In brief
The ruling highlights complex international laws surrounding the Genocide Convention and the implications for Sudan amid its civil conflict.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial body, has ruled against Sudan's case alleging genocide by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the context of ongoing civil strife in Sudan. On May 5, 2025, the court announced it "manifestly lacks jurisdiction" to hear the matter regarding claims that the UAE has been supporting genocidal actions through its backing of paramilitary forces.In a decisive verdict with a 14-2 majority, the court denied Sudan's request for provisional emergency measures against the Emirates. Furthermore, by a 9-7 vote, the ICJ officially removed the case from its agenda. Sudan accused the UAE of conspiring to violate the 1948 Genocide Convention by allegedly providing arms and financial support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), an influential and powerful paramilitary group engaged in combat against the Sudanese military.At a recent ICJ hearing, Sudan pushed for emergency measures to, among other things, halt actions perceived as targeting the Masalit people in Darfur and to cease any support to the RSF. The UAE has consistently dismissed these claims as unsubstantiated, asserting that Sudan presented no credible evidence to back up its allegations, which the Emirati government also contended fell outside the court's jurisdiction.Interestingly, although both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the Genocide Convention, the UAE opted out of an essential clause when ratifying the treaty in 2005. This opted clause permits states to initiate legal actions against each other at the ICJ, which contributed to the court's refusal to entertain Sudan's claims, thus marking a significant moment in the landscape of international law concerning genocide.
