Latest news with #YujiIwasawa
Russia Today
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
UN court rejects genocide case against UAE
The International Court of Justice has dismissed a case brought by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of violating the Genocide Convention. The African country accuses the UAE of supporting paramilitary forces involved in ethnic violence in the former's Darfur region. In a decision on Monday, 14 of 16 judges concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint, citing the UAE's reservation to a key provision of the convention that limits the ICJ's authority in state disputes. Sudan filed the case in March, alleging that the Emirates provided arms and funding to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group locked in a brutal conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023 and accused of committing atrocities against civilians, particularly the Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur. The UAE has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling them 'baseless,' and asked the World Court to dismiss the case. 'The Court is deeply concerned about the unfolding human tragedy in Sudan that forms the backdrop to the present dispute. The violent conflict has a devastating effect, resulting in untold loss of life and suffering, in particular in West Darfur,' ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said, reading the decision. 'The scope of the case before the Court is, however, necessarily circumscribed by the basis of jurisdiction invoked in the Application,' the judge stated in the ruling, which also denied Sudan's request for emergency measures to halt alleged atrocities in West Darfur. The jurists also voted nine to seven to remove the case entirely from the ICJ list. The Emirati government welcomed the decision, calling it a 'categorical rejection of Sudan's false claim.' 'The decision clearly and unequivocally confirms that the case is without merit… [It] represents a decisive rejection of the Sudanese Armed Forces' attempt to exploit the court to spread misinformation and divert attention from its responsibility in the conflict,' said Reem Ketait, Emirati deputy assistant minister for political affairs. More than 24,000 people have been killed in Sudan's two-year conflict, with over 14 million displaced and half the population facing acute hunger, according to the United Nations.
Yomiuri Shimbun
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
New ICJ Chief Iwasawa Advocates International Rule of Law; He Also Calls on Japanese Students to Take An Active Part in The World
The Yomiuri Shimbu Yuji Iwasawa THE HAGUE — Yuji Iwasawa, 70, who was elected president of The Hague-based International Court of Justice in March, recently gave an interview to The Yomiuri Shimbun. He told the newspaper that he wants to contribute to the promotion of the rule of law in the international community by helping to peacefully resolve the conflicts that continually arise around the world. The Tokyo native, who became an ICJ judge in 2018, was elected president by his peers, the 15 judges of the court, to fill the post for the remainder of the term of his predecessor, Nawaf Salam. Salam resigned in January to become prime minister of Lebanon. In 2022, the ICJ issued provisional measures regarding the Russian aggression in Ukraine, including ordering Moscow to suspend its military operations in the country immediately. The court also issued three provisional measures regarding Israel's military activities in the Gaza Strip last year, including an order for an immediate halt to attacks on the southern city of Rafah. The ICJ has no means of enforcing its judgments or orders, and neither Russia nor Israel has complied with them. However, Iwasawa stressed that the ICJ's judgments are binding. 'Legally, countries have to abide by them,' he said. According to Iwasawa, there have been times when only a single lawsuit would be filed with the ICJ every few years, but at present 25 cases are being contested at the court. 'The content of the cases has also gotten more diverse. They no longer are limited to traditional disputes over national borders and maritime boundaries. Questions of human rights and environmental issues have become more common,' Iwasawa said during the interview on April 7. The number of cases brought before the ICJ has increased because, he said, 'The court is trusted, and that's something we as a court should welcome.' Now, at a time when the international order based on the rule of law is being shaken, the role of the ICJ is attracting attention. Iwasawa said: 'Whatever the case, the court's duty is to faithfully interpret and apply international law.' As an expert on international law, Iwasawa has served as a professor at the University of Tokyo Graduate Schools for Law and Politics and as the chairperson of the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which deals with human rights issues in countries around the globe. At the International Criminal Court, also located in The Hague, Tomoko Akane, 68, serves as the president. Commenting on the fact that the two international courts both have Japanese people in roles of major responsibility, Iwasawa pointed out, 'We carry out our duties as individuals and are not representing Japan.' Noting people's growing awareness of international justice, however, he expressed his hope that more Japanese will play active roles internationally, and not just in the field of justice. Iwasawa said, 'Most Japanese students have the capacity to take an active part in the world. I would like them to be strongly motivated and sharpen their English language skills, no matter what field they want to be in.'
