Sudan told the International Court of Justice on Thursday that the United Arab Emirates was the “driving force” behind what it called a genocide in Darfur via its alleged support for rebels fighting the Sudanese army.
Khartoum has dragged the UAE before the ICJ, accusing it of complicity in genocide against the Masalit community through their backing of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that have been battling the Sudanese army since 2023.
The UAE denies supporting the rebels and has dismissed Sudan’s case as “political theatre” distracting from efforts to end the war that has killed tens of thousands.
Opening the case, Muawia Osman, Sudan’s acting justice minister, told the court that the “ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the UAE, including the shipment of arms to the RSF”.
“The direct logistical and other support that the UAE has provided and continues to provide to the RSF has been and continues to be the primary driving force behind the genocide now taking place, including killing, rape, forced displacement and looting,” said Osman.
Sudan wants ICJ judges to force the UAE to stop its alleged support for the RSF and make “full reparations”, including compensation to victims of the war.
But Reem Ketait, a top UAE official, described Sudan’s case as a “blatant misuse of a respected international institution” and “entirely without legal or factual merit”.
“What Sudan needs now is not political theatre, but an urgent immediate ceasefire and a serious commitment from both warring parties to negotiate a peaceful resolution,” said Ketait in a statement.
The case comes a day after the United States and Saudi Arabia called on the Sudanese army and paramilitary forces to resume peace talks in the country’s conflict.
– ‘Important questions’ –
Legal experts say Sudan’s case may founder on jurisdictional issues.
When the UAE signed up to the Genocide Convention, it entered a “reservation” to a key clause enabling countries to drag each other before the ICJ over disputes.
Sudan’s claims raise “important questions”, Michael Becker, international law expert from Trinity College Dublin, wrote in a recent piece for Opinio Juris specialist website.
“Because the UAE made a reservation to Article IX when it acceded to the Genocide Convention in 2005, the ICJ can be expected to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute,” wrote Becker.
Sudan argued in its application that the UAE’s reservation is “incompatible” with the purpose of the Genocide Convention, which emphasises global collective responsibility to prevent the world’s worst crimes.
The rulings of the ICJ, which hears disputes between states, are final and binding but the court has no means to ensure compliance.
Judges ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine to no avail, for example.
