Since 2023, Sudan has reported ongoing genocide against the Masalit in West Darfur by the RSF, implicating the UAE in fueling this conflict. Sudan’s ICJ application details grave human rights violations and accuses the UAE of providing military support to the RSF. While Sudan hopes to challenge the UAE’s legal reservations, historical precedents and legal complexities present significant hurdles. The case highlights the evolving role of international courts as platforms for political expression amid humanitarian crises.
In 2023, the Republic of Sudan reported ongoing acts of genocide against the Masalit group, primarily in West Darfur. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), along with its allied militias, have allegedly engaged in severe human rights violations, targeting individuals based on ethnic identity and skin color. Sudan’s application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), submitted on March 4, 2025, details heinous acts including extrajudicial killings, forced displacement, and widespread sexual violence against women and girls of certain ethnic backgrounds.
The government of Sudan has accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of exacerbating the conflict and supporting the RSF. Sudan claims that the UAE has dispatched agents to assist the RSF and has provided significant financial and military support, including arms and equipment. The allegations further assert that UAE-trained mercenaries are assisting the RSF in their actions, leading to accusations of complicity in genocide.
Analysis from regional experts supports Sudan’s claims regarding UAE’s involvement. Reports to the United Nations have indicated that the UAE supplies weapons and material support to the RSF, often utilizing Chad as a logistical base. Charles Bouessel from the International Crisis Group emphasized that without Emirati support, the RSF would struggle to survive. Sudan’s formal complaint underscores the UAE’s control over the RSF, suggesting that the militia operates as an extension of the UAE government.
However, Sudan faces significant legal hurdles in its pursuit of justice through the ICJ. Historically, several states have declared reservations against the court’s jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, a position also held by the UAE. Historically, the ICJ has maintained that such reservations are permissible as long as they do not contradict the treaty’s object and purpose. Sudan’s representative has argued against the legitimacy of such reservations, citing violations of the Genocide Convention’s core principles through UAE’s actions.
The ICJ has gained attention for cases related to the Genocide Convention, demonstrated by recent actions from other nations. Sudan’s approach may serve to amplify public awareness regarding the UAE’s role in the conflict. Experts believe that this move signifies Sudan’s frustration and its intention to apply political pressure on the UAE through the ICJ, thus highlighting the evolving role of international legal venues as platforms for political discourse around conflicts.
The situation in Sudan reflects a complex interplay of legal, political, and humanitarian issues involving claims of genocide and international complicity. As Sudan seeks redress through the ICJ, the case not only underscores the grave conditions faced by the Masalit group but also emphasizes the geopolitical dynamics involving states like the UAE. The broader implications of these proceedings reveal the increasing reliance on international law as a means for states to navigate and voice grievances in the arena of global governance.
Original Source: www.justiceinfo.net
