An effort by the Sudanese government to hold the United Arab Emirates accountable for actions of genocide in West Darfur was dismissed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with judges voting 14 to 2 to assert their lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, a closer vote of 9 to 7 resulted in the complete removal of the case from the ICJ docket.
Throughout the ongoing two-year civil conflict in Sudan, there have been continuous claims suggesting that the UAE has been supplying arms to the paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to assist in their fight against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), commanded by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.
In 2005, when the UAE ratified Article IX of the genocide convention, it included a reservation that prohibited disputes over the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the convention from being adjudicated by the ICJ.
ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa noted that Sudanese legal representatives argued that the RSF had been involved in “extrajudicial killings, ethnic cleansing, rape, enforced disappearances, and the destruction of villages based on ethnicity.”
While the court expressed significant concern regarding the ongoing conflict and its profound human toll in West Darfur, the president reiterated that the UAE’s reservation was explicitly stated and aligned with the intent of the genocide convention.
The ruling was anticipated and signifies a diplomatic gain for the UAE in mitigating accusations of its role in escalating the ongoing civil war by supporting the RSF. A report from a UN panel of experts released on April 29 found no evidence to substantiate claims of UAE arms deliveries to the RSF.
Following the ICJ’s decision in The Hague, Reem Ketait, the UAE’s deputy assistant minister for political affairs, commented: “Simply put, today’s ruling is a firm dismissal of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ attempt to manipulate the court for its misinformation campaign and to divert attention from its own accountability.
“The reality is evident: the UAE is not responsible for the conflict in Sudan. Conversely, the documented atrocities are attributed to the combatants themselves.
“The international community must urgently address this catastrophic war and provide support to the Sudanese populace, ensuring that humanitarian assistance reaches all those in need. Both the Sudanese Armed Forces and RSF must cease hostilities, stop using aid as a weapon, and accept a civilian leadership that operates independently of military influence as the cornerstone for lasting peace.”
The ICJ’s declaration of its lack of jurisdiction has stirred controversy among some observers. A coalition of eminent international legal scholars recently endorsed a legal stance from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, which argued against broad reservations to Article IX of the genocide convention, stating: “While narrowly defined reservations may be acceptable, comprehensive exclusions should be deemed invalid.”
They emphasized that “the purpose of the genocide convention is not merely for states to acknowledge these principles abstractly, but to obligate them to adhere to its stipulations.
“Allowing countries to exempt themselves from the convention’s sole judicial remedy not only jeopardizes the integrity of the convention itself but also undermines the efficiency, predictability, and dependability of the global legal framework.”
At present, 153 nations are signatories to the genocide convention, with 16, including the UAE, attaching extensive reservations. The UK, along with several other influential nations, has argued that such broad reservations might conflict with the convention’s terms.
The Wallenberg Centre’s report concluded: “The existing expectation that the court yield to the preferences of outlier states seeking to avoid participation in serious cases like genocide ought to be reversed. By 2025, these nations should not have a decisive say before the judicial proceedings begin. They must be held accountable for their actions in a judicial setting.”