The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction due to a reservation the UAE placed on Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
Sudan had alleged that the UAE provided arms and military equipment to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), contributing to what Khartoum described as genocide, war crimes, and serious human rights violations in West Darfur.
However, the UAE, like several other states, has formally objected to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which grants the ICJ authority to settle disputes related to the treaty.
The UAE maintains that any such dispute requires its prior consent before being brought before the court.
As a result of this reservation, the ICJ concluded it did not have the legal authority to proceed with the case.
The decision precedes an expected ruling on Sudan’s requests for provisional measures, which included halting what it described as “UAE military support” to the RSF to prevent further atrocities.
During public hearings that began on April 10, Sudan presented documents it claimed demonstrated Emirati involvement in the conflict, alleging the UAE supplied “weapons and military gear to the rebel Rapid Support Forces militia,” enabling mass atrocities, including genocide and ethnic cleansing, particularly targeting the Masalit ethnic group.
The UAE firmly denied the accusations, calling the lawsuit “politically motivated” and asserting there was no credible evidence linking the country to direct involvement in the Sudanese conflict or support for any specific faction.
The RSF and allied militias have faced international condemnation for their actions in Darfur, with numerous reports accusing them of large-scale atrocities against African ethnic communities.
Earlier this year, the United States declared the RSF’s actions in West Darfur amounted to genocide.
While the ICJ’s decision is a setback for Sudan’s legal efforts, the case has renewed global attention to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and alleged external support for the conflict.
Legal experts noted that the ruling addressed procedural grounds, not the substance of Sudan’s accusations. Sudan’s government has not yet announced its next steps regarding potential alternative legal avenues or diplomatic pressure.
