In recent weeks, the United States has imposed targeted sanctions on senior figures within the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan, citing their responsibility for grave human rights abuses and atrocity crimes in the Sudanese province of Darfur.
These measures coincided with the release of findings by the UN-mandated Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan, which concluded that acts committed in and around Al-Fasher in Darfur bear the hallmarks of genocide.
Together, these developments signal growing international recognition that the violence unfolding in North Darfur is not a series of episodic battlefield escalations, but part of a structured campaign with potentially genocidal dimensions. Yet, recognition without decisive preventive action risks becoming little more than documentation of a catastrophe in progress.
Al-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, lies at the centre of a protracted conflict that has devastated the social and humanitarian fabric of its population for decades. Home to tens of thousands of people from diverse ethnic groups, the city endured an 18-month siege before falling to the RSF in late October 2025.
The crisis in Al-Fasher is no longer merely military, however, as it has become a direct test of the absolute prohibition of genocide under international law. The report issued on 19 February by the UN-mandated Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Sudan and submitted to the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the documented pattern of acts in Darfur bore the hallmarks of genocide.
Genocidal intent, the report noted, represented “the only reasonable inference” that could be drawn from the consistency of events. While not a final judicial determination, it shifts the matter from moral condemnation towards the realm of legal accountability.
Under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the definition of genocide requires the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The determining factor is the intent underlying the acts, not the number of victims.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in the Krstić case, also affirmed that such intent may be inferred from a consistent pattern of conduct when interpreting the acts as random would be unreasonable.
In the case of Al-Fasher, the prolonged siege preceding the city’s capture by the RSF was more than a military tactic; it represented the first stage of an escalating and cumulative trajectory. Restrictions on food, medicine, and basic services weakened the social fabric and diminished the population’s capacity to flee or seek shelter.
According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the final RSF offensive killed more than 6,000 people in the first three days, approximately 4,400 inside the city and 1,600 during escape attempts, while causing widespread destruction and mass displacement and marking one of the most severe waves of violence in Darfur since April 2023.
Under international humanitarian law, the starvation of civilians or the denial of humanitarian relief may constitute a war crime. Yet, the Genocide Convention only recognises that deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s destruction constitutes a genocidal act when combined with specific intent. Systematic weakening alone does not conclusively establish such intent, though it creates the conditions in which subsequent acts can acquire existential significance. When collective survival is eroded, any targeted action may become fatal in effect.
The UN-mandated report further highlights the repeated targeting of non-Arab communities, particularly the Zaghawa and Fur in Darfur, alongside sustained sexual violence used to undermine social cohesion and instill terror.
Such conduct reflects a methodical pattern rather than isolated incidents. Continued violations in the absence of accountability undermine claims of randomness and emphasise leadership responsibility. This extends to those who knew or should have known of the crimes and failed to take reasonable preventive or punitive measures. At this stage, inaction itself becomes part of the process.
Timing is also critical in prevention. Article I of the Genocide Convention establishes a positive obligation to prevent genocide, not merely to punish it after the fact. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Serbia and Montenegro (2007) confirmed that the duty to prevent arises at the moment a state becomes aware, or should normally have become aware, of a serious risk of genocide and not after the crime is consummated.
States that fail to employ all reasonable means within their power to prevent the crime of genocide may incur international legal responsibility.
Genocide often unfolds incrementally, enabling repeated acts to occur without immediate deterrence. Waiting for conclusive judicial confirmation before taking action transforms the prohibition from a preventive norm into a post-factum response. Its value lies in the capacity to disrupt the trajectory before its culmination. Al-Fasher thus serves as a measure of the strength of international law: absolute prohibitions are tested at moments of imminent danger, not after a catastrophe has occurred. At the precipice, prevention is a duty, not an option, and inaction constitutes failure.
The international community bears direct responsibility for the ongoing tragedy in Darfur. Humanitarian corridors must be established to ensure the delivery of food and medical assistance. Sanctions must move beyond symbolism, and diplomatic and legal pressure must intensify. Evidence must be preserved, and pathways towards international prosecution must be actively pursued. Commanders and fighters responsible for violations must face credible accountability.
Al-Fasher represents a critical juncture for both Sudan and the global commitment to human rights. The unfolding crisis demonstrates that legal norms must be enforced proactively rather than reactively in order to preserve civilian life and prevent escalation into mass atrocities. Immediate humanitarian, diplomatic, and legal intervention is imperative to avert a fully realised genocide and to uphold the principle that no protected group should face annihilation without international scrutiny and action.
*The writer is a senior researcher and director of the Sudan & East Africa Programme at FOXS, Sweden, and a senior fellow in crisis management and counterterrorism.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 26 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: