The international court of justice will rule in the next few weeks on whether the United Arab Emirates can be plausibly found “complicit in the commission of genocide” by arming the Rapid Support Forces militia in Sudan’s civil war.
The case was brought by Sudan, whose acting justice minister, Muawia Osman, told the world court in The Hague last week that the country’s “ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the UAE, including the shipment of arms to the RSF”. 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.
Responding for the UAE, Reem Ketait, a top foreign ministry official, told the court: “The idea that the UAE is somehow the driver of this reprehensible conflict in Sudan could not be further from the truth. This case is the most recent iteration of the applicant’s misuse of our international institutions as a stage from which to attack the UAE.” Sudan’s allegations were “at best misleading and at worst pure fabrications”, she said.
The case could turn on a “reservation” that the UAE entered when it signed up to the genocide convention in 2005 to the effect that it would not allow a dispute concerning its compliance with the convention to be settled by the ICJ. The UAE says the reservation precludes the ICJ from even forming a preliminary view as to whether the UAE is complicit in acts of genocide.
It would be a severe blow to the UAE, which places great store by its international reputation, if the ICJ did anything but strike the claim from the list. But at a minimum the case’s existence may serve to put further pressure on all the external partners accused of backing the warring factions to think more carefully about the support they provide.
Sudan descended into a deadly conflict in mid-April 2023 when long-simmering tensions between the military and the RSF broke out in the capital, Khartoum, and spread to other regions. Both sides have been accused of abuses in the course of the war.
The UK and other western countries have limited power to stop the fighting. More influence rests with regional powers such as Egypt, which has longstanding ties to the Sudanese army, and the UAE, which has long been accused of arming the RSF – allegations it denies.
On Tuesday a British-led attempt to establish a contact group to facilitate a ceasefire fell apart when Arab states refused to sign a joint communique after a conference in London.
Analysts say UAE’s interest in Sudan stems from overlapping desires to gain political influence there at the expense of Saudi Arabia, exploit its natural resources, and prevent the spread of political Islam, which UAE sees as a threat to its security.
As with many claims for measures to prevent a plausible genocide, the case, which relates specifically to the RSF’s treatment of the Masalit people in Darfur, is being heard at speed. The Sudanese government only filed its application on 5 March.
Prof Eirik Bjorge, a law professor representing Sudan, told the court: “There can be no doubt that the Masalit people is currently being subjected to genocide, and that there is serious evidence that the UAE is failing to prevent this and is complicit.”
Bjorge quoted a panel of UN experts who in January 2024 assessed as “credible” allegations that cargo planes coming from the UAE to an airport in eastern Chad were transporting weapons to the RSF. He also referenced Sudanese intelligence assessments that a field hospital built by the UAE next to the airport in September 2024 was “the primary supply and support hub for the enemy [RSF]” and that Chadian flights transporting military aid were continuing as of March of this year.
Sudan’s lawyers pointed out in court that the Biden administration announced in January that seven RSF-owned companies in the UAE had been targeted for sanctions at the same time as the U.S. declared that RSF rebels had committed genocide.
The UAE told the ICJ that none of the seven entities held an active business licence in the UAE, “nor are they currently operating in the UAE”.
Sudan also cited research by Yale Humanitarian Research Lab that identified and located four heavy artillery pieces consistent with a type of Chinese-produced 155mm howitzer artillery gun, which it considered were engaged in the 12-day bombardment of Zamzam camp in December last year. The Yale lab said the UAE was “the only country” known to have bought this type of howitzer.
The UAE’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Ameirah AlHefeiti, told the court the UAE had not provided arms to either of the warring parties. Ketait said the UAE regarded the war as an entirely avoidable factional struggle and accused the Sudanese government of avoiding all UAE-backed efforts at mediation.
Alison Macdonald KC, for the UAE, said the evidence produced of UAE supply of arms was thin, recycled or entirely self-serving. She added that the next UN panel of experts report, due to be published soon, would provide “absolutely no support for the applicant’s claims” – an assertion that is likely to turn on whether the panel of experts was able to establish the content of cargo shipped from the UAE to Chad.
