International Court Of Justice Dismisses Sudan's Genocide Case Against UAE
On May 5, 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ, also referred to as the Court) delivered its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Sudan in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in Sudan (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates (UAE)). The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.
The case concerns the application, filed by Sudan in March 2025, instituting proceedings against the UAE concerning alleged violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, most notably in West Darfur. Sudan's application concerned 'acts which have been perpetrated by (…) Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and militias allied with it, including, but not limited to, genocide, murder, theft of property, rape, forcible displacement, trespassing, vandalism of public properties, and violation of human rights.' According to the application, all such acts have been 'perpetrated and enabled by the direct support given to the rebel RSF militia and related militia groups by the United Arab Emirates.' The application also concerned 'acts adopted, condoned, taken, and being taken by the Government of the UAE in connection with the genocide against the Masalit group in the Republic of the Sudan since at least 2023.' Sudan submitted that the UAE 'is complicit in the genocide on the Masalit through its direction of and provision of extensive financial, political, and military support for the rebel RSF militia.'
In its order released on May 5, 2025, the ICJ rejected the case. When announcing the order, the Court explained it may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded. The Court noted that the UAE, when acceding to the Genocide Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX, seeking to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court. Having regard to the UAE's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, the Court observed that Article IX of that Convention cannot constitute, prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case. As such, the Court could not indicate the provisional measures requested.
Moreover, the Court considered that, in light of the UAE'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.
In its order, the Court emphasized 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. Whether or not States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, they 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. To put it simply, the UAE is under the obligations enshrined in the Genocide Convention, namely, the obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. However, without the ICJ being involved, the obligations under the Genocide Convention cannot be enforced in relation to the UAE.
The situation in Darfur and the wider Sudan requires urgent consideration and responses. As the war in Sudan entered its third year, the country is facing the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world today. The atrocities committed so far continue to enjoy impunity, including the alleged genocide against the small ethnic minority group - the Masalit. The very serious risk of genocide should trigger States' obligation to prevent, in accordance with the obligations under the Genocide Convention. The inaction cannot be justified.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
4 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
NEPA Is the Building Barrier
Regarding your editorial 'The High Court Gives Permission to Build' (May 30): While the unanimous ruling seems like a big victory, it will mean little in practice because the National Environmental Policy Act is fundamentally flawed. To its credit, the court makes clear that four years of litigation and a 3,600-page environmental review are too much for an 88-mile railway. But what about a 3,599-page review and three years and 11 months of litigation? That's what antidevelopment activists will demand and activist judges will still allow. Even if we end up with 1,000-page reviews and a year of litigation—a dramatic yet unlikely improvement—the infrastructure America needs will still be stymied, delayed or defeated by red tape. The problem is NEPA, which needs wholesale reform or outright repeal, something only Congress can do. Until that happens, this won't be the last such case the courts hear, because there's still no real permission to build. Christopher Koopman CEO, Abundance Institute Salt Lake City
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Soonest available date': State moves to hold execution warrant application hearing for Menzies
WEST JORDAN, Utah () — The execution of a man on Utah's death row is now moving forward after it was delayed for an investigation into his competency. Ralph Leroy Menzies was convicted in 1988 for the 1986 aggravated murder, kidnapping, and robbery of Maurine Hunsaker. The State filed a motion Monday to lift the stay on Menzie's execution and hold a hearing for an application for an execution warrant on the 'soonest available date.' Victim's family reacts to convicted killer being ruled competent to be executed According to documents, on Feb. 13, 2024, the court ordered that all 'proceedings advancing toward execution are stayed pending the resolution of Meznie's petition into competency.' They cancelled a hearing set later that month for the State's application for an execution warrant. The 67-year-old man has dementia, his defense in May 2025. Last week, on June 6, Menzies was after 16 months of back-and-forth and competency hearings. 'The State, therefore, moves to lift the stay on the execution proceedings and to schedule a hearing on the State's application for an execution warrant on the soonest available date,' the motion reads. In a statement to ABC4 last week, Menzie's attorney with ABC4 after the ruling that he was competent for execution. Court rules that convicted killer with dementia is competent to be executed We respectfully disagree with the Court's order and plan to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems. He cannot understand the State's reasons for his execution. His dementia is progressive and he is not going to get better. It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death. Lindsey Layer, Attorney for Ralph Menzies Matthew Hunsaker, Maurine Hunsaker's son, last week. He shared the devastation he felt after his mother's murder, but also his fight to get justice. Matthew Hunsaker says that the nearly 40-year wait has been difficult. 'We were at peace either way, but now let's see this execution happen, let's get this over with, and let's let the family close this chapter and move on,' Matthew Hunsaker said. Abigail Jones and McKenzie Diaz contributed to this report. Here's why a Pleasant Grove splash pad is now closed shortly after opening Father's Day gifts to make dad feel loved ICE arrests top 100K under Trump 'Soonest available date': State moves to hold execution warrant application hearing for Menzies Locally-written theater production opening in Utah Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
