Why the International Court of Justice dismissed Sudan’s genocide case against UAE 

The International Court of Justice dismissed on Monday a case brought by Sudan against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in which Khartoum accused the Gulf emirate of supporting genocide during the ongoing Sudanese civil war. In a 14-2 decision, the UN’s top court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to a legal opt-out clause invoked by the UAE.

 

Sudan argued that the UAE provided military, financial and logistical support to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which have been locked in a brutal conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023. The UAE’s support allowed the RSF to target the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur, leading to mass killings, systematic displacements and sexual violence, according to court filings by Sudan. 

 

The case came before the ICJ in March 2024, after Sudan blamed the UAE for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which both Sudan and the UAE are signatories. However, the ICJ found that the UAE had entered a reservation to Article IX of the Convention—an article that allows disputes between states to be brought before the court—effectively excluding itself from being sued under this provision. Without another legal basis for jurisdiction, the Court ruled that it was "precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan".

 

ICJ President Judge Yuji Iwasawa stated that “in light of the reservation made by the UAE to the compromissory clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide Convention,” the case must be removed from the Court’s docket. Sudan’s request for provisional emergency measures to prevent further acts of genocide was also rejected.

 

As it was one of the rare instances in which a state attempted to hold another accountable for allegedly supporting atrocities by non-state actors in a foreign conflict, it attracted considerable international attention. It also posed a significant test of whether the World Court could deal with allegations involving indirect complicity in genocide.

 

The UAE firmly denied all accusations. Reem Ketait, the UAE’s deputy assistant minister for political affairs, welcomed the court’s decision, calling it a “clear and decisive affirmation” that Sudan’s case was “utterly baseless”. She accused Sudan’s military government of using the ICJ as a platform to spread misinformation and distract from its own role in the conflict.

Ketait stressed that the UAE bore no responsibility for the war in Sudan and emphasised that the international community should focus on ending the violence, ensuring humanitarian aid reaches those in need, and holding all perpetrators of atrocities accountable—regardless of their affiliation.

 

The UAE reiterated its support for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the establishment of a civilian-led transitional government that reflects the will of the Sudanese people. It also called on the UN Security Council and the international community to avoid being distracted by “peripheral matters” and instead prioritise the dire humanitarian situation unfolding in Sudan.

 

The conflict broke out following a rift between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who heads the SAF, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the leader of the RSF. In the beginning, the fighting was restricted largely to the capital, Khartoum. But then it gradually spread across the country, particularly to the Darfur region.

 

With lakhs killed, millions displaced and too many civilians subjected to untold miseries, Sudan has become one of the most dangerous hotspots in the world, although it garners much less attention compared with Gaza and Ukraine. 

 

International rights groups have extensively documented atrocities including ethnic cleansing and obstruction of humanitarian relief. Meanwhile, the ICJ’s ruling in the case clearly demonstrates the limitations of international legal accountability mechanisms in the face of jurisdictional exclusions.

 

Middle East