Latest news with #ArticleIX
Forbes
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
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.
Middle East Eye
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
ICJ urged not to throw Sudan's UAE genocide case out on a 'technicality'
A group of prominent international judges and legal experts have urged the International Court of Justice (ICJ) not to throw out Sudan's genocide case against the United Arab Emirates on a 'technicality'. The ICJ will deliver its emergency order in the case on 5 April, with the verdict expected to turn on the question of the UAE's reservation to an article of the Genocide Convention. In an exclusive legal opinion shared with Middle East Eye, prominent international jurists argue that states 'should be compelled to account for their actions in a court of law'. The signatories include South African judge Richard Goldstone, who was the UN's chief prosecutor at the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and Hans Corell, formerly the UN legal counsel. Melanie O'Brien, president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Irwin Cotler, Canada's former attorney general, are also among the opinion's signatories. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters On 10 April, a UAE delegation to the ICJ argued that 'there is clearly no basis' for the court's 'jurisdiction in this case'. The UAE is one of a handful of countries that have signed the Genocide Convention but made a reservation to Article IX, which stipulates that the ICJ is responsible for 'addressing disputes related to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention'. The Emirati delegation at the ICJ says this reservation, which argues that the UAE cannot be tried for genocide at the World Court, is a 'legitimate exercise of state sovereignty'. Previously, the ICJ has ruled that the United States, Spain and Rwanda's reservations to Article IX were fair. Yonah Diamond, the legal counsel of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and an author of the opinion, told MEE the ICJ 'has authority over state conduct for violations of international law'. He said that upholding reservations like the UAE's 'is like allowing a perpetrator of genocide to evade legal accountability as long as they say, 'I guarantee I won't commit acts of genocide, but cannot be brought to a court of law if I do'.' The ICJ is the only court in the world with the power to investigate and bring cases against states accused of breaking the Genocide Convention, which has been effective since 1951 and which the UAE acceded to in 2005. The court has the power to issue emergency measures, including halting weapons transfers and the laying down of arms. 'To dismiss this case on a technicality alone would be to abandon these communities,' Diamond said, speaking of those in Darfur subjected to attacks by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which the UAE is accused of supplying. 'The law exists to bring perpetrators to court, not to shield them from accountability.' UAE arms to Sudan On 6 March, Sudan filed an application to open proceedings against the UAE before the ICJ over alleged complicity in acts of genocide against the Darfur's Masalit community. The application said that the RSF, which has been at war with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023, had perpetrated genocide, murder, theft, rape and forcible displacement, and that it was 'enabled' to do so by direct support from the UAE. MEE has reported extensively on the network of supply lines through which the UAE arms and supports the RSF. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF chief better known as Hemeti, has for years exported gold from mines in Sudan to the UAE. The Dagalo family has a string of businesses based in the Emirates. Abu Dhabi has, throughout the war, denied supporting the RSF. But on 18 December last year, Brett McGurk, an official in the outgoing US administration of US President Joe Biden, wrote to Senator Chris Van Hollen that 'the UAE has informed the Administration that it is not now transferring any weapons to the RSF and will not do so going forward'. This was seen by multiple diplomatic sources as a tacit admission that the UAE had been supporting the RSF up to that point. Just over a month after receiving the letter, Van Hollen confirmed that the UAE 'is providing weapons' to the RSF. RSF massacres The RSF has committed massacres across Darfur, the vast western region that it almost completely controls. Most recently, its fighters have attacked el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, and Zamzam, a camp for people displaced during the Darfur genocide of the early 2000s. In Zamzam and el-Fasher, the RSF has used four Chinese lightweight AH4 howitzers, the only known buyers of which are the UAE. The paramilitary has also, according to Yale's Humanitarian Research Lab, used three Chinese-made drones 'consistent with FH-95s' flown into the RSF-controlled Nyala airport. In April last year, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre concluded there was 'clear and convincing evidence' that the RSF and its allied militias were committing genocide against 'non-Arab groups' in Darfur, such as the Masalit. The ICJ said 74 years ago that the principles of the Genocide Convention 'are recognised by civilised nations as binding on states, even without any conventional obligation'.
