A Critical Analysis of the ICJ’s Ruling in <i>Sudan v. UAE</i> : Genocide Convention Reservations and the Limits of Article IX

Abstract This article critically examines the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the preliminary objections in Sudan v. United Arab Emirates , focusing on the implications of the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention. It evaluates the Court’s interpretation of the scope and effect of such reservations, contrasting it with precedents set in Bosnia v. Serbia and The Gambia v. Myanmar . Drawing on the ICJ’s jurisprudence, principles of state responsibility, and international criminal law, the article highlights significant tensions and ambiguities in the Court’s approach to admissibility, complicity, and provisional measures. The study incorporates insights from the International Criminal Court and UN Human Rights Council resolutions to contextualise the legal and factual matrix. Ultimately, it argues for a more coherent doctrinal framework to address the impact of reservations on treaty obligations and jurisdictional competence in genocide-related disputes.