The Democratic Republic of the Congo has filed a new case against Rwanda at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing its neighbour of genocide — the second time Kinshasa has taken Kigali to the world court on such grounds.

The renewed filing, reported by The Conversation, marks an escalation in the long-running dispute between the two central African states. The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, sits in The Hague and adjudicates disputes between states under the Genocide Convention and other instruments of international law.

A law scholar cited in the report explains that the new application differs materially from the DRC's earlier attempt to sue Rwanda at the court. That previous case foundered on jurisdictional grounds: Rwanda had entered a reservation to the jurisdiction of the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, which blocked the court from hearing Kinshasa's claims.

Why did the first case fail?

The DRC brought proceedings against Rwanda in the early 2000s, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention during the Second Congo War. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Rwanda's reservation removed the dispute from the convention's compromissory clause, which would otherwise have given the ICJ a route to hear inter-state genocide allegations.

That jurisdictional obstacle shaped the legal landscape for two decades. Any new application by the DRC would need to rest on a different legal foundation to clear the same hurdle.

What is different this time?

According to the scholar's analysis, the fresh application rests on a changed legal and factual basis. The new proceedings come against the backdrop of renewed fighting in eastern DRC, where Kinshasa accuses Rwanda of backing the M23 rebel group — an allegation Kigali denies.

The precise jurisdictional route the DRC now relies on, and the evidentiary record it has assembled, form the core of what distinguishes the second filing. The earlier case was decided on the court's power to hear the dispute, not on the merits of the genocide allegations themselves.

What does this mean for practitioners?

For international litigators, the case is a study in forum strategy under the Genocide Convention. States facing reservations to ICJ jurisdiction must construct alternative bases — whether through treaty interpretation, subsequent state conduct, or narrower claims crafted to fall within accepted jurisdictional consent. The outcome will test whether the DRC has solved the jurisdictional puzzle that defeated its first attempt. The ICJ has not yet indicated a timeline for preliminary objections or hearings.

Rwanda has consistently rejected the DRC's allegations. The government in Kigali has not publicly commented in detail on the new application.

Note: This report is based on limited source material; readers should consult the ICJ's official docket for the full application and case reference.