Gulf Today
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
UAE refutes Sudan's false accusations before the International Court of Justice
The UAE firmly rejected the unfounded allegations made by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) during a hearing before the international Court of Justice (ICJ). The SAF failed to present any credible evidence, exposing a weak and illegitimate case with no legal basis, and failed to meet any evidentiary standard. The UAE strongly addressed the allegations during the hearing demonstrating the claims brought in front of the ICJ have no factual basis. During the hearing, the UAE's delegation stated: 'We [the UAE] should not be here today. There is clearly no basis for the Court's jurisdiction in this case. The UAE's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention is a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. The country participates today out of respect for the Court and the principles of international law and justice, even as it firmly maintains a consistent position on jurisdiction.' Furthermore, the UAE reaffirmed that: 'Since the very beginning of this conflict, the UAE has worked tirelessly to try to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people. The UAE has engaged with partners, including the United Nations, to deliver over USD 600 million of assistance. It has established field hospitals in the neighboring states of Chad and South Sudan to assist those fleeing the fighting with doctors and nurses treating all of those in need, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or political affiliation.' The delegation further stressed: 'The UAE has been clear and consistent in its position on Sudan. There is no military solution to this conflict. The UAE has called for a ceasefire; for humanitarian pauses to facilitate the delivery of aid; and for accountability for violations of international law by the two warring factions, the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces. Moreover, the UAE has called for a political process to transition to civilian rule, and it supported and engaged in regional and international mediation efforts to bring an end to the fighting, from Jeddah, to Manama, to US-led mediation efforts last year in Switzerland.' 'In stark contrast, the applicant [the SAF] has single-mindedly pursued a military victory at the expense of a peaceful resolution to this conflict. They rejected calls to return to talks in Jeddah. They walked away from discussions in Manama. They refused to attend the US-led mediation in Switzerland. The SAF rushes to this podium in The Hague, but for two years it has left its seat at the negotiation table empty,' the UAE delegation added. Speaking immediately after the hearing concluded, Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister of Political Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UAE Co-Agent, said: "Today, we addressed the misleading application by the SAF which was completely devoid of evidence and without legal basis, completely distorting the Genocide Convention and the requirements of State responsibility. This is not a legitimate legal action; it is a cynical PR stunt, designed to distract from the SAF's own record of atrocities. We reiterate, this is a war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, we support no party. We support peace, humanitarian aid, and a return to civilian government' Ameirah Obaid AlHefeiti, UAE Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and UAE Court Agent, added: 'The Sudanese Armed Forces' application to the ICJ is an attempt to divert attention from its own legal and moral responsibility for its criminal acts and the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the country. Atrocities credibly attributed to the SAF over the past two years include widespread extrajudicial and targeted killings of civilians, indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, including with chemical weapons, and the obstruction of humanitarian access. It is clear that the SAF seeks to instrumentalize the Court for its own political self-interest, rather than committing to international efforts towards peace in Sudan. The Sudanese people deserve peace and dignity, and deserve a civilian-led government that puts their interests and their priorities first and foremost.' WAM
Gulf Today
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Sudan's charges at ICJ are pure fabrication, misleading: UAE
The United Arab Emirates has labelled Sudan's allegations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as 'misleading,' and 'pure fabrication.' This came as the ICJ convened on Thursday to hear UAE's response to Sudan's application for provisional measures under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister for Political Affairs at the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed the court, outlining the UAE's position. Ketait began by expressing the UAE's solidarity with the Sudanese people and acknowledging the 'two years of devastation and displacement' in Sudan. She condemned the 'unrelenting violence, attacks on civilians, and horrific acts of sexual and gender-based violence,' calling for perpetrators to be held accountable. However, Ketait asserted that the court proceedings are not about the UAE's obligations under the Genocide Convention. She accused Sudan, 'one of the warring parties,' of misusing the court to make 'false accusations' against the UAE and 'deflect from their own responsibility' for the ongoing conflict. A central point of the UAE's argument was the lack of jurisdictional basis for the case. Ketait emphasised the UAE's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, stating it was a 'legitimate