The International Court of Justice threw out Sudan's attempt to hold the United Arab Emirates accountable for allegedly breaching the Genocide Convention by supporting paramilitary forces in Sudan's civil war.
The Hague-based U.N.'s top court, which was set up to hear disputes between nations, ruled on Monday that it "manifestly lacked" jurisdiction over the case. Sudan alleged the U.A.E. has been illegally arming and funding the rebel paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in the civil war, which has killed tens of thousands of people and forced millions of others to flee.
"The violent conflict has a devastating effect, resulting in untold loss of life and suffering, in particular in West Darfur. The scope of the case before the court is, however, necessarily circumscribed by the basis of jurisdiction invoked in the application," ICJ's president Yuji Iwasawa said.
Since mid-April 2023, Sudan's military and rival paramilitary forces have been waging a vicious war in the capital, Khartoum, that has spread to other regions. Both the RSF and Sudan's military have been accused of human rights abuses.
The RSF and their allied militias from mainly nomadic and pastoralist "Arab tribes" in Darfur have been targeting the Masalit civilians from "non-Arab" farming tribes in ethnic killings around El-Geneina, the capital of West Darfur.
A United Nations expert panel said in Jan. 2024 that the RSF and allied militias killed up to 15,000 people in El-Geneina. Former U.S. president Joe Biden's administration also declared during its final days in January that RSF and its allies committed genocide.
'A transparent attempt to divert attention'
Sudan asked ICJ in March to issue provisional measures instrucing the U.A.E. to prevent the killings and other crimes targeting the Masalit people, but at a hearing last month the U.A.E. argued the court lacked the authority to hear the case.
That's because the U.A.E. entered a "reservation" to a key clause, Article IX – essentially opting out of the clause agreeing to let one nation sue another at the ICJ over disputes – when it signed onto the Genocide Convention in 2005. Sudan also is a signatory to the convention, which entered into force in 1951.
ICJ justices agreed with the U.A.E., noting that the country "when acceding to the Genocide Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX, seeking to exclude the jurisdiction of the court," the court said. "In light of the U.A.E.'s reservation and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s application. The case will therefore be removed from its docket."
The court, however, also noted that "there is a fundamental distinction between the question of acceptance by states of the court’s jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law."
Regardless of whether nations accept the court's jurisdiction under Article IX, the justices said, nations are "required to comply with their obligations under that instrument, and they remain responsible for acts attributable to them which are contrary to their international obligations."
Reem Ketait, deputy assistant minister of political affairs at the U.A.E.’s foreign ministry, welcomed the court's ruling and formal termination of the case brought by the Sudanese Armed Forces.
"This outcome reaffirms what has long been clear: the SAF's case is unfounded and lacks any basis," she said. "The U.A.E. has consistently rejected SAF's fabrications, which serve as a transparent attempt to divert attention from their own actions and the ongoing atrocities in Sudan."
Ketait called on the SAF and RSF to end the war without preconditions, commit to negotiations, and allow unhindered humanitarian access, and urged the international community to "act decisively to help facilitate a civilian-led political process, independent from military control, and hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable."
