Dimensions of Sudan’s Complaint Against the UAE Before the ICJ

Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Zubair Basha
At its core, the issue at hand pertains to international law, its practitioners, and its historical consequences. What concerns me here is addressing all dimensions of this just cause that has befallen my country, altering the course of life within it—with crimes and repercussions that surpass human comprehension. Official and popular pressure has continued to mount, even from beyond Sudan’s borders, demanding that the state take legal action. This demand is rooted in overwhelming evidence implicating the UAE in sponsoring the treacherous terrorist rebellion and fueling this existential war against Sudan.
After two years of patience, suffering, and unrelenting bloodshed—along with its tragic consequences—Sudan has formally filed a complaint before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague against the United Arab Emirates, accusing it of complicity in genocide in the Darfur region through its proven support for the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias.
Background of the Complaint
Sudan’s lawsuit alleges that the UAE provided military and logistical support to rebel forces, enabling them to carry out systematic ethnic attacks against the Masalit tribe in western Darfur in 2023. According to the complaint, these attacks include mass killings, rape, forced displacement, and looting—acts that qualify as genocide, war crimes, and grave violations of international humanitarian and criminal law.
Sudan’s Demands
Sudan is asking the ICJ to:
Impose provisional measures to compel the UAE to cease its support for the RSF militias.
Order reparations for civilians harmed by these atrocities.
Case Developments
The ICJ has begun its first public hearings, where Sudan presented documented evidence of the UAE’s involvement in backing the rebellion—similar to how South Africa filed its case against Israel over Gaza post-October 7, 2023.
Legal Challenges
As reported by some media outlets, Sudan’s complaint hinges on accusations that the UAE:
Recruited and transported Sudanese fighters to conflict zones (e.g., Yemen, Libya).
Supported the RSF rebellion in Sudan’s internal war.
However, several legal hurdles remain:
1. Proving Legal Responsibility
Burden of Proof: Sudan must provide strong, direct evidence that the UAE officially engaged in these acts—not just private entities or individuals based in the UAE.
Distinguishing State vs. Private Actions: Even if individuals or companies recruited fighters, Sudan must prove the UAE government’s direct involvement or endorsement.
Political-Law Overlap: Many such cases have political dimensions, making international bodies cautious to avoid diplomatic escalation.
2. Sovereignty & Non-Interference
The UAE may argue that its actions were not unlawful interference but rather legitimate security or contractual relations.
It could invoke national security or regional interests to justify certain actions.
3. Prolonged Legal Procedures
ICJ cases often take years, reducing their immediate impact on Sudan’s crisis.
Evidence Collection: Sudan needs support from international organizations and human rights groups to gather and analyze evidence—a time-consuming process.
The Link Between Sudan’s ICJ Complaint & UN Security Council Appeal
Sudan has also filed a parallel complaint with the UN Security Council, accusing the UAE of:
Arming the RSF via the Am Jrais airstrip in Chad.
Complicity in war crimes and genocide in Darfur.
Demanding an international investigation and sanctions.
Objectives of the Dual Complaints:
UNSC Complaint:
Exerts political and media pressure on the UAE.
Lays the legal groundwork for ICJ proceedings.
Seeks UN resolutions that can later be cited in court.
ICJ Complaint:
Focuses on violations of the Genocide Convention (1948).
Demands immediate provisional measures (e.g., halting military aid).
Seeks international condemnation and victim reparations.
Strategic Implications
Symbolic Victory: Merely forcing the UAE—a nation with vast financial and geopolitical influence—to stand trial at the ICJ is a historic win for justice.
Shattering the UAE’s Image: The hearings will expose the UAE’s role in fueling conflicts, looting resources, and shedding innocent blood—contrary to its self-proclaimed image as a champion of peace and human rights.
Deeper Legal Analysis
1. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
If Sudan proves the UAE’s direct military support to the RSF (weapons, fighters, advanced systems), this violates Geneva Convention neutrality obligations.
However, classifying the conflict (international vs. non-international) is crucial for IHL applicability.
2. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
If the UAE forcibly recruited Sudanese civilians (including minors), it could constitute human trafficking under the ICCPR and Child Rights Convention.
Civilian deaths from UAE-backed RSF attacks may amount to violations of the right to life.
3. Challenges in Jurisdiction & Causality
The UAE may argue its actions occurred outside Sudan or did not directly target Sudanese citizens.
Sudan must prove a direct causal link between UAE policies and atrocities in Sudan.
Conclusion
Sudan can build a strong legal-political case if it:
Presents irrefutable evidence of UAE state involvement.
Demonstrates systematic human rights violations.
Secures diplomatic and media alliances to bolster its position.
However, major obstacles remain:
Proving official legal responsibility.
Navigating the ICJ’s jurisdictional limits.
Balancing international law with sovereignty and geopolitics.
Ultimately, this case is not just about Sudan—it is a test for global justice. Whether the ICJ delivers real accountability or succumbs to political pressures, the mere act of holding the UAE to account is a moral victory for Sudan’s people and their collective memory of suffering and resistance.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=5089