exercise of State sovereignty.' She added that the case filed by Sudan is an attempt to 'circumvent state consent,' which is a 'bedrock of our international legal order.' She added that despite the jurisdictional challenge, the UAE participated in the hearings 'out of respect for the Court and the principles of international law and justice,' reaffirming the UAE's 'unwavering commitment to its obligations under the Genocide Convention.' Ketait detailed the UAE's historical relationship with Sudan, highlighting over $4 billion in investments 'to support the Sudanese people, strengthen Sudan's institutions and progress its transition to a civilian-led government' prior to the April 2023 conflict. She referenced a military cooperation agreement from July 2020, stating that 'official requests for assistance from the UAE came from General Al Burhan himself, in his capacity as President of the Transitional Sovereignty Council of the Republic of the Sudan.' She stated that the UAE had not provided arms or related material to either warring party since April 2023. Instead, the UAE has worked to alleviate suffering, providing over $600 million in assistance through the United Nations and other partners. Ketait reiterated the UAE's call for an unconditional ceasefire, humanitarian pauses, and accountability for violations of international law by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. WAM
Khaleej Times
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
UAE labels Sudan's allegations as 'misleading' at International Court of Justice
The United Arab Emirates has labelled Sudan's allegations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as "misleading", and "pure fabrications'. This came as the ICJ convened this morning to hear UAE's response to Sudan's application for provisional measures under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister for Political Affairs at the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed the court, outlining the UAE's position. Ketait began by expressing the UAE's solidarity with the Sudanese people and acknowledging the "two years of devastation and displacement" in Sudan. She condemned the "unrelenting violence, attacks on civilians, and horrific acts of sexual and gender-based violence," calling for perpetrators to be held accountable. However, Ketait asserted that the court proceedings are not about the UAE's obligations under the Genocide Convention. She accused Sudan, "one of the warring parties," of misusing the court to make "false accusations" against the UAE and "deflect from their own responsibility" for the ongoing conflict. A central point of the UAE's argument was the lack of jurisdictional basis for the case. Ketait emphasised the UAE's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, stating it was a "legitimate exercise of State sovereignty." She added that the case filed by Sudan is an attempt to "circumvent state consent," which is a 'bedrock of our international legal order.' She added that despite the jurisdictional challenge, the UAE participated in the hearings "out of respect for the Court and the principles of international law and justice," reaffirming the UAE's 'unwavering commitment to its obligations under the Genocide Convention.' Ketait detailed the UAE's historical relationship with Sudan, highlighting over $4 billion in investments "to support the Sudanese people, strengthen Sudan's institutions and progress its transition to a civilian-led government" prior to the April 2023 conflict. She referenced a military cooperation agreement from July 2020, stating that 'official requests for assistance from the UAE came from General al-Burhan himself, in his capacity as President of the Transitional Sovereignty Council of the Republic of the Sudan.' She stated that the UAE had not provided arms or related material to either warring party since April 2023. Instead, the UAE has worked to alleviate suffering, providing over $600 million in assistance through the United Nations and other partners. Field hospitals were established in Chad and South Sudan to assist refugees, including Masalit refugees. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has acknowledged the UAE's critical humanitarian role. Ketait reiterated the UAE's call for an unconditional ceasefire, humanitarian pauses, and accountability for violations of international law by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The UAE has supported regional and international mediation efforts, including those in Jeddah, Manama, and Switzerland. She highlighted the UAE's co-hosting of the High-Level Humanitarian Conference for the People of Sudan in February 2025. She criticised Sudan for rejecting the UAE's offer to establish a field hospital in Port Sudan, refusing to return to talks in Jeddah, walking away from discussions in Manama, and refusing to attend the US-led mediation in Switzerland. She stated that 'The Applicant rushes to this podium in the Hague, but for two years it has left its seat at the negotiation table empty.' Ketait denied the UAE's role as a "driver of this reprehensible conflict," labeling Sudan's allegations as "misleading" and "pure fabrications." She accused Sudan of "an irresponsible pattern of behaviour," seeking to 'distract attention from their own culpability.' She stated that Sudan had refused to allow the UN to establish a permanent humanitarian presence in Darfur, and that Sudan must cease deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and stop obstructing humanitarian aid. Ketait outlined the UAE's legal team's subsequent presentations, which would focus on the lack of jurisdiction, the rebuttal of Sudan's legal arguments, and the absence of evidence to support its claims.
