A 10 -year -old boy from the Jabal area of Genearina in Darfur, West Sudan shot on the chest … more
On May 5, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, also referred to as a court) order At the request for indication of temporary measures submitted by Sudan in the case of the implementation of the contract for the prevention and punishment of the genocide crime (genocide contract) in Sudan (Sudan against United Arab Emirates (UAE)). ICJ is the main judicial body of the United Nations. The ICJ has a dual role: first, to settle, according to international law, the legal disputes submitted to it by the states. And, secondly, to give advisory views on legal questions mentioned by the duly authorized bodies and organizations of the United Nations.
The case concerns the applicationSubmitted by Sudan in March 2025, creating procedures against the UAE regarding suspected violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the Masalit team in Sudan, mainly in West Darfur. Sudan’s request concerned “acts committed by Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the militias linked to it, including, among other things, genocide, murder, theft, rape, violent displacement, violations, vandalism”. According to the application, all these acts have “committed and activated by the immediate support given to the RSF militia and the relevant militia by the United Arab Emirates”. The application also concerned “acts adopted, forgiven, received and received by the UAE government in relation to the genocide against the Masalit team in the Republic of Sudan from at least 2023.” Sudan has argued that the United Arab Emirates “is a partner in Masalit genocide through the direction and providing extensive economic, political and military support for the RSF militia”.
In his turn released on May 5, 2025, the ICJ rejected the case. When you announce the orderThe court explained that it may indicate temporary measures only if the provisions based on prima facieto offer a basis on which its jurisdiction could be established. The Court noted that the UAE, when participating in the Genocide Convention, made a reservation in Article IX, seeking to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. Given the detention of the UAE in Article IX of the Genocide Convention, the Court observed that Article IX of that Convention cannot be, prima facieA basis for the jurisdiction of the court in this case. As a result, the court could not indicate the provisional measures requested.
In addition, the court considered that, in the light of the UAE detention and in the absence of any other jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s request. Therefore, the case will be removed from its condition.
In turn, the court We have underlined That there is a fundamental distinction between the issue of acceptance by the states of the court’s jurisdiction and the compliance of their actions with international law. Whether the states have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article IX of the Genocide Convention are obliged to comply with their obligations by this means and remain responsible for acts attributed to them, which are contrary to their international obligations. To say simply, the UAE is under the obligations guaranteed in the Genocide Convention, that is, the obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. However, without the ICJ being involved, the obligations under the Genocide Convention cannot be applied in relation to the UAE.
The situation in Darfur and the wider Sudan requires urgent examination and answers. As the war in Sudan has entered the third year, the country today faces the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. The atrocities committed so far continue to enjoy impunity, including the alleged genocide against the small group of ethnic minorities – Masalit. The very serious risk of genocide should cause the obligation of the states to prevent, in accordance with the obligations under the Genocide Convention. Inactivity cannot be justified.
