Sudan accuses the United Arab Emirates of “collusion in collective genocide” in ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears a case lifted by Sudan, which accuses the United Arab Emirates of “complicit genocide” during the current civil war.

The two -year conflict, which incited the Sudan Army against the Rapid Semi -Military Support Forces (RSF), has led tens of thousands of deaths and forced more than 12 million of their homes.

Sudan claims that the United Arab Emirates was arming RSF with the aim of eliminating the non -Arabs in West Darfur. The United Arab Emirates said the issue is a satirical propaganda trick and is seeking an immediate chapter.

Since the war began, RSF and the Sudanese Army have been accused of committing atrocities.

According to the issue of Sudan, RSF carried out systematic attacks on non -Arab groups, especially the Masalit community, with the intention of destroying it as a distinctive ethnic group.

Among other things, it is also claimed that RSF has used rape as a weapon against civilians.

At the beginning of this year, the United States also accused RSF of committing genocide and imposed sanctions on its leader, Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti.

Gen Hemeedti previously denied that its fighters intentionally targeted civilians.

Since the International Court of Justice is dealing with disputes between states, the Sudanese military government cannot transfer RSF to the court.

Instead, it led to the case against one of the alleged sponsors.

Sudan argues that these atrocities have been enabled through comprehensive financial, military and political support from the United Arab Emirates, including arms shipments, drone training and mercenary employment.

This means that the United Arab Emirates is complicit in genocide.

Sudan is looking for urgent compensation and measures to prevent more genocide.

The United Arab Emirates has strongly rejected these allegations, and denied that it was arming RSF, and said it would seek an immediate separation.

The United Arab Emirates said in a statement, “The International Court of Justice is not a stage for political plays, and it must not be weapons for misinformation,” the United Arab Emirates said in a statement.

“This is nothing more than just a sarcastic public relationship … an attempt to deviate from the well -documented atrocities against the Sudanese people and its refusal to stop fire or engage in real negotiations.”

In the court on Thursday, the Sudan’s legal team argued that there is a risk of reasonable damage to the Masalit people and there was an urgent need for international communications for international communications to intervene to ensure that more genocide has been committed.

Sudan has asked rulers to rule that the United Arab Emirates should be prevented from providing RSF. The United Arab Emirates must submit a report to the court on how to implement these measures.

The United Arab Emirates is expected to argue that the case should be brought up.

Most legal experts seem to agree that the issue has a little opportunity to overcome this point.

The United Arab Emirates has a reservation – or the cancellation of the subscription – to the genocide agreement, which in previous cases means that ICJ has no jurisdiction over these types of claims.

However, when bringing its grievances to the United Nations Supreme Court, Sudan drew attention to what it claims to be the role of the United Arab Emirates in the conflict.

Regarding what is happening after that, it must be known within weeks whether the judges decided that they have the authority to act at Sudan’s request for them to issue up to a judicial order – temporary measures for the United Arab Emirates to meet their obligations to prevent genocide.

The provisions of the International Court of Justice are legally binding, but the court itself does not have direct powers to enforce its decisions.