basis for jurisdiction in this matter,” the ICJ stated in its ruling.
Background and Allegations
Sudan’s government claimed that UAE-backed RSF fighters have committed genocidal acts, especially against African ethnic groups such as the Masalit, in Darfur. The case was seen as a bold legal maneuver to internationalize accountability for foreign involvement in Sudan’s devastating conflict that reignited in April 2023.
Reports from the UN and human rights groups have documented RSF-perpetrated massacres, rape, and ethnic cleansing across Darfur and other regions.
Legal and Diplomatic Fallout
Though the ICJ refrained from ruling on the merits of Sudan’s genocide accusations, it emphasized that all states remain bound by their obligations under the Genocide Convention, regardless of jurisdictional reservations.
Legal analysts warn that the ruling sets a challenging precedent, demonstrating how jurisdictional technicalities can obstruct efforts to seek justice through international courts.
Among the dissenting voices were Judges Abdulqawi Yusuf and Bruno Simma, who opposed the court’s decision to abandon the case altogether. Six other judges issued partial dissents, expressing concerns about the implications for international justice in situations of grave human rights abuse.
Sudan Yet to Respond
As of Tuesday, Sudan’s transitional government had not released an official statement on the ruling. However, observers say the judgment is likely to intensify calls for alternative legal routes to hold foreign actors accountable for exacerbating Sudan’s humanitarian crisis.
About the ICJ
The International Court of Justice, established in 1945, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It settles legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions. The Court consists of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for renewable nine-year terms.
