Sudan launches case against UAE at ICJ over 'complicity in genocide'
Sudan has filed an application to open proceedings against the United Arab Emirates before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over alleged complicity in acts of genocide against the Masalit community, the court said on Thursday.
The application concerns “acts adopted, condoned, taken, and being taken by the Government of the United Arab Emirates in connection with the genocide against the Masalit group in the Republic of the Sudan since at least 2023”, according to a statement published by the ICJ a day after the case was filed.
Khartoum said it had brought the proceedings over alleged violations by the UAE in its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, also known as the Genocide Convention.
It said that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group and allied militias had perpetrated genocide, murder, theft, rape and forcible displacement, and was "enabled" to do so by direct support from the UAE.
Sudan contended that the Emiratis were "complicit in the genocide on the Masalit through its direction of and provision of extensive financial, political, and military support for the rebel RSF militia".
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Last year, an independent inquiry carried out by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre found that there is “clear and convincing evidence” that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary and its allied militias “have committed and are committing genocide against the Masalit,” a Black African group in the country.
West Darfur state was the site of intense ethnic-based attacks by the RSF and its allied Arab militias against the Masalit in 2023.
The Raoul Wallenberg Centre report found that there were “reasonable grounds to believe the RSF and allied militias are responsible for genocide against non-Arab groups other than the Masalit, including the Fur and Zaghawa”.
It named the UAE, among other countries, as being “complicit in the genocide”.
The RSF and Sudan’s army have been at war since April 2023. The conflict has displaced more than 10 million people, and left over 12 million facing high levels of acute food insecurity.
Middle East Eye has reported on the network of supply lines that exist to funnel arms and other goods from the UAE to the RSF, via allied groups and governments in Libya, Chad and the Central African Republic. The UAE denies providing support to the RSF.
Both Sudan and the UAE are parties to the Genocide Convention.
Khartoum requested that the World Court implements a number of provisional measures, including ordering the UAE to take measures to prevent: the killing and causing serious harm towards the Masalit, deliberately inflicting conditions to bring about the physical destruction of the group, and the imposition of measures that are intended to prevent births within the group.
It also called for provisional measures ordering the UAE to ensure that any armed units supported by it do not directly or publicly incite to commit genocide.
Doubts on jurisdiction
Emirati Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash commented on the case saying the Sudanese army was pursuing “feeble media maneuvers to justify their rejection of peace and the political path”.
Meanwhile, a UAE official told Reuters on Thursday that Abu Dhabi would be seeking the immediate dismissal of the case, stating that the allegations "lack any legal or factual basis".
The unnamed official described the application as "nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt aimed at diverting attention from the established complicity of the Sudanese armed forces in the widespread atrocities that continue to devastate Sudan and its people".
Although the UAE is a party to the Genocide Convention, on which the case is based, it made a reservtion to Article Nine of the treaty when it acceded to it in 2005, which will likely lead the court to dismiss the case, said Michael Becker, assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin.
Article Nine of the convention allows dispute settlement before the ICJ when a state party violates the treaty. States are allowed to opt out of the provision in advance of signing the treaty.
By making a reservation to the article, the UAE withheld its consent to this provision, said Becker. Many other states have opted out of this clause, including the US, China, Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Malaysia, Yemen and India.
International law allows states to express reservations on treaty provisions, if such reservations do not contradict the object and purpose of the treaty.
'It strikes me as highly unlikely that Sudan will be able to persuade the ICJ to make a U-turn on this issue'
- Mike Becker, international law expert
"Sudan will likely argue that opting out of ICJ jurisdiction runs contrary to the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention," Becker told Middle East Eye. "This argument is almost certain to fail."
The ICJ previously ruled in a case between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in 2006 that reservations to Article Nine do not contradict the object and purpose of the convention.
"The court’s rationale turned on the fact that such a reservation does not affect a party’s substantive obligations under the treaty but only excludes one method of settling a dispute relating to those obligations," explained Becker.
"It strikes me as highly unlikely that Sudan will be able to persuade the ICJ to make a U-turn on this issue, notwithstanding the important legal issues raised by Sudan’s claims against the UAE."
In response to Becker's online comments to that effect, Sudanese UN envoy Ammar Mahmoud said the above arguments have been "duly considered" by the Sudanese government.
"Indeed, the submission explicitly addressed this issue, asserting that such a reservation carries no legal weight, as the UAE’s actions fundamentally contradict and undermine the core principles of the Genocide Convention - a position affirmed by the International Court of Justice as early as 1951," Mahmoud wrote on X, referring to the court's landmark advisory opinion of 1951, although it ruled that reservations to the Genocide Convention are not prohibited.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
