Sudan’s government filed a complaint at the International Court of Justice this week accusing the United Arab Emirates of being complicit in genocide by arming and funding a rebel militia in the country’s brutal civil war.
The United Arab Emirates quickly called the complaint a “cynical publicity stunt” aimed at diverting attention from the “widespread atrocities” committed by the Sudanese government.
The International Court of Justice is the United Nations highest court. It deals with disputes between countries and violations of international treaties. In this case, the court can claim jurisdiction because both Sudan and the United Arab Emirates have adopted the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Sudan is one of the poorest countries on the African continent. Its population of 50 million has seen almost one-third of its people displaced during the civil war, which began in April 2023 and has led to widespread killing, hunger and disease.
Tens of thousands have died and more than three million are believed to have fled the violence. The U.N. has said Sudan is suffering the world’s worst hunger crisis, affecting an estimated five million people.
Both sides of the conflict — government forces and the rebels — have committed atrocities against civilians, according to reports by the United Nations and other human rights groups.
Sudan took its complaint to the International Court of Justice on Tuesday. It focuses on the actions of the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group, and its allied Arab militias, which have dominated Khartoum, the capital, and been accused of committing massacres of the non-Arab Masalit tribe in West Darfur.
Sudan accuses the rebels of committing “genocide, murder, theft, rape” and other violations, a statement by the court said. “According to Sudan, all such acts have been, ‘perpetrated and enabled by the direct support’ given by the United Arab Emirates,” the statement said.
Sudan has asked the court’s judges to issue an urgent restraining order against the United Arab Emirates, by telling the Emiratis that any armed units or persons over whom they have influence or control must be prevented from committing genocidal acts against the Masalit people.
It is unclear whether the judges will grant the restraining order. But even if they do, they have little power to enforce it. Judges issued such an order against Russia after it invaded Ukraine. They also handed down several orders against Israel over attacks against civilians in Gaza. All were ignored.
Even though a central charge — whether a country is committing genocide — may take many months to be decided, governments are still eager to take their cases before the world’s highest court and ask for restraining orders.
Asking the court for emergency orders, even if they are not granted or fail to be effective, offers a platform for nations to lay out their case before a prestigious international legal body.