The Guardian
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Sudan fails in attempt to make UAE accountable for acts of genocide
An attempt by Sudan's government to make the United Arab Emirates legally accountable for acts of genocide in West Darfur has been rejected by the international court of justice after the judges voted by 15 to 2 to declare they had no jurisdiction. By a narrower majority the judges voted 9 to 7 to strike the case entirely from the ICJ list. The two year civil war in Sudan has seen repeated allegations that the UAE has been flying arms to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in a bid to oust the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. However, when the UAE signed up to article IX of the genocide convention in 2005, it inserted a reservation stating it would not allow disputes about the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the convention to be resolved at the ICJ. The ICJ ,president, Yuji Iwasawa, acknowledged that Sudanese government lawyers in presenting their case has claimed that the RSF had engaged in 'extra judicial killing, ethnic cleansing, rape, enforced disappearances and burning of villages as well as killing on an ethnic basis'. The court was 'deeply concerned about [how] the unfolding conflict led to untold loss of life and suffering in west Darfur'. But, the president said, the UAE reservation had been formulated in clear terms, and was not incompatible with the purpose of the genocide convention. The judges' ruling was largely expected but marks a second diplomatic victory in the UAE efforts to ward off allegations that it has been prolonging the bloody two-year civil war by arming the RSF. A UN panel of experts report on 29 April published no evidence that the UAE were arming the RSF. Speaking after the ICJ ruling in the Hague, , deputy assistant minister for political affairs at the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: 'Quite simply, today's decision represents a resounding rejection of the Sudanese Armed Forces' attempt to instrumentalise the court for its campaign of misinformation and to distract from its own responsibility. 'The facts speak for themselves: the UAE bears no responsibility for the conflict in Sudan. On the contrary, the atrocities committed by the warring parties are well-documented. 'The international community must focus urgently on ending this devastating war and supporting the Sudanese people, and it must demand humanitarian aid reaches all those in need. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces must stop fighting, must stop weaponising aid, and must endorse civilian leadership independent from military control as the only foundation for sustainable peace.' The ICJ ruling that it had no jurisdiction is controversial for some. A group of prestigious international jurists last week backed a legal opinion from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights argued: 'While some narrowly tailored reservations to article IX of the genocide convention might be permissible, blanket reservations to the entirety of article IX should be rejected as invalid'. They argued 'the utility of the genocide convention is not for states to adopt these principles in the abstract, which exist with or without the convention, but to bind states to comply with its terms. 'To allow states to exempt themselves from the genocide convention's only judicial mechanism not only undermines the integrity of the convention, but also the efficacy, foreseeability, and reliability of the international system as a whole. Currently 153 states are party to the genocide convention, with 16 states inserting blanket reservations including the UAE. The UK has been one of a group of influential states that have argued such broad reservations may be incompatible with the convention. In its opinion, the Wallenberg Centre concluded: 'The current expectation that the court bend to the will of outlier reserving states seeking to evade participation in cases as significant as genocide should be reversed. In 2025, these states should not have the final word before the judicial process even begins. They should be compelled to account for their actions in a court of law.'
