UAE Counters Sudan’s World Court Case, Cites Hidden Agenda

Sudan’s devastating civil war has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The conflict has displaced over 14 million people and claimed more than 24,000 lives since April 2023. The UAE now accuses Sudan’s army of using the World Court to distract from its own atrocities, which marks a major diplomatic shift.

The crisis keeps getting worse. Around 25 million people now face acute hunger. Sudan has taken its case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE. The country claims UAE’s support of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) amounts to genocide against the Masalit community in West Darfur. The UAE has given more than $3.5 billion in humanitarian aid to Sudan in the last decade and strongly denies these accusations. They say Sudan is trying to shift attention away from its own human rights violations.

How Sudan Builds Genocide Case Against UAE at World Court

_{Image Source: Al Jazeera}

Sudan officially filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United Arab Emirates on March 6, 2025. The case accuses UAE of complicity in genocide against the Masalit people in West Darfur. This legal action represents the most important step in Sudan’s efforts to hold external actors accountable for the ongoing conflict.

Sudan’s genocide case centers on claims that UAE has provided “direct support” to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This support allegedly enabled genocidal acts against the Masalit ethnic group. Sudan’s submission details how UAE supplied extensive financial, political, and military aid to the RSF. The paramilitary group has been documented carrying out atrocities that include mass killings, sexual violence, and widespread destruction of villages.

Sudan presented these key pieces of evidence to the World Court:

• Captured arms and vehicles linked directly to UAE
• Battlefield-recovered passports suggesting UAE personnel presence
• Documentation of advanced weaponry including drones modified to drop thermobaric bombs
• Evidence showing Emirati nationals training RSF fighters
• Financial records through UAE-based banks and businesses

The case gained strength from independent UN experts who confirmed that Emirati weapons reached the RSF through neighboring Chad. The U.S. State Department-funded Conflict Observatory identified aircraft that allegedly carried UAE arms transfers to the RSF.

Sudan asked the ICJ for several provisional measures. These include orders for UAE to stop all support enabling genocide, prevent further acts against the Masalit, and compensate victims. Sudan argues that RSF would be nowhere near its current operational capacity without Emirati backing.

Legal experts point out potential jurisdictional hurdles, since UAE made a reservation to Article Nine of the Genocide Convention when it joined the treaty in 2005. Notwithstanding that, Sudan maintains such a reservation lacks legal weight when actions fundamentally oppose the core principles of preventing genocide.

UAE Accuses Sudan Army of Exploiting ICJ to ‘Distract from Own Atrocities’

_{Image Source: Reuters}

The Emirati government called Sudan’s genocide case “nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt that diverts attention from the Sudanese Armed Forces’ complicity in widespread atrocities”. A senior UAE official told The National that the Sudanese Armed Forces keep making false allegations against the Emirates and misuse international forums to spread these claims.

“The Sudanese army’s strategy is clear: to try to damage the UAE’s reputation as a leading humanitarian partner and distract from their own atrocities, including blocking aid, denying the occurrence of famine and rejecting peace efforts,” the UAE official stated.

The RSF has links to roughly 1,300 incidents with civilian casualties in 2024. The Sudanese Armed Forces were behind about 200 such incidents. Whatever these numbers show, the UAE maintains both warring parties have committed severe violations.

The Emirates explains Sudan’s hypocritical stance by pointing to:

• Sudan’s “long-standing non-cooperation with international law”
• Refusal to hand over indicted criminals
• Creating bureaucratic obstacles to humanitarian aid
• Rejection of the UAE-proposed Ramadan ceasefire

Dr. Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, wrote: “We unequivocally condemn the atrocities committed by both parties and call for their immediate cessation”.

UN investigators have documented an “appalling range of human rights violations” by both warring parties. Both sides launched indiscriminate attacks against civilians, schools, and hospitals. They also committed rape and other forms of sexual violence.

The UAE has emphasized its steadfast dedication to international law and non-interference in other states’ internal affairs. The Emirates describes its role as a social-first humanitarian assistance provider. The Sudanese army rejected their proposed Ramadan ceasefire, stating: “We do not accept a Ramadan ceasefire until the siege is broken on all cities and areas that are besieged”.

What Happens Next in the International Court of Justice Process

_{Image Source: Nederlandse Vereniging voor de Verenigde Naties}

The International Court of Justice will hold public hearings on April 10, 2025. These hearings will address Sudan’s request for provisional measures against the United Arab Emirates. Sudan filed the case on March 6, and it serves as a crucial test for the World Court as it tries to direct complex jurisdictional questions.

Sudan wants several emergency measures. The court should order the UAE to “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts of genocide against the Masalit group. On top of that, Sudan needs the Emirates to stop providing weapons to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). They must also ensure their supported armed units don’t incite genocide.

Legal experts see a potential jurisdictional obstacle that could stop the case. The UAE added a specific reservation to Article Nine of the Genocide Convention when it joined the treaty in 2005. “It strikes me as highly unlikely that Sudan will be able to persuade the ICJ to make a U-turn on this issue,” said Michael Becker, assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin.

ICJ judges will think over the case after the hearings before deciding on emergency measures. This usually takes weeks, not months. The court’s judgments bind parties under international law, but it lacks any enforcement power.

Past cases show this weakness clearly. The ICJ ordered Russia to stop its attack on Ukraine in March 2022, but Russia ignored it. The same happened in May 2024 when Israel didn’t follow orders to halt Gaza operations and Hamas kept Israeli hostages.

The full case could take years if the court accepts jurisdiction. ICJ cases often need years to reach final decisions, so provisional measures help protect parties and prevent conflicts from getting worse. Beyond the legal process, human rights organizations believe diplomatic pressure offers the best chance to affect the conflict meaningfully.