Комментарий к постановлению Международного Суда от 5 мая 2025 года «О применении Конвенции о предупреждении преступления геноцида и наказании за него в Судане»

The article analyses of the decision of the International Court of Justice of 5 May 2025 in the case concerning the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in Sudan” (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates). Sudan accused the UAE of supporting the “Rapid Support Forces” which conducted targeted attacks against the Masalit people, as well as of complicity in acts of genocide against this group. The author focuses on the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and the application of the reservation to the jurisdictional clause made by the United Arab Emirates to Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The arguments of the parties regarding the admissibility of such a reservation, its wording, and its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention are examined. The author analyses the decision and the Court’s reasoning. The commentary considers the Court’s application of the “compatibility test” and the grounds for the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction. An analysis is made of the approach formed by the Court with regard to reservations to the Genocide Convention, as well as the Court’s practice in analogous cases. Particular attention is paid to the positions of States and scholars concerning the permissibility of reservations to Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The commentary reviews the current trend towards reducing the number of reservations to the jurisdictional clause, the positions of leading States that oppose such reservations, and debates within international legal scholarship regarding their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention. The author examines the implications and positions regarding the permissibility of reservations to the jurisdictional clause, as well as the consequences of finding such reservations impermissible for future human rights treaties. In conclusion, the potential for the development of a new approach to the permissibility of reservations that contradict the object and purpose of international treaties is discussed. The author concludes that, despite the consistent practice of the International Court, the issue of the permissibility of reservations to Article IX remains relevant and may have significant implications for international treaty law and human rights protection practices.