Legal representatives for victims of the ongoing conflict in Sudan have filed a formal communication with the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, seeking an investigation into the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for its alleged role in the war. The complaint, submitted by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its local partners, accuses the UAE of providing material and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group currently engaged in widespread hostilities against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
The conflict, which erupted in April 2023, has displaced millions and triggered a catastrophic humanitarian crisis across the region. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the fighting has resulted in the world’s largest internal displacement crisis, with over 10 million people forced from their homes. The legal filing argues that the UAE’s continued support for the RSF—despite reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity—constitutes complicity under the Rome Statute, the foundational treaty of the ICC.
Allegations of External Support and Paramilitary Conduct
The core of the complaint centers on the supply chain allegedly used to arm the RSF. While the UAE has consistently denied providing direct military aid to the paramilitary group, multiple international bodies have documented evidence to the contrary. A report by the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan identified a sophisticated network of supply routes, claiming that weapons and military equipment were funneled into Sudan through neighboring countries, including Chad, with the involvement of Emirati entities.
The RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti,” has been accused by human rights organizations of systematic violence, including ethnically targeted killings in West Darfur, sexual violence, and the looting of civilian infrastructure. The legal team representing the victims asserts that the UAE’s alleged provision of drones, armored vehicles, and financial backing has directly enabled the continuation of these acts. By bypassing international arms embargoes, the complainants argue that the UAE has facilitated the RSF’s operational capacity to commit atrocities that have drawn international condemnation.
The Diplomatic Stance of France and European Partners
The filing also highlights the perceived inaction of international powers, specifically France, in addressing the UAE’s influence in the Sudanese theater. France maintains a complex strategic partnership with the UAE, spanning significant defense contracts, energy cooperation, and shared regional security interests in the Middle East and the Sahel. Critics of French foreign policy argue that this partnership has led to a policy of silence or calculated ambiguity regarding the UAE’s activities in Sudan.
While the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs frequently calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian access in Sudan, it has stopped short of publicly condemning the UAE or imposing sanctions. According to the French Foreign Ministry’s official statements on the crisis, the priority remains the cessation of hostilities through the Jeddah process and other mediation efforts. Analysts suggest that Paris is wary of alienating a key security partner at a time when French influence in Africa is facing severe challenges, creating a difficult diplomatic balancing act that victims’ advocates characterize as a failure to uphold international human rights obligations.
Legal Pathways and Next Steps at the ICC
For the complaint to proceed, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) at the ICC must determine if there is a “reasonable basis” to initiate a formal investigation. Under the rules of the Rome Statute, the prosecutor has the discretion to analyze the information provided to see if the crimes fall within the court’s jurisdiction and if such an investigation would serve the interests of justice.
The process is inherently slow and fraught with political hurdles. The UAE is not a state party to the Rome Statute, which complicates the court’s jurisdiction over its nationals or state entities. However, legal experts suggest that if the crimes occurred on Sudanese territory—which is a member of the ICC—the court may claim jurisdiction over individuals or entities, regardless of their nationality, if they are deemed to be complicit in crimes committed within that jurisdiction. The prosecutor’s office has not yet announced a timeline for reviewing the new submission.
The next major checkpoint for the international community regarding the conflict will be the upcoming session of the UN Human Rights Council, where the situation in Sudan is expected to be a primary focus of debate. As legal proceedings continue, the families of those affected by the conflict remain the primary stakeholders, waiting to see if international law will provide accountability for the external actors involved in the destruction of their country. Readers are encouraged to monitor the official ICC press portal for updates regarding potential case openings or preliminary examination reports.
Related reading