### The geopolitical ramifications of the conflict in Sudan: an analysis of the implications of armaments and state responsibilities
On March 6, 2025, Sudan decided to bring to the International Court of Justice (CIJ) its accusation against the United Arab Emirates (Water) to support an in progress genocide in Darfur-Ouest. Such diplomatic action is not only part of international laws, but it raises deeper questions concerning relations between states, the responsibility of armaments suppliers and the real impact of geopolitical repercussions on human rights.
#### Conflict context and accusations
Sudan claims that the supply of armaments by water to the paramilitary group known as rapid support forces (RSF) constitutes a flagrant violation of the Convention on the Genocide. The RSF, already controversial for its violent acts and its involvement in atrocities, is now accused of being completely under the aegis of the water, which would have not only provided military equipment, but also agents on the ground to orchestrate these actions. This situation not only questions the international obligations of the statements of the Convention, but also the way in which these obligations are applied in practice.
### legal implications
The difficulty for Sudan will be to establish the jurisdiction of the CIJ because of the reserve made by the water concerning article 9 of the agreement. In this regard, the case could become a diplomatic chew, where legal implications could be used not only to gain points on the political chessboard, but to highlight the lack of efficiency of international mechanisms. This situation recalls similar precedents such as the case of Israel worn by South Africa, where questions on the obligation of a state in the face of a genocide were reassessed from a critical angle.
### The reality of armaments transfers
What makes the situation even more complicates is the role of South Africa, accumulating nearly 88 million weapons of arms exports to water in 2023. While South African legislation requires end user certificates to avoid the diversion of weapons, the implementation of these measures remains disturbing. It is difficult not to question the responsibility of states which, while respecting the protocols, can indirectly feed violent conflicts.
### Ethical and humanitarian implications
The crisis in Sudan evokes strong arguments for more rigorous control of the arms trade at the international level. NGO reports describing systematic human rights violations should encourage reconsideration of armament export policy to countries involved in such conflicts. Beyond purely legal approaches, it is imperative to examine the humanitarian consequences of each weapon transfer. Armed conflicts do not take place in a vacuum; Each decision with these ramifications can be seen as a removal of the fundamental ethical standards of the international community.
### The need for a systemic change
The notable cases of human rights violations in Sudan, combined with armaments in circulation, ask the question of how responsible states are responsible for atrocities which are committed on their behalf, directly by their actions or indirectly by their inaction. As such, the international community, and more specifically the UN, must question the establishment of a proactive action framework to prevent the sale of armaments where it is clearly established that they support human rights violations.
### Conclusion: Towards an extended responsibility
It is essential to question the implications beyond the boundaries of the states involved in the conflict. The alleged support of water in the RSF calls for a reflection on the real mechanisms of responsibility that exist. In finality, the case of Sudan against water could become a catalyst for a greater dialogue on the need for rigorous international control of armaments-an obligation that goes far beyond legal borders, relating to the essence of human rights and international ethics.
The question that arises today is not only whether the CIJ will act in this complex context, but also if the member states of the whole world will finally take the initiative of a systemic re -evaluation of armaments which, in the end, feed conflicts and undermine human dignity.