Experts: ICJ dismissal of Port Sudan case v. UAE grounded in law

Sharjah 24 – WAM: Following the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling on May 5, 2025, to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Port Sudan Authority against the United Arab Emirates—alleging its involvement in “supporting genocide” in the Darfur region—French experts have highlighted the sound legal position of the UAE, which, they said, has been built on solid foundations of international law. This particularly relates to UAE's reservation on Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article 9 of the 1948 Genocide Convention

Article 9 of the 1948 Genocide Convention grants the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes between states concerning the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention. However, when the UAE acceded to the Convention, it made an explicit reservation to this article, stating that it does not accept the automatic jurisdiction of the ICJ regarding disputes arising under the Convention. This reservation constitutes a legal barrier to such proceedings, thereby undermining the legal basis and validity of the claim. The reservation reflects the UAE’s approach to preserving its judicial sovereignty while reaffirming its full commitment to the objectives of the Convention in preventing genocide.

The UAE is not alone in making such a reservation—15 other countries have taken similar positions for reasons related to national sovereignty. Among these countries are the United States, India, the Philippines, Bahrain, Singapore, and Malaysia.

Numerous French legal experts have confirmed that the reservation aligns with the provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Numerous French legal experts have confirmed that the reservation aligns with the provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows states to enter reservations to specific provisions of international treaties, provided these do not contradict the treaty’s essential purpose. Since Article 9 does not pertain to the core provisions dealing directly with the criminalisation or prevention of genocide, the reservation is legally valid.

French experts noted that the UAE “adopted a disciplined legal approach” and that the Court “found nothing in the SAF's filing that could override the immunity conferred by the Article 9 reservation.”

Jean-Paul Leblanc, Professor of International Law at Sorbonne University, stated: "This ruling proves that legal reservations, when carefully constructed, are effective before international courts. The United Arab Emirates has been committed to adhering to international law since joining the convention."

For her part, Claire Dumar, Vice President of the European Centre for Prevention of Conflicts, based in Paris, and a specialist in international conflict issues, affirmed that the ICJ decision sets an important legal precedent, affirming the principle of state sovereignty in relation to internationally recognised legal reservations. It also sends a message to states attempting to use international courts as political tools: procedural rigor and legal compliance are the keys to success in this domain."

She further asserted that the ICJ’s rejection of SAF's case represents “not only a legal victory for the UAE but also an affirmation of the principle of respecting state sovereignty and rejecting the use of international justice as a tool for political pressure.”

She added: "It is clear the Court intended to send a message that politically motivated allegations—no matter how legally framed—must still meet the strict procedural and jurisdictional standards required by international law. The UAE successfully dismantled the legal facade of the claim by presenting a strong case based on its reservation to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention."

She noted that the Court “effectively cleared the UAE of accusations of interference or involvement in Sudanese affairs,” explaining that “the ICJ found nothing in the claim to prove a breach of international obligations—neither substantively nor procedurally.”

She emphasised that the decision “restores balance to the logic of using international justice,” and encourages the “depoliticisation of international courts and discourages their use for settling diplomatic or media disputes.”

She concluded that the UAE’s legal victory in The Hague enhances its image as a state that “respects international legitimacy and conducts its foreign policy within legal frameworks, even in the face of politically and legally complex accusations.”

She also noted that this victory will give the UAE “greater diplomatic and humanitarian space in the region, following the Court’s confirmation that the country was not involved in supporting any acts of genocide or violating international treaties.” According to her, this strengthens “the UAE’s position as a responsible international actor that respects the law.”

She reiterated that the decision sets a significant legal precedent and reinforces the principle of state sovereignty regarding internationally recognised legal reservations.