An Insecure Neighbourhood

Dr Inas Mohammed Ahmed

Good neighbourliness is not merely borders drawn on maps and agreed upon, nor diplomatic slogans proclaimed and celebrated, nor agreements signed between two parties. Rather, it is a moral responsibility grounded in human principles, mutual cooperation, shared interests, and sustainable development.

In international law, the principle of good neighbourliness is built upon two fundamental tenets. The first is that a state must refrain from undertaking any activity within its territory that could harm the interests of neighbouring states. The second is that a state must take all necessary precautions within its territory to avoid engaging in activities that may have harmful effects on the territory or facilities of neighbouring states.

The principle of good neighbourliness is a core principle of international law and a cornerstone of international relations. It rests on a long-standing, deeply rooted international legacy, reinforced by the customs of nations, to the point that it has become one of the most widely accepted principles globally.

Historically, the “Good Neighbour Policy” as a political term was used by the United States to justify its involvement in the Mexican Revolution and its occupation of Haiti between 1915 and 1934. The policy was based on non-intervention and respect for the sovereignty of Latin American states, and the United States sought to present itself as a “good neighbour”. However, behind this concept lay a desire to establish trade relations with Latin American countries and to reassert its influence in a different form. Latin American states, however, were aware of this agenda and did not fully embrace American policies. This remains one of the historical illustrations of good neighbourliness, despite its inherent contradictions.

The principle of good neighbourliness was later enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, forming one of the international guarantees for maintaining global peace and security in a world frequently marked by instability.

Sudan has long prided itself on maintaining calm and stable relations with its neighbours, investing considerable effort in fostering cooperation, regional engagement, and fraternal ties at cultural and economic levels. It is therefore regrettable that some neighbouring states fail to uphold the obligations of good neighbourliness, particularly during one of the most difficult periods Sudan has faced—disregarding shared history, kinship ties, and cross-border social bonds.

The war in Sudan has not only revealed the character of individuals but also exposed the true positions of certain neighbouring governments. Some have allowed their territories to become open arenas for undermining Sudan’s stability and security, violating the principle of good neighbourliness. They have permitted the launch of drones targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Such conduct can only be interpreted as alignment with hostile forces and the execution of agendas serving an armed militia against a people who historically extended goodwill, hospitality, and support to their neighbours.

Sudan has pursued regional agreements aimed at establishing joint forces to strengthen peace and security, foster cooperation, and facilitate the movement of people, goods, and services, as well as the exchange of information among neighbouring countries. Sudan’s policy has been based on integration—combining security measures with economic cooperation, cultural harmony, and sustainable development, alongside constructive investment in shared natural resources and open channels of dialogue.

However, the drone attack attributed to the United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia on Khartoum International Airport on Monday, 4 May 2026, represents, first and foremost, a violation of the principle of good neighbourliness. It is also an attack on a civilian facility and constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law (Rule 10), which protects civilian objects, including airports, unless they are legitimate military targets.

It further contravenes the 1944 Chicago Convention, which established the foundation for the protection of airports and aviation facilities, particularly Article 3 bis; the 1970 Hague Convention, which prohibits unlawful acts threatening the security of airports; and the 1971 Montreal Convention, which marked a significant advancement in aviation protection by criminalising acts of sabotage that endanger civil aviation. The Convention considers attacks on airports or actions endangering civilian personnel as international crimes requiring prosecution and punishment. The 2014 Montreal Protocol further expanded protection to include air navigation facilities, communications systems, and radar installations, recognising them as essential to aviation safety, and classifies attacks on such infrastructure as acts against the international air system and as terrorist crimes requiring international deterrence.

Similarly, the 2010 Beijing Protocol emphasises that any attack on infrastructure—including airports and international navigation facilities—constitutes a criminal act threatening international peace and security. Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention further reinforces aviation security through integrated measures to protect against terrorism and sabotage.

In essence, any targeting of a civilian airport or air navigation facility constitutes a violation of international law and may amount to a war crime, entailing both individual and state criminal responsibility for perpetrators, financiers, and accomplices, in order to safeguard the security of international civil aviation.

Drone attacks launched from Ethiopia were not unprecedented; similar strikes had previously targeted the states of North and South Kordofan and the Blue Nile.

At the national level, and in a clear diplomatic development, Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled its ambassador to Ethiopia for consultations—a move reflecting the heightened tension between the two countries, while reaffirming Sudan’s full right to respond in accordance with international law.

Ethiopia will gain nothing from hostility towards Sudan, and history will not forget to put this position on record. Sudan, for its part, will not relinquish its rights.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13613