State Failure in a Bordered World: Sudan’s Humanitarian Crisis and the Call for International Cooperation

Maggie Burt, The University of California – Santa Barbara

---

Abstract

Troubles with international aid delivery in humanitarian crises call for the re-evaluation of the role of international organizations in a global system dominated by sovereignty based action. This article examines the nation-state norms that created and are continuing to perpetuate the Sudanese Civil War, using qualitative analysis of secondary sources to assess the conditions surrounding Sudan’s state failure and the effectiveness of international humanitarian responses. The findings of the analysis indicate that sovereignty-centered international norms significantly constrain humanitarian access in Sudan, leaving civilians without protections during state failure. Although supranational and subnational actors continue to provide relief, these structural constraints highlight the need to rethink global norms and strengthen international coordination to ensure effective protections.

1. Introduction

In a world scarred by borders, the nation-state system has vowed to provide its citizens with protection and identity. However, when a state fails, the consequences are detrimental due to the autonomy it possesses, leaving its people stranded and lacking support from outside entities. These rigid lines that shape our global order often leave the most vulnerable at risk. This state failure is playing out today in Sudan, where civil war has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. With millions displaced and hundreds of thousands killed, strain from this crisis is being felt all throughout Northern Africa due to the influx of stateless refugees. Sudan’s humanitarian crisis highlights how the nation-state system’s focus on sovereignty and self-interest exacerbates human suffering during conflict, necessitating a shift toward supranational cooperation paired with locally driven mutual aid networks to protect isolated civilians in stateless conditions. This paper examines the historical causes of state failure, the effects of the collapse, the resulting refugee crisis, and the international response, including its limitations.

2. Literature Review

Jeffrey Herbst, in his article titled “Responding to State Failure in Africa,” argues that the international system is too focused on repairing Africa’s faltering nation-state systems rather than adjusting responses to the circumstances surrounding the failure. He says these state collapses are due to sovereignty issues stemming from the decolonization of Africa. Stating that “most colonial states did not make any effort to extend the administrative apparatus of government much beyond the capital city.” This weak bureaucratic setup translated into weak states even after decolonization, resulting in administrative systems that only extended so far. Paired with the rapid removal of imperial powers, few political adjustments were made. Having the newly created states take on the facade of sovereignty and power, resulting in “even the most basic agents of the state, agriculture extension agents, tax collection, census takers, not found in many rural areas.” 

Herbst notes that not all African states are weak, but there is a vulnerability in Africa that is continuing to result in state failure. He criticizes international responses that are too focused on rebuilding a state’s sovereignty rather than exploring alternative strategies better suited to a collapse’s unique conditions. Herbst’s analysis shows that failure is often structural rather than accidental, and that the international community cannot continue to respond to nation-state failure with an emphasis on sovereignty. This pattern demonstrates how sovereignty-focused international responses leave civilians unprotected. A problem illustrated by the Sudanese collapse explored below, which calls for alternative aid responses and greater supranational support that defies borders.

3. Methods

This research paper uses data derived from news reports, international aid statements, and methods of comparative analysis to understand the circumstances surrounding Sudan’s state failure and the shortcomings of humanitarian aid. Reports from the BBC were used to contextualize the crisis, drawing from Sudan’s history and connecting it to its contemporary conflicts. Statements from international organizations were used to assess the limits and effectiveness of aid responses, and humanitarian-focused reports were used to evaluate the role that local communities have played in delivering relief. 

4. Historical Causes

Sudan has undergone many state changes and has been plagued by modern instability and conflict. Its issues are rooted in its colonial past and arbitrarily drawn borders that set up tension and weak infrastructure. Sudan was ruled by several kingdoms throughout its early history and the region experienced multiple power struggles. By the nineteenth century, it came under joint colonial control by Britain and Egypt, known as the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. These arrangements imposed artificial borders created by the rulers’ own political gains. This led to a lack of unity and nationalism that produced ethnic rifts that would only grow in the country.

