Sudan Files ICJ Case Accusing UAE of Supporting RSF War Crimes

Sudanese Minister of Justice Abdallah Dirif recently announced that the Sudanese transitional government will formally initiate legal action at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The government accuses the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of playing a pivotal role in backing the ongoing civil war in Sudan and alleges that the UAE provided support that facilitated the commission of war crimes by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This marks the first time the Khartoum authorities have taken explicit legal countermeasures against a regional power since the civil war erupted in April 2023, signaling a significant shift in Sudanese foreign policy and elevating the protracted armed conflict to the arena of international legal arbitration.

The origins of the Sudanese civil war can be traced back to a power struggle between military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. As the conflict escalated, the international community repeatedly accused the UAE of covertly supplying the RSF with weapons and logistical support across the border. Although the UAE has consistently denied these allegations and maintains that its position is to advocate for a negotiated settlement, reports from a UN panel of experts have cited credible evidence of ongoing military aid provided by the UAE, which has contributed to the current military stalemate. The Sudanese government’s decision to pursue judicial action is clearly aimed at leveraging international public opinion and legal pressure to constrain the UAE's influence in the region.

The Sudanese Ministry of Justice, as the country’s central legal authority, dates back to the nation’s independence in 1956. While the ministry has long been responsible for representing the state in legal affairs and promoting judicial reform, the independence and functionality of the judiciary have been repeatedly compromised by political instability since 2019. Following the 2021 military coup, the office of the Prosecutor General was restructured, forcing the current Ministry of Justice to overcome significant domestic political divisions while pursuing such transnational litigation. This announcement is not only an attempt to seek accountability for wartime atrocities but also reflects the Sudanese government's urgent desire to shift blame for the civil war onto external forces, thereby alleviating pressure regarding its own lack of governing legitimacy.

International legal experts note that proving war crimes involving a sovereign state’s direct participation in another country's civil war is an arduous and time-consuming process. Nevertheless, even if the prospect of a favorable verdict remains uncertain, the Sudanese government’s move carries strong political symbolism. It is intended to expose the reality of regional power intervention in Sudan’s conflict and to force the international community to confront the complex roles played by Middle Eastern nations in African conflicts. As a global hub for finance and trade, the UAE is expected to bolster its diplomatic defense in response to these accusations. This legal battle threatens to further deteriorate diplomatic relations between Sudan and certain Gulf states, potentially complicating future peace negotiations.

For Taiwan, while the Sudanese civil war is not at the core of its foreign policy, the incident serves as a reminder that the power struggles of regional hegemons in the Middle East and Africa often affect global supply chains and energy security through proxy wars. As a critical geopolitical node between North Africa and the Red Sea, Sudan’s instability has long impacted the security situation in the Horn of Africa. For Taiwanese readers, this case highlights the growing trend of utilizing "law as a tool of diplomacy" in international politics—particularly when military means fail to achieve strategic objectives. Observing how a weaker party employs international legal mechanisms and public opinion platforms to challenge a powerful economic entity provides an important window into modern international relations. It also reflects how, amid the trend of deglobalization, nations are increasingly scrutinizing the roles and responsibilities of regional powers in transnational conflicts.