The International Court of Justice dismisses Sudan's request to hold the U.A.E. accountable for alleged genocide support in its civil war, citing jurisdiction issues.
U.N. Court Dismisses Sudan's Genocide Case Against U.A.E.
U.N. Court Dismisses Sudan's Genocide Case Against U.A.E.
International Court of Justice rules on jurisdiction in Sudan’s accusations against the Emirates.
Sudan's accusations against the United Arab Emirates regarding complicity in genocidal actions amid the ongoing civil war have been dismissed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On May 5, 2025, the court announced its decision, stating it "manifestly lacks jurisdiction" over the case, which Sudan initiated. The court did not weigh in on the allegations but voted 14-2 against the request for provisional emergency measures that Sudan sought against the Emirates.
In March, Sudan leveled serious allegations claiming that the U.A.E. has been supplying arms and funding to the Rapid Support Forces (R.S.F.), a paramilitary faction entangled in the civil conflict. The court's decision to remove the case from its caseload was narrowly decided with a 9-7 vote. Notably, both Sudan and the U.A.E. are party to the 1948 Genocide Convention, but the U.A.E. had previously opted out of a specific clause permitting nations to bring lawsuits against one another in the ICJ upon signing.
During the initial hearings, Sudan implored the court to impose emergency orders that would compel the U.A.E. to cease actions potentially leading to genocide against the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur. However, the Emirates has consistently denied the allegations, asserting that Sudan lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims and arguing against the court's jurisdiction over the matter.
In March, Sudan leveled serious allegations claiming that the U.A.E. has been supplying arms and funding to the Rapid Support Forces (R.S.F.), a paramilitary faction entangled in the civil conflict. The court's decision to remove the case from its caseload was narrowly decided with a 9-7 vote. Notably, both Sudan and the U.A.E. are party to the 1948 Genocide Convention, but the U.A.E. had previously opted out of a specific clause permitting nations to bring lawsuits against one another in the ICJ upon signing.
During the initial hearings, Sudan implored the court to impose emergency orders that would compel the U.A.E. to cease actions potentially leading to genocide against the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur. However, the Emirates has consistently denied the allegations, asserting that Sudan lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims and arguing against the court's jurisdiction over the matter.