 During this time, Britain’s colonial rule built infrastructure meant to serve itself as a mother country, having its industries tailored toward resource extraction rather than local development. This harmed Sudan because it hindered it from becoming self-sufficient, with it relying on outside countries for trade, weakening the state even before independence. Inspired by the Egyptian revolution, Sudan gained independence in 1956, but its instability remained. Post-liberation, the state suffered multiple civil wars, ethnic cleansings, and ongoing political unrest that further destabilized the country, setting it up for state failure. 

The most recent bout of conflict in Sudan is the Sudanese civil war, which began on April 15, 2023, when the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) clashed with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in a violent power struggle. This occurred when the Rapid Support Forces, an armed militia, refused to integrate into the national army in accordance with the SAF. The fighting began in Khartoum, the capital city, and has quickly spread across a majority of the country. Violence continues to escalate with claims of mass ethnic cleansing committed by the RSF. The scale of murder is so vast that the UN is warning of a genocide, with the RSF creating a new surge of ethnic violence.

5. Effects of the State Collapse

Days after the fighting began, the RSF began inciting violence in the West Darfur region of Sudan, targeting the Masalit people and other non-Arab communities. The Human Rights Watch classifies it as ethnic cleansing due to the “apparent objective of at least having them permanently leave the region.” The capital city of this western region, El Geneina,  has endured the worst of the attacks, with thousands killed and hundreds of thousands stranded as refugees. The violence began when the RSF clashed with Masalit groups, where the RSF began systematically killing civilians. Women and children have been disproportionately affected by these attacks, facing widespread sexual violence, forced displacement, and other war crimes, as the RSF deliberately targets the most vulnerable members of the communities. 

Infrastructure within the country is failing, hospitals are so overrun that they are shutting down, with 70-80 percent being nonoperational in the most vulnerable regions, reports the Red Cross. Starvation, disease, and death run rampant in these overwhelmed areas. Water infrastructure has also been severely damaged: many treatment plants and pumps were destroyed as direct collateral from the fighting, forcing families to rely on unsafe sources. The death toll due to this collapse in basic infrastructure is rising sharply, with thousands dying not only from violence but from preventable causes such as dehydration, infection, and untreated injuries. 

The nation-state system is structured to be self-sufficient, with little international intervention. Therefore, it is the state’s function to provide public goods and protections to its people, but with Sudan’s governmental collapse, there are not adequate governmental services being allotted to its citizens. While Sudan still stands as a sovereign state, its lack of assistance shows that sovereignty alone does not guarantee protection, revealing a divergence between formal statehood and the realities of its civilians. Tirana Hussan, executive director at Human Rights Watch calls for supranational actions, stating, “Governments, the African Union, and the United Nations need to act now to protect civilians.” She is calling on international organizations such as the UN to wake up and see the horrors and use it “as a reminder of the atrocities that could come in the absence of concerted action.”  Her statement highlights that international cooperation has become marginalized within a global system that prioritizes autonomy.

6. Nation-State Norms

The nation-state system also fosters a harmful greed due to its self-reliant nature. This hurts struggling nations by turning them into political pawns for more powerful nations. This harmful political mindset is playing out in the Sudan conflict, with the crisis becoming a political proxy war for the UAE and Saudi Arabia rather than a humanitarian devastation. This is due to Sudan’s resource curse, originating from its natural wealth in gold. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are deeply involved with Sudan’s gold sector, with each having warring interests over the same resource. While Saudi Arabia supports the SAF, the UAE aligns with the RSF due to regional ambitions and economic interests, as reported by Foreign Policy Research Institute. 

This has led to a proxy war, with both parties providing the rival sides with weapons, financing, and networks to keep the war alive in hopes of their own political gain. Financial support like this only prolongs fighting and worsens the humanitarian crisis, and is fueled by the selfish nature of the nation-state system. This shows how the nation-state system’s autonomous norms tend to override human protections, with states perpetuating the violence by having their own self-interests in mind rather than working towards de-escalation.

