arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

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

Taha Poostindooz

Asian Journal of International Law2026https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251325100866article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

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.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251325100866

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{taha2026,
  title        = {{A Critical Analysis of the ICJ’s Ruling in <i>Sudan v. UAE</i> : Genocide Convention Reservations and the Limits of Article IX}},
  author       = {Taha Poostindooz},
  journal      = {Asian Journal of International Law},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251325100866},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.