~Khartoum Tells World Court UAE Is Violating Genocide Convention by Arming RSF Militias
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Sudan has formally accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of violating the Genocide Convention by allegedly providing support to paramilitary forces responsible for a campaign of ethnically driven violence in the Darfur region. The case was brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, with Sudan urging the court to issue emergency preventative measures to stop further atrocities.
Sudan’s complaint centers around the activities of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a powerful paramilitary group that, alongside allied Arab militias, has been accused of orchestrating a brutal campaign against the non-Arab Masalit tribe in West Darfur. The wave of violence, which peaked in 2023, has been widely described by rights groups and international observers as ethnically targeted and potentially genocidal in nature.
“The genocide against the Masalit is being carried out by the Rapid Support Force, believed to be Arab from Darfur, with the support and complicity of the United Arab Emirates,” Sudan’s acting justice minister, Muawia Osman, told judges at the ICJ in The Hague.
According to Khartoum, the UAE has played a central role in arming and funding the RSF during Sudan’s ongoing two-year civil war, where the RSF has been locked in fierce combat with the Sudanese national army. While the Emirates have denied these allegations, multiple U.S. lawmakers and independent experts have described the claims as credible.
At the hearing, Sudan’s justice minister, Osman Mohamed Khair, asked the ICJ to issue urgent orders instructing the UAE to halt any activities that may contribute to further genocidal acts against the Masalit people. “These are extraordinary times. The very existence of an ethnic group is under threat, and immediate action is necessary,” Khair stated.
The UAE, which is scheduled to present its defense later on Thursday, has consistently rejected Sudan’s accusations, branding the case a “political game” designed to deflect attention from internal Sudanese divisions.
Sources familiar with the Emirati legal team’s arguments say they will contest the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter, asserting that the court lacks the legal basis to adjudicate on what it sees as a politically charged conflict with complex internal dimensions.
Sudan’s plea for emergency orders highlights the gravity of the situation on the ground in Darfur, where humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate. Although ICJ cases can take years to reach a final ruling, the court has the authority to impose provisional measures—temporary, legally binding decisions aimed at preventing irreparable harm while a case is pending.
“These emergency measures are not just symbolic,” said one international law expert based in Europe. “They can pressure states to change behavior and influence diplomatic engagement while the court deliberates on the substance of the case.”
The case has reignited international concern over the conflict in Sudan, particularly the devastating toll it has taken on civilians. Human rights groups have documented mass killings, sexual violence, and forced displacement across Darfur, with the Masalit community suffering some of the heaviest losses.
While the Sudanese government battles the RSF for control of the country, it now also seeks to hold external actors accountable on the global stage. The outcome of this ICJ filing may set a precedent in how states are held responsible for their roles—direct or indirect—in foreign conflicts involving mass atrocities.
As the hearings continue, the world watches closely. For the people of Darfur, the stakes could not be higher.
About The Author
