Sudan has initiated legal proceedings against the UAE for violating the Genocide Convention, alleging support for genocidal actions in West Darfur through the Rapid Support Forces. The case raises concerns about the implications of South African arms exports to the UAE amidst these allegations. Legal jurisdiction remains unresolved due to UAE’s reservation under international law, while calls for South Africa to reassess its arms export practices grow more urgent given its historical ties to nations accused of human rights violations.
On March 6, 2025, Sudan formally initiated legal proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. Sudan claims that the UAE has been supporting genocide in West Darfur through its assistance to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group implicated in severe human rights violations. This situation underscores the concern regarding the impact of arms transfers on ongoing conflicts.
Sudan is requesting the ICJ to impose provisional measures against the UAE, which it accuses of exacerbating the genocide in West Darfur since 2023. The allegations assert that the UAE has provided substantial military support to the RSF, including arms, munitions, and military equipment. Furthermore, Sudan claims that the UAE has deployed agents to lead RSF operations, fueling the ongoing conflicts through direct involvement in communicating and managing RSF activities from within its borders.
Before the ICJ can evaluate Sudan’s claims, it must first establish its jurisdiction over the case due to a reservation made by the UAE concerning Article 9 of the Genocide Convention. This article permits parties to submit disputes over the interpretation and fulfillment of the convention to the ICJ. Nonetheless, the UAE’s reservation may impede the court’s ability to adjudicate the case, raising questions regarding the participation of third states like South Africa, which continues to export arms to the UAE amid these allegations.
South Africa’s involvement is particularly pertinent since the nation exported approximately R88 million worth of arms to the UAE in 2023, including armored vehicles and ammunition. A critical concern is whether any of these arms have been diverted to the RSF. Despite South African regulations mandating the use of End-User Certificates (EUC) to prevent misuse, enforcement has been inadequate, allowing for the possibility of arms contributing to conflicts like that in Sudan.
Historically, South Africa’s arms exports to countries accused of human rights violations have raised serious ethical concerns. South African law explicitly prohibits exporting arms to nations involved in such abuses. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre’s successful challenge against arms exports to Myanmar reinforces this legal framework, as the Pretoria High Court ruled that permits for arms exports must be suspended upon credible allegations of international crimes against the recipient state.
The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is dire, characterized by extensive reports of violations against international law and widespread human rights abuses. Yet, South Africa has not taken measures to suspend arms transfer permits despite these serious allegations directed at the UAE. Such practices reflect a nation’s commitment to international law and the global human rights framework, revealing a troubling pattern in South Africa’s historical arms dealings.
Although South Africa’s recent actions regarding the Palestinian situation have drawn positive attention, neglecting human rights issues in other contexts, such as Yemen and Myanmar, poses risks of perceived hypocrisy and inconsistency. To genuinely uphold international law and human rights, South Africa must critically reassess its arms export practices and reject economic incentives that come at the cost of human suffering.
In summary, Sudan’s legal action against the UAE highlights serious accusations of genocide and elucidates the risks associated with arms exports from South Africa. The ICJ’s authority to adjudicate the dispute hinges on jurisdictional challenges posed by the UAE’s reservation to the Genocide Convention. South Africa’s role in exporting arms to a nation facing these allegations raises ethical questions regarding its commitment to human rights, necessitating urgent reform in its arms trade practices to avoid complicity in international law violations.
Original Source: mg.co.za
