Sudan Accuses UAE of Genocide Complicity: An Examination of the ICJ Case
Sudan has accused the UAE of complicity in a genocide against the Masalit group by supporting the RSF militia, which commits heinous acts in West Darfur. The Sudanese government contends that the UAE provides financial aid and military resources to the RSF, acting effectively as an extension of the Emirati government. However, Sudan’s legal attempt faces challenges due to the UAE’s reservations under the Genocide Convention, complicating the prospects of being heard at the ICJ.
In 2023, the Republic of Sudan described a genocide unfolding against the Masalit group in West Darfur, citing the actions of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia. In its application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 4, 2025, Sudan contended that the RSF systematically targeted individuals based on their ethnic identity and skin color, alleging acts that included extrajudicial killings and ethnic cleansing of civilians.
Sudan specifically accused the RSF of besieging El Geneina for 58 days, during which heinous acts, such as burning civilians alive, forced displacement, and sexual violence were reported. The Sudanese government asserted that women and girls from certain ethnic groups were specifically targeted, and civilians were prevented from accessing vital supplies during this period of conflict.
In its request to the ICJ, Sudan alleged the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was complicit in these genocidal actions by providing support to the RSF militia. Sudan claimed the UAE has conducted operations to manage RSF forces and has sent financial assistance, military equipment, and thousands of mercenaries to assist in the perpetration of genocide in Sudan.
Supporting Sudan’s accusations, regional analysts and UN experts have validated claims regarding the UAE’s provision of resources to the RSF. Charles Bouessel of the International Crisis Group highlighted evidence suggesting Chad is utilized as a base for the UAE to supply weapons to the RSF, indicating that the militia would struggle to survive without Emirati assistance.
Sudan further posited that the RSF militia operates as an extension of the UAE government, asserting that humanitarian violations have occurred under Emirati direction. However, Sudan faces difficulties as many states, including the UAE, have made reservations that limit their accountability under the Genocide Convention at the ICJ.
Legal analysis suggests that the UAE’s reservations regarding the Genocide Convention may prevent Sudan’s case from being pursued at the ICJ successfully. Michael Becker from Trinity College Dublin noted that previous cases have reinforced the legitimacy of such reservations, making it difficult for Sudan to contest these legal frameworks effectively.
The burgeoning trend where states utilize the ICJ to address various global conflicts and allegations of atrocities continues to evolve. Nations like Gambia and South Africa have used this platform to pursue allegations of genocide against other states, highlighting the ICJ’s prominence in upholding international law.
Experts believe Sudan’s submission may also serve as a strategic move to garner attention on the conflict and the UAE’s involvement. Skander emphasized that this approach could pressure the UAE by shedding light on their actions within Sudanese media and public discourse, despite the uncertain outcome of the legal proceedings at the ICJ.
The ICJ’s evolving role signifies a shift in how states engage with international law. Skander noted that nations are increasingly willing to confront their adversaries within this legal arena, perhaps viewing it as less detrimental to international relations than in the past, demonstrating a growing reliance on international legal frameworks despite the challenges present in exerting accountability through such mechanisms.
In conclusion, Sudan’s allegations against the UAE regarding genocide in West Darfur have raised important discussions around international law and state accountability. Despite the legal complexities surrounding state reservations in the Genocide Convention, the case underscores the increasing use of the ICJ for geopolitical maneuvering. Moreover, Sudan’s effort to publicize the UAE’s involvement may reflect a strategic approach aimed at garnering global attention and prompting international responses to their ongoing humanitarian crisis. The dynamics of such legal engagements continue to shape the broader landscape of international relations and the pursuit of justice for atrocities.
Original Source: www.justiceinfo.net
