A 10-year-old child from the Jabal region of Geneina, located in Darfur, West Sudan, was shot in the chest by … More
Getty Images
On May 5, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its ruling regarding Sudan’s request for provisional measures in the ongoing case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) against the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The ICJ serves as the primary judicial authority of the United Nations, with the dual responsibility of resolving legal disputes that states submit and providing advisory opinions on legal matters referred by authorized UN bodies and agencies.
The case stems from Sudan’s application, submitted in March 2025, seeking to hold the UAE accountable for alleged breaches of its obligations under the Genocide Convention related to the Masalit ethnic group in Sudan, particularly in West Darfur. The allegations include various acts committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias, such as genocide, murder, property theft, sexual violence, forced displacement, trespassing, vandalism, and violations of human rights. Sudan claims these acts were facilitated by the UAE’s direct support to the RSF and associated groups. The application also addresses actions that the UAE government has allegedly condoned or undertaken regarding the ongoing genocide against the Masalit people since at least 2023, asserting that the UAE has played a role in enabling the genocide through significant financial, political, and military aid to the RSF militia.
In its ruling on May 5, 2025, the ICJ dismissed Sudan’s case, stating that it could only propose provisional measures if the legal foundations for its jurisdiction appeared, prima facie, to be satisfied. The Court highlighted that the UAE had previously included a reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which seeks to limit the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to this reservation, the Court concluded that Article IX could not serve as a prima facie basis for jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the requested provisional measures could not be affirmed by the Court.
Additionally, the Court determined that given the UAE’s reservation and the absence of any other jurisdictional basis, it clearly lacked the authority to consider Sudan’s application. Consequently, the matter was removed from the Court’s agenda.
In its statement, the Court underscored the essential differentiation between a state’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and its adherence to international law. Regardless of whether states have accepted jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention, they must comply with their responsibilities under that treaty and are accountable for actions attributable to them that violate international obligations. In essence, while the UAE is obligated under the Genocide Convention to prevent and punish genocide, enforcement of these duties concerning the UAE cannot be pursued through the ICJ.
The ongoing crisis in Darfur and across Sudan necessitates immediate attention and action. As the conflict in Sudan continues into its third year, the country is currently grappling with a significant humanitarian disaster. The ongoing atrocities, including those directed at the small ethnic group known as the Masalit, persist without accountability. The imminent threat of genocide calls for a collective obligation from states to intervene and prevent such occurrences, as stipulated in the Genocide Convention. Lack of action in this context cannot be excused.