The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing a case brought by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates of being “complicit in the genocide” during the current civil war.
The two-year conflict, which has pitted Sudan’s army against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has led to tens of thousands of deaths and forced more than 12 million from their homes.
Sudan alleges that the UAE has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Masalit population of West Darfur. The UAE has said the case is a cynical publicity stunt and is seeking an immediate dismissal.
Since the war began, both the RSF and the Sudanese army have been accused of committing atrocities.
According to Sudan’s case, the RSF has carried out systematic attacks on non-Arab groups, especially the Masalit community, with the intent to destroy them as a distinct ethnic group.
Among other things, it also alleges that the RSF has used rape as a weapon against civilians.
At the beginning of this year the US also accused the RSF of committing genocide and imposed sanctions on its leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti.
Gen Hemedti has previously denied its fighters have deliberately targeted civilians.
As the ICJ deals with disputes between states, Sudan’s military government cannot take the RSF to the court.
Instead it has brought the case against one of its alleged sponsors.
Sudan argues that these atrocities were enabled by extensive financial, military and political support from the UAE, including arms shipments, drone training and the recruitment of mercenaries.
It says this means the UAE is complicit in genocide.
Sudan is seeking reparations and urgent measures to prevent further genocidal acts.
The UAE has strongly rejected the allegations, denying that it is arming the RSF, and said it would seek an immediate dismissal.
“The ICJ is not a stage for political theatrics, and it must not be weaponised for disinformation,” the UAE said in a statement.
“This is nothing more than a cynical PR stunt… an attempt to deflect from its own well-documented atrocities against the Sudanese people and its refusal to cease fire or engage in genuine negotiations.”
In court on Thursday, Sudan’s legal team argued that there was a risk of plausible harm to the Masalit people and there was an urgent need for the ICJ to intervene to ensure no further genocidal acts are committed.
Sudan has requested the judges to rule that the UAE should be blocked from supplying the RSF. And the UAE should report back to the court on how these measures are being implemented.
The UAE is expected to argue that the case should be thrown out.
Most legal experts appear to agree the case has little chance of going beyond this point.
The UAE has a reservation – or opt out – to the Genocide Convention which has meant in previous cases, the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over these types of claims.
However, in bringing its grievances to the UN’s top court, Sudan has drawn attention to what it alleges is the UAE’s role in the conflict.
In terms of what happens next, it should be known within a matter of weeks if the judges decide they have the power to act on Sudan’s request for them to issue what essentially amounts to an injunction – provisional measures for the UAE to fulfil its commitments to prevent acts of genocide.
ICJ rulings are legally binding, but the court itself has no direct powers to enforce its decisions.
