Following the International Court of Justice’s ruling on May 5, 2025, which dismissed the lawsuit brought by the Port Sudan authority against the United Arab Emirates, alleging its involvement in “supporting genocide” in the Darfur region, French experts have underscored the legal robustness of the UAE’s position. This stance is grounded in solid foundations of international law, particularly regarding its reservation on Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Article 9 of the Genocide Convention (1948) is the provision that grants the International Court of Justice jurisdiction to consider disputes between states concerning the interpretation and application of the convention. However, upon joining the convention, the UAE explicitly reserved its position on this article.
This reservation signifies that the UAE does not accept the automatic jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding disputes related to the convention. Such a reservation serves as a legal barrier against pursuing that action, thus undermining the legal basis and legitimacy of the lawsuit.
This stance reflects the country’s dedication to maintaining its judicial sovereignty while affirming its full commitment to the goals of the convention aimed at preventing genocide. The UAE is not alone in its reservation on this article; 15 other nations have adopted a similar position for reasons of national sovereignty. Among these countries are the United States, India, the Philippines, Bahrain, Singapore, and Malaysia.
French experts confirmed that this reservation aligns with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which permits states to express reservations regarding specific articles of international agreements, provided that such articles do not undermine the core objectives or purposes of the treaty. Since Article 9 is not fundamentally tied to the criminalization or prevention of the crime itself, the reservation is legally valid.
Experts pointed out that the UAE “adopted a disciplined legal approach,” and the court found no submission from the Sudanese Armed Forces that contradicts the immunity afforded by the reservation on Article 9.
Jean-Paul Lublan, a professor of international law at the Sorbonne University, stated, “This ruling confirms that meticulously crafted legal reservations are effective in international courts. The UAE has been committed to handling international law since its accession to the convention.”
Claire Douma, Deputy Director of the European Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution based in Paris, noted that the court’s decision represents an important legal precedent, solidifying the principle of state sovereignty regarding legally recognized reservations, while also sending a message to nations that attempt to use international law as a political tool. She emphasized that formal procedures and adherence to the law are key to success in this area.
She further stated, “This is a natural outcome for a state that understands the nature of the international legal system, laying a diplomatic and legal foundation for its positions.” Douma regarded the International Court of Justice’s decision to reject the lawsuit by the Sudanese Armed Forces against the UAE as “not only a legal victory for the UAE but also a reinforcement of the principle of respect for state sovereignty and a refusal to weaponize international courts for political pressure.”
She added, “It is clear that the court intended to send a message indicating that politically motivated claims, even when framed in legal terms, must adhere to strict procedural and jurisdictional standards internationally.”
The UAE successfully dismantled the alleged legal character of the lawsuit by presenting a strong case based on its legal reservation concerning Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.
She noted that by choosing not to engage with the substance of the allegations, the court “effectively exonerated the UAE from the charge of interference or involvement in Sudanese affairs,” pointing out that the court “found no violation of international obligations in either substance or form within the lawsuit.”
Douma emphasized that this decision “restores balance to the logic of utilizing international courts” and promotes “the non-politicization of international courts or the exploitation of these forums for settling diplomatic or media scores.”
The French expert affirmed that “the legal victory of the UAE at The Hague enhances its image as a country that respects international legality and conducts its foreign policies within legal frameworks, even in the face of complex political and human rights allegations.”
This victory is expected to provide the UAE with “greater diplomatic and humanitarian maneuverability in the region, as the court confirmed its non-involvement in supporting any acts of genocide or violations of international treaties,” strengthening the UAE’s position as a responsible global player that upholds the law.
Moreover, this ruling establishes a significant legal precedent, affirming the principle of state sovereignty in relation to internationally recognized legal reservations. It conveys a message to states seeking to utilize international courts as political instruments that formal processes and compliance with the law are essential for success in this field.