The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected Sudan’s claims against the UAE, which accused the Gulf nation of being complicit in genocide.
Sudan charged that the UAE provided support to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) during the ongoing civil conflict, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, displaced millions, and led to widespread famine.
The UAE firmly denied these allegations, labeling the case as “political theatre” and a “cynical publicity stunt”.
The court in The Hague determined that it could not proceed with the case because the UAE had withdrawn from Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which prevents it from being sued by other countries for genocide-related accusations.
The ICJ stated that it lacked authority, and therefore was “unable to take any stance on the validity of Sudan’s claims.” The court dismissed the case with a vote of 14 to 2.
Sudan’s claims insisted that the UAE’s alleged military, financial, and logistical assistance to the RSF—including arms shipments and recruitment of mercenaries—facilitated systematic assaults on non-Arab populations, especially the Masalit people in Darfur.
The assertions encompassed mass killings, forced displacements, and the use of sexual violence as a method of warfare.
Reem Ketait, the UAE’s deputy assistant minister for political affairs, remarked that the court’s ruling was “clear and authoritative”.
She emphasized the need for the international community to urgently work toward ending the devastating conflict and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches all affected individuals.
Both the Sudanese military and the RSF have faced accusations of committing severe violations, including targeted killings based on ethnicity, hindering humanitarian aid, and engaging in looting.
Sudan’s case at the ICJ was notable for aiming at an alleged backer of violence rather than those directly involved in the acts.
The situation tested whether countries could be held accountable for contributing to atrocities elsewhere.
Although the ICJ judges concluded that they lacked the jurisdiction to make a ruling, the case highlights the evolving role of international courts as platforms for diplomatic disputes.