Ethnic Violence Rages Across Fragile South Sudan

Introduction

South Sudan's political conflicts have consistently been fought along ethnic lines, transforming what began as elite power struggles into mass campaigns of ethnic targeting. Since the outbreak of civil war in December 2013, violence against Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, Murle, and dozens of other communities has been documented by UN investigators, international human rights organisations, and journalists operating at considerable personal risk. The patterns observed—targeted killings, sexual violence used as a weapon, destruction of civilian property, and forced displacement of specific ethnic groups—have led multiple experts and UN bodies to raise the question of whether crimes against humanity and genocide have been committed. This article examines the nature and scale of ethnic violence in South Sudan, the legal frameworks applicable to such conduct, the accountability deficit, and the implications for those seeking international protection.

Historical Background

South Sudan's 64 ethnic groups have historically coexisted, traded, and intermarried, but colonial-era policies of indirect rule and differential treatment exacerbated inter-group tensions. During Sudan's civil wars of 1955–1972 and 1983–2005, ethnic militias were armed and deployed by successive Khartoum governments to fight the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The practice of arming proxy ethnic forces—particularly the Baggara Arab militias used against the Dinka and Nuer—established precedents of ethnically targeted violence that persisted into the post-independence period.

The political rupture between President Salva Kiir (Dinka) and former Vice-President Riek Machar (Nuer) in December 2013 rapidly translated into ethnic targeting. Within days, government forces and Dinka militias known as Mathiang Anyoor were hunting Nuer civilians in Juba, conducting house-to-house killings in the Gudele neighbourhood. The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) documented the killing of at least 500 Nuer civilians in Juba in December 2013, with the actual toll likely far higher.

Current Patterns of Ethnic Violence

Ethnic violence in South Sudan has evolved through multiple phases since 2013 and persists despite the signing of the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) in September 2018. The UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, in its 2023 report, documented ongoing violations in Unity, Upper Nile, and Jonglei states, noting that ethnic targeting remained a defining feature of armed operations.

In the Greater Upper Nile region, clashes between Dinka and Nuer communities have repeatedly escalated into mass atrocities. The Leer and Mayendit massacres of 2015, in which government forces and allied Dinka militias killed civilians, burned homes, and abducted women and children in Nuer-populated areas, were documented in detail by the UN Panel of Experts on South Sudan. In Jonglei state, intercommunal violence between the Murle and other groups—including Nuer and Dinka Bor communities—has resulted in cattle raiding operations that have killed thousands of civilians, including children, over the past decade.

The Shilluk kingdom in Upper Nile state has experienced systematic targeting by forces aligned with the government. In 2017, UNMISS and the UN Commission documented a campaign in which Agwelek forces loyal to Shilluk leader Johnson Olony, and government-aligned forces, engaged in mutual targeting of civilian populations, burning villages and committing sexual violence on ethnic grounds. Members of the Shilluk community reported being told to abandon lands to make way for Dinka settlement.

Sexual violence as an instrument of ethnic persecution has been extensively documented. A 2016 UNMISS report on the Terrain Hotel attack in Juba—in which government soldiers gang-raped foreign aid workers and Nuer staff and killed a South Sudanese journalist—illustrated the deployment of sexual violence as a tool of ethnic humiliation and intimidation. The Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan has documented what it describes as "ethnicised rape": sexual violence targeting women specifically because of their ethnic identity.

Comparison: Ethnic Violence Indicators

Legal Framework: International Crimes

The patterns of violence documented in South Sudan engage multiple categories of international criminal law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which South Sudan is not a party, defines crimes against humanity under Article 7 as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, including murder, extermination, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, persecution, and enforced disappearance. The UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan has concluded, in multiple reports, that there are reasonable grounds to believe crimes against humanity have been committed by multiple parties.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The Genocide Convention's applicability to South Sudan has been debated extensively. While the UN Commission has stopped short of formally concluding that genocide is occurring, it has noted that risk factors for genocide identified by the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide—including dehumanising rhetoric, targeted killings, and impunity—are present.

South Sudan is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. Common Article 3, applicable in non-international armed conflicts, prohibits at all times the killing, torture, and cruel treatment of persons not taking active part in hostilities. The systematic targeting of civilian ethnic communities constitutes a grave breach of Common Article 3 obligations applicable to both government forces and armed groups.

Accountability Deficit

The R-ARCSS provided for the establishment of a Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS), to be jointly constituted by the African Union and the Government of South Sudan, with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed since 15 December 2013. As of 2024, the HCSS has not been established. The government has shown no willingness to create an institution capable of prosecuting its own commanders, and the AU has failed to apply meaningful pressure. This accountability gap is among the most significant obstacles to durable peace in South Sudan.

The UN Panel of Experts on South Sudan has documented extensive evidence of ethnic targeting and has submitted dossiers to the UN Sanctions Committee. The Sanctions Committee has imposed targeted sanctions—asset freezes and travel bans—on a limited number of individuals. However, enforcement of such measures remains weak, and many senior commanders responsible for ethnic atrocities continue to hold government positions.

Asylum Implications

Individuals who have fled ethnic targeting in South Sudan may qualify for refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention on the grounds of persecution based on race, nationality, or membership of a particular social group. Ethnicity is explicitly protected as a ground under the Convention. Asylum decision-makers must consider the systematic nature of ethnic targeting, the absence of state protection, and the impossibility of safe internal relocation given that ethnic violence spans multiple states and is prosecuted by the national armed forces themselves.

Additionally, individuals may qualify for subsidiary protection or complementary protection in jurisdictions that recognise such status, on the grounds that they face a real risk of serious harm amounting to indiscriminate violence in the context of an armed conflict. The European Court of Justice, in Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (2009), confirmed that subsidiary protection status under Article 15(c) of the EU Qualification Directive is available where the level of indiscriminate violence in an armed conflict is so high that a civilian faces a real risk of serious harm simply by being present.

Ethnic targeting claims often turn on whether internal relocation is safe for a member of the client's community, and our South Sudan country expert witness reports examine that question in detail.

Expert Analysis

"The ethnic violence in South Sudan is not a product of ancient hatreds but of political choices made by elites who weaponised identity for territorial and economic gain. The failure to establish the Hybrid Court is not a procedural delay—it is a political decision to protect perpetrators. Without accountability, we are witnessing the normalisation of ethnically targeted mass violence as an acceptable tool of governance in one of Africa's youngest states."

Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, 2023 address to the Human Rights Council

Conclusion

Ethnic violence in South Sudan is not a peripheral feature of an otherwise functioning state: it is a defining characteristic of how political power has been contested and exercised since independence. The systematic targeting of civilians on ethnic grounds—by state forces, allied militias, and armed opposition groups—has produced one of the world's most acute humanitarian and human rights crises. International legal frameworks governing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide are clearly engaged, yet accountability remains essentially absent. The failure to establish the Hybrid Court for South Sudan represents a profound international failure. Individuals fleeing ethnic targeting are entitled to protection under international refugee law, and receiving states must ensure that status determination processes are sensitive to the specific dynamics of ethnically-motivated persecution in South Sudan.