Middle East Eye
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
ICJ dismisses Sudan's case accusing UAE of complicity in genocide
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dismissed Sudan's case accusing the United Arab Emirates of complicity in genocide, citing a lack of jurisdiction to rule on the matter. Sudan launched a case alleging that genocide against the Masalit community in Darfur by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) would not have been possible without the support of the UAE. Khartoum laid out its oral argument last month, accusing the Gulf state of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention. The UAE has repeatedly denied supporting the RSF, and labelled the case as a "cynical and baseless PR stunt". In its oral defence last month, it also said that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction to rule in the case due to the UAE having made a reservation to Article Nine of the Genocide Convention when it acceded to it in 2005. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Article Nine of the convention allows dispute settlement before the ICJ when a state party violates the treaty. States are allowed to opt out of the provision in advance of signing the treaty. The Hague-based court on Monday agreed with the UAE's arguments, rejecting Sudan's request for emergency measures and ordering the case be removed from its docket. "In light of the reservation made by the UAE to the compromissory clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide Convention and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan's Application," Yuji Iwasawa, the ICJ's president, said. "The present case will therefore be removed from the General List." The court threw out Sudan's case by a vote of 14-to-two. Sudan's government, whose army has been at war with the RSF since April 2023, accuses the paramilitary group and allied militias of perpetrating genocide, murder, theft, rape and forcible displacement. It said that these crimes were enabled by direct support from the UAE. Khartoum requested the World Court to implement several provisional measures, including ordering the UAE to take measures to prevent: the killing and causing serious harm towards the Masalit, deliberately inflicting conditions to bring about the physical destruction of the group, and the imposition of measures that are intended to prevent births within the group. It also called for provisional measures ordering the UAE to ensure that any armed units supported by it do not directly or publicly incite to commit genocide. "This decision is a clear and decisive affirmation of the fact that this case was utterly baseless. The court's finding that it is without jurisdiction confirms that this case should never have been brought," Reem Ketait, a senior official at the UAE's foreign ministry, said. "The facts speak for themselves: the UAE bears no responsibility for the conflict in Sudan. On the contrary, the atrocities committed by the warring parties are well-documented."
Al Etihad
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Etihad
ICJ rejects Sudan's case against the UAE, removing it from the court's list
5 May 2025 18:11 ABU DHABI (ALETIHAD, WAM) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected Sudan's case against the UAE, and removed it from its general list of cases to be adjudicated upon. Judge Yuji Iwasawa delivered the verdict on the case filed - by Sudan on March 5, 2025 - in a hearing on Monday, May 5, 2025 at The Hague. The UAE has welcomed the decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague to dismiss the case filed by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the UAE, citing a manifest lack of jurisdiction. With the court's ruling, the case has been removed from its list, formally terminating the proceedings. Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, "The court concludes from the foregoing that, having regard to the UAE's reservation to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, this article cannot constitute, prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the court in the present case. It follows that the court, lacking prima facie jurisdiction to entertain Sudan's application, cannot indicate the provisional measures requested in order to protect the rights invoked in the application submitted by Sudan." "The court further considers that in light of the reservation made by the UAE to the compromissory clause contained in Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan's application," the judge said. He added, "In a system of consensual jurisdiction, to maintain on the general list a case, upon which it appears certain that the court will not be able to adjudicate on the merits, would not contribute to the sound administration of justice. The present case will therefore be removed from the general list." In a statement released on WAM, the UAE said, "This outcome reaffirms what has long been clear: the SAF's case is unfounded and lacks any basis. The UAE 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." In a statement, Reem Ketait, Deputy Assistant Minister of Political Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UAE Co-Agent, said, "The decision is a clear and decisive affirmation of the fact that this case was utterly baseless. Quite simply, today's decision represents a resounding rejection of SAF's attempt to instrumentalise the court for its campaign of misinformation and to distract from its own responsibility. "As Sudan's devastating civil war enters its third year, the UAE calls on the SAF and RSF to end the war without preconditions, commit to negotiations, and allow unhindered humanitarian access. The international community must act decisively to help facilitate a civilian-led political process, independent from military control, and hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable." "We will continue to work with regional and international partners to advance collective action to build a peaceful and prosperous future for the Sudanese people," Ketait concluded.
