French experts: rejecting the Port Sudan authority’s lawsuit against the Emirates based on solid foundations of international law

Paris, May 9/ WAM/ following the International Court of Justice’s decision issued on May 5, 2025, rejecting the lawsuit submitted by the Port Sudan authority against the United Arab Emirates, claiming that it was involved in “supporting genocide” in the Darfur region, French experts highlight the safety of the legal position of the UAE, which was based on solid foundations of international law, specifically in terms of reservations on Article 9 of the agreement to prevent the crime of extermination Collective.

Article 9 of the genocide -preventing agreement (1948) is the article that gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction to consider disputes between states on the interpretation and implementation of the agreement. However, when joining the agreement, the UAE has expressed explicit reservations about this article, stressing that it does not accept the automatic jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in disputes related to the agreement. This reservation is a legal objection to taking that measure, which loses the lawsuit its legal basis and its legitimate pillars. This reservation reflects the state’s approach to preserving its judicial sovereignty, while emphasizing its full commitment to the goals of the agreement to prevent genocide. The UAE was not an exception to the reservation of this article. 15 countries have taken a similar position for reasons related to national sovereignty. Among these countries: the United States, India, the Philippines, Bahrain, Singapore and Malaysia.

Many French experts have emphasized that this reservation is in line with the provisions of the Vienna Agreement of the Treaties Law (1969), which allow countries to express reservations on certain articles of international agreements, unless these articles constitute the essence of the agreement or contradict their subject and purpose. Because Article 9 is not one of the fundamental materials associated with criminalization or the prevention of the crime itself, the reservation is not legally void.
The French experts pointed out that the UAE “adopted a disciplined legal approach”, and that the court did not find in the file of the Sudanese Armed Forces what contradicts the immunity that it gives the reservation of Article 9 “.
Jean -Paul Lublan, a professor of international law at the Sorbonne University, said: “This decision proves that the legal reservations that are accurately built are effective before the international courts. The UAE has been committed to dealing with international law since it joined the agreement.”

For her part, Claire Douma, Deputy European Center for Peace and Paris -based Conflict Resolution, who specializes in international conflict cases, confirmed that the court’s decision
It constitutes an important legal precedent, and devotes the principle of state sovereignty in relation to internationally recognized legal reservations, as it sends a message to countries that seek to use the international judiciary as a political tool, according to which formal procedures and commitment to the law are the key to success in this regard.
She added: “This is a natural result of a country that understands the nature of the international legal system, and places a diplomatic and legal basis for its positions.”
The Vice -President of the European Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution considered that the International Court of Justice’s decision to reject the lawsuit of the Sudanese armed forces against the UAE represents “not only a legal victory for the UAE, but also a confirmation of the principle of respecting the sovereignty of states and refusing to employ international judiciary as a political pressure tool.”

She added, “It is clear that the court wanted to send a message that allegations of a political nature, even if it is formulated with legal clothing, must fulfill the strict and specialized specialist standards in force internationally. The UAE has succeeded in dismantling the alleged legal nature of the case, by submitting a strong file based on its legal reservation on Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention of Collective Expatination.”
She pointed out that the court, by refusing to enter into the essence of the accusations, “practically the UAE acquitted the charge of intervention or involvement in the Sudanese affairs,” explaining that the court “did not find in the text of the case to prove a violation of international obligations, neither in the content nor in form.”
She always stressed that this decision “restores balance to the logic of the use of international judiciary”, and pushes towards “not politicizing international courts, or using them to liquidate diplomatic or media accounts.”
The French specialist emphasized that “the legal victory of the UAE in The Hague enhances its image as a country that respects international legitimacy and runs its foreign policies within legal frameworks, even in the face of accusations of a complex political and human rights nature.”

She also pointed out that this victory will give the UAE “a broader space for diplomatic and humanitarian action in the region, after the court confirmed that it was not involved in supporting any extermination or violation of international agreements”, which strengthens the “UAE’s position as an international player, respects the law”
It highlighted that this decision constitutes an important legal precedent, and devotes the principle of state sovereignty in relation to internationally recognized legal reservations. It also sends a message to the countries that seek to use the international judiciary as a political tool, according to which formal procedures and commitment to the law are the key to success in this field.

• For more: Follow Khaleejion 24 Arabic, Khaleejion 24 English, Khaleejion 24 Live, and for social media follow us on Facebook and Twitter