Sudan instituted [10] proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 6. The claim charges that the UAE has directly supported the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF [11]) and its associated militia in West Darfur state, violating the Genocide Convention [12].
Sudan's claim against the UAE is based on weapons seized by the Sudanese Armed Forces in active war zones. Sudanese forces reportedly discovered [13] several passports of Emirati nationals inside armored personnel carriers and 4×4 combat vehicles that originated in the UAE. According to Sudan, this reveals illegal military and logistical support that has allowed the RSF to commit genocidal acts in West Darfur, including the killings of civilians, and the deprivation of access to medical care and basic necessities.
Sudan also accused the UAE of providing traveling assistance to the RSF's commander-in-chief and hosting RSF business activities, violating US sanctions [15]. The US has imposed a series of sanctions against both the RSF and Sudanese Arme Forces. In January this year, the US imposed sanctions on RSF leader "Hemedti [16]" and seven RSF-linked companies based in the UAE for committing genocide.
The United Nations has previously confirmed the RSF's role in grave abuses in Sudan. In October 2024, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan expressed concern over the "ethnically motivated attacks [17]" committed by the RSF in West Darfur. In November 2024, the UN Security Council imposed [18] sanctions on two RSF leaders over widespread human rights violations.
The dispute relates to the fulfillment of the Genocide Convention's Article III prohibition on "complicity with genocide." Even though the UAE acceded to the convention, its express reservation [12] to the dispute resolution clause under Article IX may present a hurdle for the ICJ to assume jurisdiction.
The court's previous divided advisory opinion [12] has left it open for state parties to the convention to decide whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the convention.
Arguing that Article IX serves as the basis of the ICJ's jurisdiction, Sudan suggested [19] that submitting disputes of the convention to the ICJ is "one of the prime guarantees of the due fulfillment of the basic obligation to prevent and punish genocide." Thus, a reservation to the dispute resolution clause is invalid as Sudan contended. Whether the court will assume jurisdiction over the dispute remains to be seen.
Pending final judgment in the case, Sudan asked [19] for provision measures, including requiring the UAE to "take all measures within its power" to prevent genocidal acts against Darfur’s Masalit ethnic group.
In response, the UAE foreign minister Anwar Gargash said [20] on X (formerly Twitter) that Sudan should prioritize a ceasefire in its territory over a "publicity tactic" to justify its rejection of peace.
From JURIST [21], March 7. Used with permission.
