From Biased Mediator to the Dock: UAE Accused
By Somaya Said
Sudan’s complaint against the United Arab Emirates at the International Court of Justice carries implications that go beyond purely legal dimensions.
It represents a serious and impactful attempt to influence global public opinion, apply political and moral pressure, and strengthen the position of the Sudanese government. Additionally, it may establish legal precedents and influence the course of the war in Sudan.
Even before a final ruling is issued, merely raising such grave accusations in an international court marks a significant development with potential ramifications on local, regional, and international levels.
With its arrogance, hubris, and disregard for the will of the people, the UAE has become a state accused of committing some of the most heinous crimes and violations against humanity. The world is now witnessing stories and testimonies that might have otherwise remained untold, were it not for the vigilance of Sudanese justice authorities and general intelligence, which documented the UAE’s crimes.
The implications of Sudan’s complaint to the ICJ can be summarized as follows:
Highlighting Violations and Atrocities: The complaint draws international attention and public awareness to the UAE’s grave human rights violations in Sudan, especially against the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur, and in other regions overrun by militias.
Documenting the Accusations: Filing the complaint before a prestigious court like the ICJ lends formality and credibility to Sudan’s allegations and creates an international record of these claims.
Moral and Political Pressure: Even prior to any ruling, the act of bringing the case before the court can exert moral and political pressure on the UAE and other involved parties.
Damage to the UAE’s Image: Accusations of genocide or complicity therein can significantly tarnish the UAE’s image and standing both regionally and globally.
Potential Accountability: Regardless of how long the legal process may take, the very existence of the case at the ICJ maintains the looming possibility of legal accountability.
Impact on International Relations: The case could affect the UAE’s relations with other states and international organizations, especially if strong evidence supports Sudan’s claims, such as that submitted by the Sudanese delegation.
Support for the Sudanese Government: While the UAE refuses to acknowledge the term “Sudanese government,” implying it stands against the army, international media coverage of the ICJ case has enhanced the Sudanese government’s legitimacy and strengthened its domestic and international position as a force seeking justice and accountability.
Mobilizing Internal Support: This legal move could help rally popular support for the Sudanese government in its confrontation with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the UAE, and all internal and external actors backing the RSF—especially political and civil forces like the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), Taqaddum, Samood, and other offshoots of these groups.
A Diplomatic Tool: The Sudanese government may also use this case as a diplomatic tool in negotiations, positioning it as a step in favor of national dignity, and to exclude any solution involving the RSF or the UAE as a mediator, now that the latter is itself a defendant before international justice.
Creating a Legal Precedent through Genocide Convention Interpretation: The case may contribute to the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention, especially regarding state responsibility for supporting parties that commit such crimes.
Developing International Law: The case could help evolve international legal frameworks related to accountability for grave human rights violations in internal conflicts.
Influencing the Course of the Sudanese Conflict: The case may increase international pressure to end the war, especially in Darfur, and lead to demands that the UAE stop supplying the RSF with arms and funds, and cease offering bribes to leaders of transit countries enabling this support.
