Sudan Brings Case Against UAE for Alleged Genocide Involvement to International Court

The International Court of Justice is currently reviewing a case from Sudan charging the UAE with complicity in genocide during the ongoing civil war, which has resulted in extensive violence and displacement. The UAE, however, dismisses the allegations as a political maneuver.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is embroiled in a significant case as Sudan accuses the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of "complicity in genocide" linked to the civil war currently devastating the nation. This conflict, which has unfolded over the past two years, involves clashes between Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), leading to tens of thousands of deaths and the displacement of over 12 million individuals.

Sudan's government alleges that the UAE has been supplying the RSF with arms and support aimed at eradicating West Darfur’s non-Arab Masalit population. The UAE has dismissed these claims, describing them as a cynical publicity stunt, and is advocating for the case’s immediate dismissal.

Both the RSF and Sudan's military have faced accusations of committing severe human rights violations since the beginning of the conflict. Reports suggest that the RSF has perpetrated systematic attacks against non-Arab groups, with a focus on the Masalit community, and has allegedly employed rape as a tactic against civilians.

In previous statements, the United States has aligned with Sudan's claims, asserting that the RSF engaged in genocidal activities and subsequently imposed sanctions against its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. Hemedti has refuted assertions that his forces intentionally targeted civilians.

As Sudan navigates this legal avenue, it emphasizes its inability to bring its grievances against the RSF to the ICJ due to its military government's status, hence its focus on holding its alleged sponsor—the UAE—accountable. Sudan is appealing for reparations and immediate actions to protect the Masalit population, requesting that the ICJ facilitate measures to prevent further violence.

The UAE, however, maintains firm denials of the accusations, emphasizing its lack of involvement in arming the RSF and characterizing the case as a manipulation of international legal processes. In court, Sudan's representatives highlighted the urgent need for intervention to mitigate potential harm to the Masalit people, urging the court to enact measures barring UAE from supporting the RSF.

Experts suggest that the case may encounter significant hurdles due to the UAE's reservation to the Genocide Convention, which complicates the ICJ's jurisdiction over such claims. Nevertheless, by taking its complaints to the court, Sudan has spotlighted what it sees as the UAE's pivotal role in exacerbating the conflict.

A ruling from the ICJ regarding its authority to respond to Sudan's requests could be expected in the coming weeks. While ICJ rulings are legally binding, the court itself lacks direct enforcement mechanisms for its decisions, leaving the outcome and implementation of any orders uncertain.