Sudan has commenced proceedings against the UAE in the ICJ, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention through support of the RSF in West Darfur. This highlights concerns about arms exports from South Africa to the UAE, which may contribute to human rights abuses. There are legal complexities surrounding the UAE’s reservation to the Genocide Convention, raising ethical questions about South Africa’s commitment to international law and its arms export practices.
On March 6, 2025, Sudan filed proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. Sudan maintains that the UAE has supported the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group implicated in severe atrocities in West Darfur. Although political motivations may drive this action, it underscores the dangers of arms transfers exacerbating conflicts and human rights violations.
Sudan’s application requests the ICJ to implement provisional measures against the UAE, claiming an ongoing genocide in West Darfur since 2023. It asserts that the UAE supports the RSF by sending agents and substantial military supplies, including arms, munitions, and fighter drones. This contention parallels reports from civil society groups monitoring the situation in Sudan; however, the ICJ’s capacity to examine these allegations depends on its jurisdiction, which is contested due to the UAE’s reservation regarding Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.
The UAE’s reservation creates a significant hurdle as it allows states to make reservations regarding treaties like the Genocide Convention. Sudan argues that this reservation contradicts the convention’s objectives, leaving uncertainty regarding the ICJ’s ability to deliver a ruling. Nonetheless, the broader implications relate to third-party states contributing to violations of international law, implicating nations such as South Africa that export arms to these entities.
South Africa is particularly relevant in this discourse, having exported nearly R88 million in arms to the UAE in 2023, including armoured vehicles and munitions. There are concerns that these weapons may be transferred to the RSF. Although South African law necessitates End-User Certificates to mitigate misuse, the enforcement of this process has been deficient, raising the risk that arms could be misallocated in conflict situations like that in Sudan.
Historically, South Africa’s arms exports to countries with documented human rights abuses have raised ethical questions. Legislation prohibits exporting arms where there are allegations of international crimes. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre previously highlighted this issue when the Pretoria High Court revoked export permits to Myanmar due to similar concerns over human rights violations.
Despite the critical humanitarian situation in Sudan, South Africa has yet to revoke permits for arms exports to the UAE, which allegedly supports factions embroiled in conflict. This practice casts doubt on South Africa’s commitment to upholding international law, especially as it has previously sold arms to countries accused of international crimes, as seen with the situation in Myanmar.
South Africa’s efforts in advocating for human rights in cases like Palestine are commendable. However, exclusive focus on select conflicts, while overlooking others such as Yemen and Myanmar, raises accusations of hypocrisy. For South Africa to assert its dedication to international law and human rights, it must reevaluate its arms export practices. Economic interests cannot justify perpetuating human suffering.
In summary, Sudan’s legal action against the UAE underscores ongoing concerns about the implications of arms exports, particularly from South Africa, in exacerbating human rights violations. The complexities surrounding jurisdiction in the ICJ, along with South Africa’s controversial arms exports to the UAE, highlight the ethical responsibilities of nations in international law. A consistent commitment to humanitarian principles is essential, necessitating a reassessment of arms policies to prevent complicity in international crimes.
Original Source: mg.co.za
