Sudan accuses the UAE of supporting genocide in West Darfur by aiding the Rapid Support Forces. Photo: Reuters/Goran Tomasevic
On 6 March 2025, Sudan initiated proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violations of the Genocide Convention.
Sudan accuses the UAE of supporting genocide in West Darfur by aiding the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of committing atrocities in Sudan. While political motives probably drive this application by one of the parties to the conflict, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), it highlights the risk of arms transfers fuelling conflicts and contributing to human rights abuses.
As it remains to be seen whether the ICJ will adjudicate the matter due to a reservation by the UAE, such a case could have far-reaching consequences, not just for Sudan and the UAE but also for countries like South Africa, which has been exporting arms to the UAE.
Sudan v UAE: Can this case move forward?
Similar to South Africa’s case against Israel, Sudan is requesting the ICJ to issue provisional measures against the UAE for potential violations of the Genocide Convention. The application by Sudan claims that, at least since 2023, a genocide has been unfolding in its West Darfur region.
Sudan alleges that: “The United Arab Emirates fuels the rebellion and supports the militia [RSF] that has committed the crimes of genocide in West Darfur. The government of the United Arab Emirates has sent its own agents to the Republic of Sudan in order to lead the rebel RSF militia forces in carrying out the genocide. Much of the rebel RSF political communications and operations are managed in the United Arab Emirates … It has sent and continues to send large shipments of arms, munitions, and military equipment, including fighter drones, to the rebel RSF militia which are carrying out its genocide.”
While some of Sudan’s allegations align with reports by various civil society organisations working on the conflict in Sudan, the court might not even assess whether to grant any provisional measures.
The ICJ must first decide whether it has prima facie jurisdiction. The main obstacle derives from the UAE’s reservation to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention. Article 9 regulates that “disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide … shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice”.
Under international law, states can, under certain circumstances, make reservations to treaties like the Genocide Convention.
While Sudan argues that such a reservation is against the purpose and objective of the Genocide Convention, it remains to be seen whether the court will find jurisdiction to make a decision in this matter. However, regardless of the legal hurdles in this matter, the question of third states contributing to violations of the Genocide Convention and the auxiliary responsibility of states such as South Africa that support such third states with weapons remains a live one.
Business as usual
South Africa’s role becomes relevant because of its arms exports to the UAE. In 2023 alone, South Africa sold nearly R88 million worth of arms to the UAE, including armoured combat vehicles, ammunition, light weapons, technology for bombs, rockets and drones, according to the National Conventional Arms Control Committee’s 2023 annual report presented in parliament. A key concern from these exports is whether such arms have ended up in the hands of the RSF.
While South African law requires arms buyers to sign “End-User Certificates” (EUC) to avoid the misuse or diversion of such arms, the implementation and control under the EUC regime has been weak to non-existent. Therefore, the scenario of South African arms ending up in a conflict like Sudan cannot be excluded.
The practice of exporting arms to countries that systematically violate human rights or violate international law has been a recurring theme of South Africa’s arms exports. Under South Africa’s law, exporting or issuing permits for such exports is prohibited. The case on arms exports from South Africa to Myanmar by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) from last year further confirmed such a prohibition. In that matter, the high court in Pretoria set aside permits that facilitated arms exports to Myanmar and clarified that if United Nations mandate holders accuse a state that buys arms from South Africa of committing international crimes such as genocide, such permits must be cancelled or suspended.
South Africa’s credibility at risk
The humanitarian situation in Sudan is dire. Civil society organisations have reported on numerous occasions on violations of international law, human rights abuses and the commission of international crimes.
And yet, South Africa has not suspended or cancelled any permits to avoid the transfer of arms to countries that face strong allegations of arming and supporting one of the parties to the conflict in this matter.
Arms exports have a sobering effect that reveals a country’s true intentions and commitment to international law. This would not be the first time that South Africa has exported arms to a country that is accused of committing international crimes or grave human rights abuses. As the Myanmar case by SALC illustrated, South Africa exported arms throughout the genocide in Myanmar and even after the military coup in February 2021 until such eventually stopped in 2022.
This is further not the first time South Africa’s attention has been directed to potential violations of international law by the UAE. While UN mandate holders accused the UAE of being responsible for human rights violations and potentially international crimes in Yemen, South Africa exported its arms to its loyal customer, the UAE
South Africa’s credibility as a country that stands up for human rights and adherence to international law has certainly benefited from its most recent actions related to the Palestine situation. But focusing on one situation and closing the eyes from other situations like Yemen or Myanmar is detrimental and provides a feeding ground for arguments of hypocrisy and double standards.
If South Africa is truly serious about upholding international law and human rights, it must drastically change its practice of arms exports. There is no space for double standards. Economic gains or benefits cannot justify human suffering.
Dr Atilla Kisla is the international justice cluster lead at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.