Sudan's government is pursuing legal reparation from the UAE, alleging its involvement in genocide amid the escalating conflict, while the UAE responds by calling the claims unfounded.
Sudan Files Case Against UAE for Alleged Genocide Complicity at International Court
Sudan Files Case Against UAE for Alleged Genocide Complicity at International Court
Sudan's legal accusations against the UAE highlight a pressing humanitarian crisis in the ongoing civil war.
Sudan has initiated a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of complicity in genocide amid the ongoing civil war. This conflict, now two years underway, has seen Sudan's army clash with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and displacing over 12 million individuals from their homes.
In its allegations, Sudan claims that the UAE has been supplying arms to the RSF with the intent of eradicating the non-Arab Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur. The UAE has dismissed these accusations as a "cynical publicity stunt" and is seeking immediate dismissal of the case. Both the RSF and Sudan's military have faced accusations of committing atrocities since the onset of the war.
Sudan asserts that the RSF has engaged in systematic attacks targeting non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit people, with intent to destroy them as an ethnic group. The accusations extend to the use of sexual violence as a weapon against civilians. Earlier this year, the United States also accused the RSF of genocide, subsequently imposing sanctions on its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.
Given that Sudan's military government cannot directly take the RSF to the court, its strategy is to confront one of the alleged sponsors of these actions— the UAE. Sudan’s government argues that the severe atrocities committed by the RSF were facilitated by substantial military, political, and financial support from the UAE, including arms supplies and the training of mercenaries. The Sudanese government is seeking reparations and immediate measures to prevent further genocidal actions.
In a statement, the UAE has fervently denied these allegations and stated it wishes to dismiss the court case. "The ICJ is not a stage for political theatrics," the UAE declared, branding the lawsuit as an attempt by Sudan to divert attention from its own documented offenses against its people.
In the court session, Sudan's legal representatives contended that there exists a plausible risk of harm to the Masalit population, urging the ICJ to intervene to preempt further genocidal acts. Sudan has called for immediate injunctions to prohibit the UAE from resupplying the RSF, along with mandates for the UAE to report back to the court on compliance.
However, legal expertise suggests that the case faces significant hurdles, particularly due to the UAE's reservations regarding the Genocide Convention, which undermines jurisdiction over such claims in previous instances. Despite the legal challenges, Sudan's filing brings critical attention to the UAE's perceived role in the civil war.
The court is expected to decide in the coming weeks if it holds jurisdiction to act on Sudan’s request for provisional measures to prevent further acts of genocide. While ICJ rulings are legally binding, the court lacks the authority to enforce its decisions directly.
In its allegations, Sudan claims that the UAE has been supplying arms to the RSF with the intent of eradicating the non-Arab Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur. The UAE has dismissed these accusations as a "cynical publicity stunt" and is seeking immediate dismissal of the case. Both the RSF and Sudan's military have faced accusations of committing atrocities since the onset of the war.
Sudan asserts that the RSF has engaged in systematic attacks targeting non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit people, with intent to destroy them as an ethnic group. The accusations extend to the use of sexual violence as a weapon against civilians. Earlier this year, the United States also accused the RSF of genocide, subsequently imposing sanctions on its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.
Given that Sudan's military government cannot directly take the RSF to the court, its strategy is to confront one of the alleged sponsors of these actions— the UAE. Sudan’s government argues that the severe atrocities committed by the RSF were facilitated by substantial military, political, and financial support from the UAE, including arms supplies and the training of mercenaries. The Sudanese government is seeking reparations and immediate measures to prevent further genocidal actions.
In a statement, the UAE has fervently denied these allegations and stated it wishes to dismiss the court case. "The ICJ is not a stage for political theatrics," the UAE declared, branding the lawsuit as an attempt by Sudan to divert attention from its own documented offenses against its people.
In the court session, Sudan's legal representatives contended that there exists a plausible risk of harm to the Masalit population, urging the ICJ to intervene to preempt further genocidal acts. Sudan has called for immediate injunctions to prohibit the UAE from resupplying the RSF, along with mandates for the UAE to report back to the court on compliance.
However, legal expertise suggests that the case faces significant hurdles, particularly due to the UAE's reservations regarding the Genocide Convention, which undermines jurisdiction over such claims in previous instances. Despite the legal challenges, Sudan's filing brings critical attention to the UAE's perceived role in the civil war.
The court is expected to decide in the coming weeks if it holds jurisdiction to act on Sudan’s request for provisional measures to prevent further acts of genocide. While ICJ rulings are legally binding, the court lacks the authority to enforce its decisions directly.
