When Procedural Aspects Become the Cause of the Failure of International Justice

Dr. Enas Mohamed Ahmed

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established under Article 92 of the United Nations Charter. It is the principal judicial organ of the UN and succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice. It was founded in 1945 and is based in The Hague, consisting of 15 judges.

However, the effectiveness of this court is limited by several factors—the most serious being the reservations concerning its jurisdiction under Article 36(2). These reservations are often used by states as a pretext to avoid compliance with the court’s rulings in certain types of cases.

Any member state can bring a case against another member state, whether the dispute is direct or indirect, provided there is a threat to international peace and security—as was the case when The Gambia filed a lawsuit against Myanmar, accusing it of committing acts of genocide. Although The Gambia was not directly affected by the matter, this did not prevent it from filing the case on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), for example.

The rulings of the ICJ are final and cannot be appealed. It is up to the involved states to implement or ignore its decisions. States may also refer the matter to the UN Security Council for a vote on the ruling, as occurred when the United States rejected a ruling in favor of Nicaragua. In that well-known case, Nicaragua demanded compensation for U.S. support of the “Contras” rebels, including the mining of Nicaraguan ports in 1986. The court ruled in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the U.S. to pay compensation, which the U.S. refused. Nicaragua then took the case to the Security Council, but the U.S. vetoed the decision.

Thus, the operation of international justice bodies resembles a game of ping-pong, where politics, interests, and veto powers interfere and alter the course of justice—even if the court is technically competent.

On March 5, Sudan filed a case against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the ICJ, accusing it of violating the Genocide Convention by supporting and arming the terrorist Rapid Support Forces (RSF). On May 5, the court declared that it had no jurisdiction over the case. This declaration does not equate to an acquittal of the UAE; it merely reflects a lack of jurisdiction, not a verdict of innocence.

Despite the court’s mandate to handle disputes between states and violations of international treaties—and even though both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide—the court still declared it lacked jurisdiction. This requires clarification of a key point: The court is indeed competent under the UN Charter, but the UAE, when it ratified the Genocide Convention, made a reservation specifically regarding Article 9. This effectively excludes the UAE from that article, preventing the court from considering the case. As a result, the UAE challenged the court’s jurisdiction, meaning it does not recognize the court’s authority over this matter. Nonetheless, this does not constitute an exoneration.

Several international law experts who have worked in UN-established tribunals believe Sudan’s allegations against Abu Dhabi are credible, backed by strong evidence, eyewitness testimony, extensive media documentation, and clear proof gathered by numerous human rights and humanitarian organizations. These findings have been published by both local and international media, news agencies, and investigative journalism outlets. This alone is enough to expose the crimes of the militia and the UAE’s support for it.

Despite the court’s ruling of “no jurisdiction,” this case has placed the UAE’s actions under the microscope of the international community. It has brought attention to the UAE’s role in destabilizing not just Sudan, but the entire region, including Red Sea nations and global trade routes. Recent drone attacks on Port Sudan are stark evidence of this.

The evidence clearly implicates the UAE, even if the court claims to lack jurisdiction. For the first time, Abu Dhabi is in desperate need of “cosmetic cover” to hide its true image—now exposed to the world—due to allegations of genocide and the widespread publication of supporting evidence. This will seriously damage its regional standing, and the stain of supporting militias and genocide will follow it everywhere.

Internationalizing the case ensures that these accusations remain a topic of global discussion and investigation by international media and human rights organizations. The court’s declaration of non-jurisdiction will not intimidate or discourage the Sudanese people, nor distract them from their core cause. It will not change their understanding of who their enemy is or how to seek justice.

The court’s lack of jurisdiction does not mark the end of the battle; it is only the beginning of a new phase in a long struggle. This is not the Sudanese people’s first battle, nor will it be their last. With their deep-rooted history and enduring civilization, they place their trust in the “Court of Heaven,” which is competent to judge the oppressors and criminals and will give every rightful person their due—if not now, then in time.

Source: Al-Muhaqqiq