UAE wins dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case; dissenting judges dispute early closure
The UAE wins a jurisdictional dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case. Dissenting judges question ending proceedings at the interim-measures stage, while the order leaves the underlying allegations undecided.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Sudan filed its case on March 5, 2025, alleging UAE complicity in genocide against the Masalit. The UAE denied jurisdiction, relying on its 2005 reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The majority held that the reservation excluded this route to the court and that no other jurisdictional basis existed. Order (opens in a new tab)
On May 5, the court rejected interim measures 14-2 and removed the case from its General List 9-7. The UAE welcomed termination. Judge Yusuf and six other judges opposed closing the case; the joint dissent called for a fuller opportunity to argue jurisdiction. Their objection did not establish Sudan's underlying allegations. Joint dissent (opens in a new tab)
The UAE foreign ministry called the case baseless. The court expressly took no position on the merits, so its jurisdictional decision cannot establish whether the alleged support for the RSF occurred. UAE response (opens in a new tab)
Timeline
2 timeline entries on this page. Dates: March 5, 2025 to May 5, 2025
March 2025
Sudan files its application against the UAE
Claim
Sudan alleges breaches of the Genocide Convention concerning the Masalit and requests interim measures. The allegations remain distinct from later jurisdictional findings.
[01]Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025
The order records the competing jurisdictional submissions, rejects provisional measures 14-2 and removes the case from the General List 9-7. It makes no finding on the merits of Sudan's allegations.
Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37
May 2025
ICJ rejects interim measures and ends the case
Incident
The court rejects interim measures 14-2 and orders removal from the General List 9-7. It relies on the UAE's Article IX reservation and takes no position on the merits.
[01]Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025
The order records the competing jurisdictional submissions, rejects provisional measures 14-2 and removes the case from the General List 9-7. It makes no finding on the merits of Sudan's allegations.
Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The ICJ was right to dismiss Sudan's case for a manifest lack of jurisdiction.
What is disputed
Sudan argues that the reservation can be read not to exclude jurisdiction and may be invalid. Yusuf and the joint dissenters object to deciding final jurisdiction and closing the case during the expedited interim-measures process, though the joint dissenters differ on the strength of Sudan's arguments.
Sources (4)
- Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37
- UAE welcomes ICJ ruling on Sudan's caseOpening paragraphs and statement by Reem Ketait
- Dissenting opinion of Judge YusufIntroductory remarks; sections on jurisdiction and removal from the General List
- Joint partly dissenting opinion in Sudan v. UAEParagraphs 1, 16, 21-23 and 27
Arguments
Documented position
Judges Bhandari, Charlesworth, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi and Judge ad hoc Simma
Six judges call for fuller jurisdictional proceedings
The joint dissent argues that failure to establish prima facie jurisdiction for urgent measures does not justify ending the case without a fuller hearing on contested jurisdiction.
Limit of this argument
The six judges differ on the strength of Sudan's jurisdictional arguments and do not jointly find the underlying allegations proved.
Read sources
Sources
- Joint partly dissenting opinion in Sudan v. UAEParagraphs 1, 16, 21-23 and 27
Documented position
Judge Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, separate dissent
Gómez Robledo distinguishes the two decisions
Gómez Robledo accepts that the reservation defeats a prima facie basis for interim measures but objects to the further decision to remove the case at that stage.
Limit of this argument
He does not conclude in this dissent that the court has jurisdiction on the merits.
Read sources
Sources
- Dissenting opinion of Judge Gómez RobledoParagraphs 1-4 and conclusion
Documented position
International Court of Justice majority, paragraphs 28-36
The majority gives effect to the reservation
The majority holds that the UAE's reservation clearly excludes Article IX jurisdiction, does not remove substantive treaty obligations and leaves the court without another basis to hear the case.
Limit of this argument
That reasoning decides jurisdiction rather than the truth of Sudan's allegations.
Read sources
Sources
- Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 responses. Newest first.
United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign AffairsForeign ministry, statement by deputy assistant minister and UAE co-agent Reem KetaitDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The ICJ ended the case after finding that the UAE's reservation excluded jurisdiction.
"The decision is a clear and decisive affirmation of the fact that this case was utterly baseless."
Defended or excusedCase context: UAE wins dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case; dissenting judges dispute early closure
Full statement and sources
The UAE foreign ministry welcomes dismissal and, through Reem Ketait, calls the case baseless.
After the statement
The order says the court cannot decide the merits. Ketait also calls for an end to Sudan's war and humanitarian access.
UAE welcomes ICJ ruling on Sudan's caseOpening paragraphs and statement by Reem KetaitSudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37Why this label?
The ministry endorses the termination under scrutiny. Its broader description of the allegations remains its own characterization.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Abdulqawi Ahmed YusufJudge of the International Court of JusticeDirectly involved Before this statement
He voted against both operative paragraphs of the order.
"It is a deeply flawed decision."
CondemnedCase context: UAE wins dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case; dissenting judges dispute early closure
Full statement and sources
Yusuf rejects the order, arguing that the parties were denied a proper hearing on jurisdiction and that the court conflated distinct procedural tests.
After the statement
His dissent argues for the jurisdictional procedures specified by the court's Statute and Rules. It is not a merits finding on the alleged support.
Dissenting opinion of Judge YusufIntroductory remarks; sections on jurisdiction and removal from the General ListSudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37Why this label?
Yusuf expressly criticizes the decision to resolve jurisdiction and end the case at this procedural stage.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(5)
Original text
Sudan v. United Arab Emirates: Order of May 5, 2025
Relevant passage: Paragraphs 1-10 and 21-37, especially 35-37
About this source
The order records the competing jurisdictional submissions, rejects provisional measures 14-2 and removes the case from the General List 9-7. It makes no finding on the merits of Sudan's allegations.
- Author
- International Court of Justice
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
UAE welcomes ICJ ruling on Sudan's case
Relevant passage: Opening paragraphs and statement by Reem Ketait
About this source
The UAE foreign ministry welcomes termination of the case. Ketait's claim that it was baseless is the ministry's characterization, distinct from the court's jurisdictional findings.
- Author
- United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Dissenting opinion of Judge Gómez Robledo
Relevant passage: Paragraphs 1-4 and conclusion
About this source
Gómez Robledo agrees interim measures lack a prima facie jurisdictional basis but opposes ending the case at that stage.
- Author
- Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Joint partly dissenting opinion in Sudan v. UAE
Relevant passage: Paragraphs 1, 16, 21-23 and 27
About this source
Six judges oppose removing the case without fuller jurisdictional proceedings. Their joint opinion does not decide Sudan's substantive allegations.
- Author
- Judges Bhandari, Charlesworth, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi and Judge ad hoc Simma
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Dissenting opinion of Judge Yusuf
Relevant passage: Introductory remarks; sections on jurisdiction and removal from the General List
About this source
Yusuf opposes the order and argues that the parties were denied the proper opportunity to be heard on contested jurisdiction.
- Author
- Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- UAE wins dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case; dissenting judges dispute early closure
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/sudan-uae-icj-jurisdiction-dismissal-dissent
The Dispute Index. "UAE wins dismissal of Sudan's ICJ case; dissenting judges dispute early closure". First published: 2026-11-06. Last updated: 2026-11-06. https://disputeindex.com/cases/sudan-uae-icj-jurisdiction-dismissal-dissent