After Sudan’s Charge of Genocide Complicity, What Awaits the UAE?
At the International Court of Justice, Sudan alleges the UAE’s support for paramilitary forces fueled mass atrocities against the Masalit community in West Darfur.
Watan-Sudan on Thursday accused the United Arab Emirates of complicity in genocide during a public hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands.
Sudan argued that the alleged genocide against the Masalit community in Darfur by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) would not have been possible without support from the United Arab Emirates.
Khartoum presented its oral arguments in a public session regarding its case, which accuses the UAE of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
Sudan Alleges UAE’s Direct Role in Fueling Genocide Through RSF Support
Acting Sudanese Justice Minister Mawiya Othman told the court:“The ongoing genocide would not have been possible without the complicity of the United Arab Emirates, including the shipment of weapons to the RSF.”
Othman added:“The direct logistical and other support provided—and still being provided—by the UAE to the RSF has been and continues to be the main driving force behind the genocide currently taking place, including killings, rape, forced displacement, and looting.”
The Sudanese government, which has been at war with the RSF since April 2023, accuses the paramilitary group and allied militias of committing genocide, murder, looting, rape, and forced displacement. It claims these crimes were enabled through direct support from the UAE.
Sudan Seeks Urgent ICJ Measures as UAE Faces Genocide Allegations Over Darfur Atrocities
Last year, an independent investigation by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights concluded that there is “clear and compelling evidence” that the RSF and its allied militias “have committed and are committing genocide against the Masalit,” an African Sudanese ethnic group.
West Darfur was the site of intense ethnic attacks carried out in 2023 by the RSF and allied Arab militias targeting the Masalit population.
Khartoum has requested that the ICJ impose several provisional measures.
These include an order directing the UAE to take all necessary steps to prevent:
-
killings,
-
serious bodily harm against the Masalit,
-
deliberate conditions aimed at the physical destruction of the group,
-
and measures intended to prevent births within the group.
Legal Hurdles Emerge as Sudan Presses ICJ to Restrain UAE-Backed Armed Groups
Sudan also requested interim measures to compel the UAE to ensure that any armed units it supports do not directly or publicly incite genocide.
Although the UAE is a party to the Genocide Convention on which the case is based, it opted out of Article IX of the treaty when it acceded in 2005.
This reservation may lead the court to dismiss the case, according to Michael Becker, an expert in international human rights law.
Article IX allows for disputes over violations of the Convention to be resolved by the ICJ. States are permitted to opt out of this clause when joining the treaty.
Becker noted that by reserving its position on Article IX, the UAE did not consent to the court’s jurisdiction in such matters. Other countries that have made similar reservations include the United States, China, Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Malaysia, Yemen, and India.
