Reading time: 6 min.
By Alessandra Starmone
Sudan’s crisis deepens despite the military’s retaking of Khartoum. The RSF’s control of Darfur and ongoing human rights abuses, including sexual violence, highlight the failure of international intervention to resolve the conflict.
On March 26, the Sudanese military retook control of Khartoum after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and other paramilitary groups withdrew. The capture of the capital by Sudan’s army marks a significant shift in the conflict, but this does not mean the war is over. The RSF still controls Darfur, Sudan’s far west region, where they have established a parallel government and have no intention of stopping fighting. As the leader of RSF said “We have neither agreement nor discussion with them – only the language of arms”.
If the International community continues to take no effective action, the number of victims and refugees will rise dramatically, further worsening an already tragic situation.
The fighting has already killed approximately 150,000 people and displaced more than 13 million, creating nearly 4 million refugees -making it the world’s largest displacement crisis. The UN has described the Sudanese conflict as “one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”.
But let’s take a step back: how did this happen?
SUDAN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT
In 2013, former President Al-Bashir created the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and legitimised it as an independent security force. The RSF has been used to repress the southern regions and the non-Arab ethnic groups, using genocidal tactics like starvation and sexual violence.
In 2019, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, a Sudanese military general, together with Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, leader of the RSF, ousted al-Bashir in a coup d’état, after 30 years in power. Al-Burhan became the Head of the Transitional Sovereign Council of Sudan, and he entered into a power-sharing agreement with Dagalo, aiming to lead the country toward a democratic transition, which never happened.
In 2023, the still ongoing war broke out over a dispute about a plan to integrate RSF into the military. Since then, both sides in Sudan’s war have been accused of committing war crimes, and in 2025, the United States formally accused the RSF of committing genocide in Sudan and imposed sanctions on Dagalo and seven companies linked to the group, some of which are based in the United Arab Emirates.
THE USE OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE AS A WEAPON OF WAR
Mass sexual violence has been widely used as a weapon of war in Sudan. According to the UN Women organization, between January and December 2024, the number of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence seeking services increased by 288%. Victims ranged in age from 8 to 75, and most of the attacks were committed by the RSF to instill fear, punish civilians, and repress opposition. Even men and boys have been targeted, particularly in detention settings.
The crimes include gang rape, sexual slavery, abduction for sexual purposes, forced marriage, and human trafficking for sexual exploitation. The impact of these acts of violence has also been worsened by the lack of access to medical care and psychological support, as many hospitals have been bombed and healthcare workers killed by both parties.
Additionally, victims of sexual violence often face intense stigma and victim-blaming, as many survivors are disowned by their families, making it impossible for them to return home.
INVOLVEMENT OF THE UAE
On March 5, Sudan brought the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the UAE of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention. According to Sudan, the UAE armed and funded the RSF during this war, making it complicit in the genocide of the Masalit community in West Darfur, as well as in other violations.
In response, the UAE has strongly rejected the accusations, claiming they lacked a legal and factual basis, and stated it will seek an immediate dismissal. However, UN experts have found these accusations to be credible.
It is unclear whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case, as the UAE has made a legal reservation to Article IX when it acceded to the Genocide Convention in 2005. Essentially, the UAE has effectively prevented the ICJ from ruling on allegations of complicity in genocide. Therefore, the ICJ is expected to conclude that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, as it did in the case between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.
Currently, 16 countries maintain this reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, shielding themselves from jurisdictional prosecutions for suspected violations. This could appear to be a clear contradiction and a legal loophole. However, the ICJ has considered such reservations valid, highlighting the necessity of securing widespread participation in the Genocide Convention, even though no mechanism exists to enforce compliance or adjudicate violations.
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
The UAE is not the only external interference in this war: Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia also have a great influence. Now that Khartoum is once again under government control, it is difficult to make clear predictions, but there are fears of a new wave of abuses. The conflict is unlikely to end, partially due to the lack of an adequate international response: arms embargoes are frequently violated, and sanctions targeting groups such as Wagner have proved their ineffectiveness.
In 2024, the European Union had already expressed solidarity with the Sudanese people, and now NGOs have been calling for more support for refugees, as well as a stronger supervision of embargoes imposed by the UN and the EU. Indeed, these embargos should be extended to the entire country to be effective, and not just on the Darfur region, especially since Italy’s decision to lift the ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE could potentially facilitate the triangulation of arms to the RFS.
According to a UN report, the 2024 humanitarian aid plan for Sudan required $2.7 billion, $1.8 billion of which has been funded. Of this amount, 44% was provided by the United States. However, the new Trump administration seems to follow the same policies as during its first term (2017-2021), reducing or suspending aid to several countries, including Sudan. This will aggravate the already fragile humanitarian crisis.
International efforts need to go beyond rhetorical condemnations and ineffective sanctions, and should instead adopt a unified strategy that combines political, economic, and diplomatic pressure on all actors directly or indirectly involved in Sudan’s crisis. Without a credible enforcement mechanism and a unified commitment to tangible action, the cycle of violence and impunity will persist, as seen in many other unresolved conflicts worldwide.