Sudan and the UAE: Will a “Torn State” Change the History of Wars?

Sudan Events – Agencies

For decades, proxy wars have been a murky area in which countries maneuver to achieve their strategic goals without directly engaging in large-scale military operations. However, this grey area — though still present — may shrink, as a new lawsuit reopens the discussion about the possibility of criminalizing involvement — even remotely — in war crimes.

Sudan vs. the UAE

Sudan is suing the UAE at the International Court of Justice for fueling an internal conflict, without deploying its forces on Sudanese soil. Sudan claims that the UAE has been complicit — by providing financial, political, and military support — in the “genocide” committed by the Rapid Support Forces militia against the Massalit tribe in West Darfur in November 2023.

The case is described as “unprecedented in international law,” says Abdulkhaleq Al-Shaib, a legal advisor and researcher at Harvard University, in an interview with Al-Hurra website.

If the court rules in favor of Sudan, the decision would set a “legal precedent” holding a state legally responsible for a proxy war fought from a distance.

Such a ruling could pave the way for holding states accountable for proxy wars and reassessing the principle of non-intervention in the context of indirect wars.

Legal experts tell Al-Hurra that Sudan’s case — if successful — would lead to a reevaluation of the specific reservations concerning Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, particularly when allegations of genocide are made.

As a result, countries might lose their ability to protect themselves from the jurisdiction of the court in such cases.

The implications of the case, if the International Court of Justice decides to rule on it, could involve reinterpreting the Genocide Convention to include cases of indirect involvement or complicity in war crimes.

Proxy Wars

In an interview with Al-Hurra, Rebecca Hamilton, a professor of international law at the American University in Washington, explains that the concept of a proxy war emerges when a state acts as a patron and supports another party in committing wrongful acts.

Although proxy wars seem like a recent phenomenon, they have a long and complex history.

A proxy war is defined as a conflict in which a major power — global or regional — incites, supports, or directs a specific party, while remaining distant or only minimally involved in the ground fighting.

Proxy wars differ from conventional wars in that the latter typically involves states bearing the burden of actual combat, while alliances involve both major and minor powers contributing according to their capabilities.

Proxy wars are also defined as third-party interventions in an existing war. The Britannica Encyclopedia notes that third parties do not typically engage in direct combat but compete for influence and resources through military aid, training, economic support, and limited military operations via proxies.

From the Byzantine Empire to Syria

The history of proxy wars dates back to ancient times. The Byzantine Empire used strategies to ignite conflicts between rival factions in neighboring states and supported the stronger parties among them.

During World War I, Britain and France supported the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in a similar manner. The Spanish Civil War became a proxy battleground between Soviet-backed Republicans and Nazi and Fascist Italy-backed Nationalists.

During the Cold War, proxy wars became an accepted means of competition for global influence between the United States and the Soviet Union, to avoid the risk of a catastrophic nuclear war.

Notable examples include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Angolan Civil War. These wars continued into the 21st century, with the Yemen War being a clear example of a proxy conflict, where Iran supports the Houthis and Saudi Arabia and its allies back the Yemeni government.

The conflict in Syria, prior to the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, is a stark example of modern proxy wars, with Russia, the United States, Iran, and Turkey intervening to support different factions.

Genocide?

Sudan’s lawsuit is not specifically about proxy wars, experts clarify, but is based on the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

Khartoum claims that the Rapid Support Forces militia committed gross human rights violations, including mass killings, rape, and the forced displacement of non-Arab populations, and argues that these crimes would not have occurred without UAE support, including weapon shipments via the Am Jars airport in Chad.

“Sudan is attempting to prove the indirect role of another state in the commission of genocide by military forces or militias fighting in Sudan,” says expert Abdulkhaleq Al-Shaib.

“The core of the case,” he adds, “is Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.”

Although both Khartoum and Abu Dhabi are signatories to the convention, Hamilton believes it is unlikely that this case will be heard, as “the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to rule on it.”

“When it signed the Genocide Convention,” she continues, “the UAE affirmed that it did not grant the International Court of Justice the authority to settle disputes that may arise between it and other states regarding this convention.”

Nasser Amin, a lawyer specializing in international law, points out that the ongoing conflict in Sudan is considered, under international humanitarian law, an internal armed conflict unless Khartoum proves that one of the states intervened to support one of the internal parties.

“This is governed by an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions or by the international humanitarian law mentioned in Article 3 of the second protocol to the Geneva Conventions signed in 1929,” he adds.

Article 3 stipulates that the provisions of this agreement do not allow any country to intervene in the internal affairs of another country or support any conflicting or warring faction.

“Sudan must prove before the International Court of Justice that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the protocol,” he clarifies.

The media center at the UAE embassy in Washington did not respond to Al-Hurra’s request for comment.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Rebecca Hamilton says it is “unfortunate” that it is unlikely this case will proceed, as the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to address it.

Legal researcher Abdulkhaleq Al-Shaib notes that Sudan’s case against the UAE “remains to be dealt with by UN agencies or the Security Council specifically.”

However, Hamilton says there is a body of international law that prohibits proxy wars, but “the real challenge lies in how to enforce these laws.”

A Precedent… Even if It Stumbles?

It is possible that Sudan’s case against the UAE may falter — due to jurisdictional issues — but, according to legal experts, it remains “of great symbolic significance.”

“Regardless of the outcome,” says international law professor Rebecca Hamilton to Al-Hurra, “the case represents a bold attempt by a war-torn state to expand the concept of accountability for modern warfare practices.”

Even if the International Court of Justice refuses to hear the case, the lawsuit would narrow the grey area separating direct and indirect responsibility for war crimes.

In statements to “JUST SECURITY,” legal experts note that a ruling in favor of Sudan — even if unlikely — could lead to a comprehensive reevaluation of international legal standards regarding state complicity and intervention.

Acceptance of the lawsuit could push international law to confront the real cost of modern proxy wars — whether fought with troops on the ground or through remote financial and military support.

Cited from “Al-Hurra”