Sudan has officially brought a case against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the UAE of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the violent events in West Darfur state, Sudan. The specific charges stem from claims that the UAE provided direct support, including arms, to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group heavily involved in the ongoing conflict in Sudan. The ICJ, which serves as the principal judicial body of the United Nations, received the complaint this week. The Sudanese government alleges that the UAE’s involvement enabled the RSF’s operations, particularly in the 2023 attacks in West Darfur, which included ethnic-based violence against the Masalit people.
The UAE, in response, has firmly denied these accusations and rejected the lawsuit’s validity. UAE officials have said that the case presented by Sudan lacks both “legal and factual basis,” and they intend to seek the immediate dismissal of the case. The UAE’s defense argues that Sudan’s claims are unsubstantiated and part of a broader political strategy to shift the blame for the atrocities away from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which has been widely implicated in the violence in Sudan. A statement released by the UAE indicated that the Sudanese government’s actions, including bringing this case to the World Court, are a “cynical publicity stunt” aimed at diverting attention from the role of the Sudanese Armed Forces in the ongoing violence.
The accusations and the lawsuit filed in the International Court of Justice are based on multiple reports, including findings by the United Nations experts and U.S. lawmakers. These reports have claimed that the UAE provided military and logistical support to the RSF, which has played a central role in the civil war that has raged in Sudan for almost two years. Although the UAE has continually denied these accusations, there have been credible allegations that the UAE’s support to the RSF has been significant, particularly in the form of weapons shipments and financial assistance.
The situation in Darfur, particularly in the capital Geneina and other parts of West Darfur, has been dire, with widespread attacks on civilians, including ethnic massacres and displacement. The RSF, alongside allied Arab militias, has been accused of conducting coordinated attacks against non-Arab ethnic groups, including the Masalit, leading to mass deaths, destruction of villages, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. These attacks have intensified in 2023, with a significant uptick in ethnic violence. Human rights organizations and media outlets, including Reuters, have documented the atrocities in detail, shedding light on the scope and scale of the violence that has been unleashed on the region’s civilian population.
Sudan’s case against the UAE is primarily based on the assertion that the UAE’s military aid to the RSF directly contributed to the attacks in Darfur, which Sudan claims could amount to genocide under the international law framework. Sudan’s legal team at the ICJ argues that the UAE’s involvement in supporting the RSF goes beyond mere assistance to an armed group—it constitutes active participation in the violence perpetrated against Sudanese civilians, particularly in West Darfur. According to Sudan, the UAE’s actions contravene the Genocide Convention, which obligates state parties to prevent and punish actions that may lead to the genocide of ethnic, religious, or national groups.
The UAE, however, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. In the statement released in response to the case, UAE officials not only rejected the accusations but also pointed to the complicity of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in perpetrating widespread atrocities. The UAE’s response highlights what it sees as Sudan’s attempts to divert attention from its own military’s involvement in the violence that has ravaged the country for years. The Sudanese Armed Forces have been accused of numerous human rights violations during the conflict, and critics argue that they share responsibility for the violence alongside the RSF and other armed militias.
The political context of the case is also important to understand. Sudan has been in a state of turmoil since 2019 when long-time president Omar al-Bashir was ousted in a popular uprising. Following his removal, a fragile transitional government took over, but the country remained politically unstable. In October 2021, a military coup led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan overturned the civilian-led government, plunging the country into deeper unrest. In 2023, the situation deteriorated further when fighting broke out between the SAF and the RSF, leading to widespread violence and displacement. The RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemeti, has been a key player in the conflict. The RSF was originally formed as a militia to combat insurgents in Darfur and other regions, but over the years, it has grown in power and influence, to the point of becoming a rival force to the SAF in the ongoing civil war.
The UAE’s role in Sudan has been a subject of controversy for some time, particularly due to its close relations with the RSF leadership. The UAE has been known to provide support to various groups in the region as part of its broader foreign policy strategy, which aims to increase its influence across the Horn of Africa and the wider Middle East. The UAE’s assistance to the RSF has reportedly included weapons supplies, financial support, and logistical aid. However, the UAE has maintained that its involvement in Sudan is focused on humanitarian assistance and that it has not provided military support to any particular faction. These claims, however, have been met with skepticism, especially after the reports from the United Nations and various human rights organizations that documented the UAE’s role in aiding the RSF.
The Sudanese government’s decision to file a case against the UAE at the International Court of Justice is seen as a significant development in the ongoing international effort to address the conflict in Sudan. The ICJ, which is the world’s highest court for resolving disputes between states, may take years to issue a ruling, but the case could set an important precedent for future international legal actions involving states that are accused of complicity in genocide or war crimes.
If the ICJ rules in favor of Sudan, it could have serious diplomatic and legal consequences for the UAE, as well as for other states that may be involved in similar conflicts around the world. The case also underscores the challenges of international justice, particularly when powerful states are involved. While the UAE has rejected the accusations, Sudan’s legal challenge could shed further light on the international community’s role in responding to atrocities committed by paramilitary groups and armed factions. At the same time, the case also highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East and North Africa, where alliances and rivalries between regional powers often shape the course of conflicts.
For now, the focus will be on how the ICJ handles this case. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of international law and the pursuit of justice in conflict zones around the world. The Sudanese people, who have endured years of violence and instability, will be closely watching how the international community responds to their government’s accusations against the UAE and whether the courts can provide any measure of accountability for the atrocities committed during the ongoing conflict in Sudan.
