Friday, April 11, 2025 {HMC} – Sudan has filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of being the “driving force” behind the ongoing genocide in Darfur, allegedly carried out by the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), who have been at war with the Sudanese government since 2023.
Khartoum has formally accused the UAE of facilitating atrocities committed against the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur by providing military and logistical support to the RSF.
The UAE has strongly denied the allegations, calling Sudan’s case a “political theatre” aimed at obstructing efforts to end the devastating conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives.
Accusations Presented to the Court
Sudan’s interim Justice Minister, Muawia Osman, told the court that “the ongoing genocide would not have been possible without the UAE’s aid, including weapons shipments and other support to the RSF.”
“The UAE’s direct support to the RSF—including arms supplies and other assistance—has been, and continues to be, the main driver of the ongoing genocide. This includes mass killings, rape, forced displacement, and looting,” Osman said.
Sudan is requesting the court to order the UAE to cease its alleged support for the RSF and to pay full reparations, including compensation to victims of the conflict.
However, UAE representative Reem Ketait described the case as “a gross misuse of a respected international body” and insisted the claims are baseless in both law and fact.
“What Sudan needs right now is not political drama, but an immediate ceasefire and a genuine commitment from both sides to peace talks,” Ketait said in a press release.
Timing and International Response
The filing comes just a day after the United States and Saudi Arabia jointly called on both the Sudanese government and the RSF to resume peace negotiations aimed at resolving the civil war.
Legal Experts Warn of Jurisdictional Challenges
International law experts have raised concerns that Sudan’s case could be dismissed due to jurisdictional issues.
When the UAE signed the Genocide Convention in 2005, it included a legal reservation on Article IX—a key clause that allows member states to bring disputes before the ICJ.
Michael Becker, an international law specialist at Trinity College Dublin, noted in an article for Opinio Juris that Sudan’s case presents “critical legal questions.”
“Given the UAE’s reservation on Article IX when it acceded to the Genocide Convention in 2005, the Court will likely determine it does not have jurisdiction over the case,” Becker wrote.
Sudan, however, argues that the UAE’s reservation goes against the core purpose of the Genocide Convention, which emphasizes international accountability in preventing the most egregious crimes against humanity.
Limitations of the ICJ
ICJ rulings are binding and final in disputes between states, but the court lacks enforcement powers. For instance, it previously ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, a ruling that was ultimately ignored.
“We’ve presented a very clear and strong case to the Court,” Minister Osman told reporters outside the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the ICJ.
“We firmly believe that without the UAE’s support, none of these violations of the Genocide Convention would have occurred,” he added.
