The United Nations’ top judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has dismissed Sudan’s case against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which accused the Gulf nation of aiding genocide during the ongoing Sudanese civil war. In a 14-2 vote, the ICJ ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, citing the UAE’s prior legal opt-out from Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.
Sudan had brought the case to the ICJ, alleging that the UAE provided extensive military, financial, and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a powerful paramilitary group involved in the Sudanese conflict. The RSF has been accused of widespread atrocities, particularly in the Darfur region, where non-Arab ethnic groups such as the Masalit have faced mass killings, displacement, and sexual violence.
The Sudanese government argued that the UAE’s support enabled these crimes and thus constituted complicity in genocide. However, the ICJ stated that because the UAE had excluded itself from being sued under Article 9 which governs state responsibility for genocide it could not adjudicate the case or assess its merits.
The UAE categorically denied Sudan’s accusations, calling the lawsuit “political theatre” and “a cynical publicity stunt.” Following the ICJ’s decision, Reem Ketait, the UAE’s deputy assistant minister for political affairs, praised the outcome as “clear and decisive.” She urged the global community to shift its focus toward ending the civil war and ensuring humanitarian aid reaches affected populations.
Sudan’s legal challenge was notable for targeting a third-party state accused of sponsoring, rather than directly committing, acts of genocide. This raised important questions about state accountability for fueling foreign conflicts a legal frontier largely unexplored by international courts.
While the ICJ’s rejection prevents a full hearing, the case has highlighted how courts like the ICJ are increasingly becoming arenas for diplomatic confrontation. It also underscored the limits of international law when states exercise opt-outs from critical provisions, leaving victims of atrocities with limited avenues for redress.
