As Sudan’s civil war spirals into its second year, a dramatic and unprecedented legal battle is unfolding on the international stage. In a bold move, Sudan has filed a case against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that the Gulf nation has been complicit in acts of genocide by supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—a powerful paramilitary group accused of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and atrocities in the Darfur region.
The lawsuit, filed under the Genocide Convention, marks the first time Sudan has turned to an international tribunal to hold a foreign country accountable for what it calls a “deliberate and sustained” campaign of support for militia forces involved in ethnic massacres. With powerful geopolitical and humanitarian implications, this case could reshape international perspectives on both the conflict in Sudan and the role of foreign involvement.
The Charges Against UAE
In a highly charged statement delivered at The Hague, Sudan’s legal team outlined a harrowing narrative. According to Sudanese representatives, the UAE has been arming and financing the RSF, a paramilitary group formerly aligned with the Sudanese state but now locked in a brutal conflict against Sudan’s regular army. The RSF has been widely accused of war crimes, including mass killings, sexual violence, and scorched-earth tactics, particularly in the Darfur region where ethnic minorities like the Masalit people have been targeted.
Sudan claims that the UAE’s logistical and material support—allegedly provided via cargo flights and supply chains through neighboring countries like Chad—has empowered the RSF to commit atrocities amounting to genocide. Sudan’s legal filing includes references to massacres in El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, where thousands of civilians were reportedly slaughtered, and entire communities displaced or wiped out.
In bringing the case before the ICJ, Sudan is not only seeking recognition of its claims but is also requesting emergency measures to halt any UAE involvement in the conflict. The Sudanese government argues that continued support to the RSF from outside actors is prolonging the war, undermining peace efforts, and exacerbating the humanitarian catastrophe.
UAE Responds: Denial and Deflection
The UAE has firmly denied all allegations and rejected Sudan’s claims as “entirely unfounded” and “politically motivated.” In its defense, UAE’s legal counsel questioned the credibility of Sudan’s case, arguing that the country itself has failed to prevent atrocities within its borders. Moreover, the UAE has cited its reservations under the Genocide Convention, which limit the ICJ’s jurisdiction over certain types of claims—especially those it considers “politically charged.”
While the UAE insists its involvement in Sudan has been humanitarian in nature, international investigations and leaked intelligence suggest otherwise. Flight data, weapons tracking, and eyewitness accounts have pointed toward the shipment of arms and equipment from Emirati territories to regions controlled by the RSF. Western governments and advocacy groups have echoed concerns, raising questions about the UAE’s strategic goals in Sudan.
Still, UAE maintains that it has no control over the internal dynamics of Sudan’s civil war and has called on both sides—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF—to commit to peace and dialogue.
The Civil War: A Nation Divided
The roots of Sudan’s civil war trace back to April 2023, when tensions between the SAF and RSF exploded into open conflict. What began as a power struggle between two rival generals quickly devolved into a nationwide humanitarian disaster. The RSF, under the command of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly known as Hemeti), and the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, have each accused the other of attempting to seize control of the state by force.
Since the outbreak of violence, more than 14 million people have been displaced, and over 25 million Sudanese now depend on humanitarian aid. Aid organizations have faced enormous challenges in delivering supplies due to blockades, attacks on aid workers, and the collapse of infrastructure. The situation is particularly dire in Darfur, a region still reeling from the genocidal campaigns of the early 2000s.
According to the United States, the RSF’s actions in Darfur once again constitute genocide—an assertion that gives additional weight to Sudan’s legal strategy at the ICJ. Washington has imposed sanctions on RSF leadership and entities allegedly facilitating illicit funding networks, including gold mining operations tied to RSF backers.
Why This Case Matters
The Sudan-UAE case is significant for several reasons. First, it draws international attention back to a conflict that has been overshadowed by other global crises. Despite its scale and intensity, Sudan’s war has struggled to gain consistent headlines—often described as a “forgotten war” despite the staggering human cost.
Second, the legal argument advanced by Sudan challenges the assumption that only non-state actors can be guilty of aiding genocide. If the ICJ agrees to hear the case, it could set a precedent allowing states to be held accountable for indirectly enabling genocidal acts—even if they’re not directly involved in the conflict.
Third, the case puts the international community on notice. If foreign powers are shown to be exacerbating conflicts through arms sales or covert support, they could face legal and diplomatic consequences. That has implications not only for the UAE, but also for any state involved in conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza.
Will the ICJ Hear the Case?
Legal experts remain divided on whether the ICJ will accept jurisdiction over Sudan’s complaint. While the Genocide Convention provides a legal foundation for such cases, the UAE’s earlier reservations may present procedural hurdles. Sudan argues that the atrocities are of such a grave nature that they override those reservations, especially given that international law prohibits genocide in all forms.
If the ICJ rules in Sudan’s favor, the court could order the UAE to halt any military support to the RSF and take steps to ensure compliance with the Genocide Convention. While the ICJ lacks enforcement powers, such a ruling would carry enormous symbolic weight and could lead to further international sanctions or diplomatic isolation.
Global Reactions and Diplomatic Fallout
Reactions to the case have varied. Some African Union members have expressed solidarity with Sudan, calling for thorough investigations and accountability. Western nations have responded cautiously, with many already critical of UAE’s role in regional conflicts such as Yemen and Libya. U.S. lawmakers, for instance, have introduced bills aimed at curbing weapons sales to the UAE unless it demonstrates full transparency over its involvement in Sudan.
For the UAE, the stakes are high. The nation has cultivated a global image as a hub for business, diplomacy, and humanitarian innovation. Allegations of involvement in genocide threaten to tarnish that reputation, especially as Abu Dhabi prepares to host major international events and deepen its global partnerships.
Conclusion: A Legal Test with Moral Weight
Sudan’s case at the International Court of Justice represents more than a legal gambit—it’s a cry for global recognition of a tragedy unfolding in real time. It also poses a stark moral question for the international community: Should nations be allowed to support armed factions in foreign conflicts without scrutiny, even when those factions commit atrocities?
As the world watches the proceedings unfold at The Hague, one thing is clear—this case has the potential to reshape the rules of engagement for states involved in proxy wars, and it could offer a sliver of justice for the millions of Sudanese caught in the crossfire. Whether or not the ICJ chooses to act, the very act of bringing the case forward has reignited global attention on a crisis that demands more than silence.
Do follow Uae stories for more Updates
