The United Nations Court of the United Nations will rule on Monday in the case of Sudan against the United Arab Emirates, which Jardum accuses of complicity in genocide due to the alleged support for rebel forces.
Sudan has dragged the EAU before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, arguing that he is supplying weapons to the Paramilitary Fast Support forces (RSF), who has been fighting the Sudanese army since 2023.
The EAU denies supporting the rebels and has dismissed the case of Sudan as a “political theater” that distracts efforts to end a war that has killed tens of thousands.
Since April 2023, Sudan has been destroyed by a struggle of power between the head of the Army Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and the RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo.
War has triggered what aid agencies describe as the largest displacement and hunger crises in the world. The famine has officially reached five areas in Sudan, according to an evaluation backed by the UNU.
The northern region of Darfur has been a particular battlefield, with at least 542 civilians killed in the last three weeks, according to the United Nations.
To a world far from horrors in the field, lawyers with robes and wigs eliminated legal arguments in the hearings last month in the panelado splendor of the Paz Palacio de la CiJ.
Muawia Osman, Minister of Justice of Sudan, told the Court: “[The] The ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the EAU, including sending weapons to the RSF. “
“The logistics and direct support that the EAU have provided and continue to provide the RSF has been and continues to be the main driving force behind the genocide that now takes place, including killing, raping, forced displacement and looting,” he added.
Responding to the EAU, the senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Reb Ketait, said that the accusations of Sudan were “in the best, deceptive and in the worst of the worst pure manufacture.”
“This case is the most recent iteration of the misuse of the applicant of our international institutions as a stage to attack the EAU,” Ketait added.
Complete repairs
In the end, legal experts say that the case of Sudan can wobble about technical jurisdictional issues.
When the EAU enrolled in the UN Genocide Convention in 2005, he entered a “reservation” to a key clause that allows countries to sue others in the ICJ for disputes.
“There is clearly no basis for the court jurisdiction in this case,” said the CETAIT of the EAU to the judges.
The EAU requested that the case be expelled and eliminated from the court list.
Sudan argued that the Eau reserve was “incompatible” with the purpose of the genocide convention, which emphasizes global collective responsibility to avoid the worst crimes of the world.
Khartum wants ICJ judges to force the EAU to stop their alleged support for the RSF and make “complete repairs”, including compensation for war victims.
The decisions of the ICJ, who listen to disputes between the states, are final and binding, but the court has no means to guarantee compliance.
The judges ordered Russia to stop their invasion of Ukraine in vain, for example, and ruled that the occupation of Palestinian lands of Israel was illegal.
