I drew attention in a previous article to the inadequacy of the international community’s response so far to the war of aggression being waged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia and its external sponsors against the Sudanese people and state. Here, I would like to explain how international law provides a firm foundation for the peaceful resolution of this crisis.

A state’s right to defend itself and its citizens is a core principle of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter. For states, self-defence is not a mere privilege but a duty – they have an obligation to safeguard their sovereignty and the wellbeing of their people.

In modern times, however, states are often forced to defend themselves not against other states, but against non-state actors such as terror groups, criminal organisations and militias. The RSF militia currently waging war on the Sudanese state is one such non-state actor.

International law is clear on a state’s rights and responsibilities in conflict – whether the said conflict is against another state or a non-state actor. Yet, institutions tasked with upholding international law often inadvertently undermine state sovereignty when responding to a conflict between a state and a non-state actor, like the one in Sudan. They do this by affording non-state actors the same legitimacy as states and their institutions, and politicising their approach to issues relating to justice, human rights and humanitarian law.

The latest report of the UN Human Rights Council’s Fact-finding Mission on Sudan is a case in point. The report documents the unprecedented atrocities and very serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by the RSF militias, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual violence, enslavement, and child recruitment. The Mission, however, in defiance of logic and justice, calls for imposing an arms embargo not only on the RSF, but also on the Sudanese Armed Forces, the national army that defends the people of Sudan against the savage militia. In other words, the Mission calls for the Sudanese state to be deprived of its most fundamental right, and responsibility: self-defence against a vicious enemy threatening its sovereignty.

Violence and atrocities

The RSF militia shares major traits with the most extremist and dangerous non-state actors around the globe. It follows an extremist ideology, conducts deadly cross-border operations, and employs indiscriminate brutality, harming defenceless women and children. While the ethnic and gender-based violence of the militia is well-documented, less attention has been paid to its other problematic traits.

Like some of the most deadly armed groups the international community has had to deal with in recent years, the RSF militias’ extreme violence stems from an ideology of racial supremacy. The militia seeks to create an exclusive homeland in Sudanese territory for Arab tribes from Darfur and the Sahel. To achieve this, the militia pushes out local populations from fertile regions like Darfur, Kordofan, Al-Gezira, and Sennar, and settles Arab nomads in their place.

Racist extremism

Recently, several international media outlets have highlighted the dangers of this project. Notable Sudanese writer Osman Mirghani, formerly the deputy editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, among others, has warned in various articles and news reports of the far-reaching consequences of this scheme. Earlier this month, a joint investigation by Sky News, Lighthouse Reports, The Washington Post, and Le Monde exposed the RSF’s systemic efforts to ethnically cleanse large areas of Darfur. A video published as part of the investigation showed RSF militiamen and allied Arab fighters chanting “victory for the Arabs” while surrounded by the bloodied bodies of the civilian victims of their latest massacre.

Social media, meanwhile, is flooded with videos of young Arabs from the Sahel celebrating the RSF’s perceived military successes in Darfur and other regions, with prominent figures from these communities publicly praising the militia’s “rising leader”, Hemedti (Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo).

As renowned Horn of Africa expert Alex de Waal noted early on in the conflict, “the RSF is now a private transnational mercenary enterprise” capable of turning Sudan into a subsidiary of this venture if left unchecked. The militia itself has become heavily dependent on support from mercenaries and Arab tribesmen following significant losses against the Sudanese military.

International response and accountability

The international community, which has dealt with similar armed groups with force and determination in the past, has largely underestimated the threat the RSF (previously known as the Janjaweed) militia poses to Sudan, the region, and to global stability. In fact, certain state and non-state actors continue to provide military support to the militia, allowing it to perpetrate violence against the people of Sudan with impunity.

The RSF is no longer a threat only to Sudan but to the entire international community, and as such it demands a unified and principled response.

Criminals do not voluntarily submit to the law. States enforce the law on them to protect themselves. These days some scholars describe the international order as “anarchic” due to the absence of a globally recognised supreme authority. However, there are still mechanisms and tools that aid states in protecting their people and imposing law and order on rogue actors. These mechanisms include international law, the UN and similar regional organisations. They may not be perfect, but without them, we risk descending into lawlessness.

Values vs political expediency

It is troubling to see many nations prioritising their narrow national interests over universal values when it comes to condemning crimes against civilians and preventing the recruitment of mercenaries. This selective approach erodes the foundations of international justice and human rights. The world must not ignore the suffering of the Sudanese people for the sake of political convenience or economic gain. Finding a path to lasting peace in Sudan requires a new approach to dealing with the RSF. The international community must take action through not only vocal condemnation but also concrete measures that hold the militia’s leaders, financiers, and sponsors accountable. Priority must be given to cutting off the militia’s supply of weapons and mercenaries.

Furthermore, the global community should support Sudan in establishing a comprehensive peace process. This includes promoting dialogue among all stakeholders, strengthening state institutions, and fostering respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Sudanese people deserve a future free from violence and oppression, achievable only through genuine commitment to peace and justice. It is time for the world to stand with the Sudanese people and demand accountability for those who commit atrocities. Only through a united and principled effort can lasting peace and stability be achieved in Sudan. The country’s future depends on our collective resolve to uphold justice, human rights, and the rule of law.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.