7. Stateless People

The nation-state system exemplifies the suffering of stateless people due to the international norms of a state enforcing legal protections rather than the international system, leaving those without a state separated from their human rights. Prior to this conflict, Sudan was home to asylum seekers, with nearly one million refugees residing in the country, most having fled from South Sudan and Northern Ethiopia. When conflict erupted, nearly 13 million people were displaced and forced to flee from the violence plaguing their homes, reports the UN Refugee Agency.​​ These effects were so severe the United Nations declared it “the most devastating humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world.” The 9 million internally displaced are fleeing the war-torn areas like West Darfur and flooding neighboring regions, overwhelming hospitals, clinics, and other infrastructure, turning government buildings such as schools into homeless camps. 

 Around 3 million refugees have crossed into neighboring countries, including Chad and South Sudan. This rapid outflow has placed immense pressure on already fragile host communities. The sudden influx of people has forced them to establish makeshift emergency refugee camps in schools, abandoned buildings, and open fields. The countries, already struggling with limited infrastructure, are now confronting overwhelmed healthcare systems, collapsing water and sanitation networks, and overcrowded shelters, leaving refugees and citizens alike highly vulnerable to disease and malnutrition. Sudan’s neighbor Chad has suffered the worst effects, with over 1 million refugees entering the country, the majority being women and children. This severe lack of funding and resources is leaving “the lives and futures of millions of innocent civilians hang[ing] in the balance,” as stated by United Nations spokesman Eujin Byun. 

Lack of resources is not the only issue these refugees face, it is also the lack of protections that are given to stateless people. Without a country to enforce the human rights of its citizens, the stateless refugees become vulnerable to abuses such as trafficking, forced labor, and sexual violence. Many children victimized by the war have been rounded up and forced to fight in combat roles, a “disgusting violation of international humanitarian law,” remarked UN experts, who are concerned by the global inability to enforce them. Proficient help cannot be provided due to the limited capacity of humanitarian organizations. This stems from the failure of international mechanisms to enforce protections in a bordered world, due to historical norms that states are responsible for the safety of their citizens. Borders, rather than protecting people, become barriers to aid and movement, worsening suffering. This systemic failure highlights the urgent need to rethink international norms, creating mechanisms that allow for coordinated global action to protect vulnerable populations.

8. International Aid

This crisis has left 30.4 million people in need of humanitarian support, reports the United Nations. Major supranational organizations such as the United Nations, International Rescue Committee, and International Committee of the Red Cross are attempting to provide support to the most vulnerable regions of Sudan and neighboring countries. The United Nations has multiple departments working to deliver support, such as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), performing cross-border assistance. Their tasks include supporting new arrivals entering countries like Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia by building new refugee camps to alleviate pressures on the overcrowded, makeshift ones on the borders. Other UN departments like the  UN World Food Programme have been focused on the country’s malnutrition. Overall, the UN is working with host governments to coordinate regional response plans with “111 partners, including UN agencies, national and international NGOs, and civil society groups, to assist refugees, returnees, and third-country nationals in seven countries.” Other international organizations like the previously mentioned International Rescue Committee (IRC) and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been providing support through on the ground work. Both the ICRC and IRC have been providing services such as delivering medical supplies and cash, sanitizing water, and combating the massive cholera outbreaks in regions. 

While this support is necessary, the atrocities still persist, with the president of the ICRC acknowledging there are still “appalling abuses of the rules of war,” with greater international support and enforcement still being needed. Issues in delivering aid arise from a lack of funding and the lack of logistical infrastructure for international action. Major organizations such as the UN require global financing through member nations, but, according to UNHCR, “global cuts in humanitarian funding are putting these [humanitarian efforts] efforts at risk.” Logistical issues stem from conventions of international non-interference, with nation-state level bureaucratic impediments imposed by government authorities restricting international agencies, who have “struggled to get visas for expatriate staff,  permits to import and move aid, and supplies are regularly withheld,” states The New Humanitarian. This demonstrates how sovereignty-based restrictions can serve as barriers for humanitarian aid and global protections. 

As the government and broader nation-state apparatus continues to fail, Sudanese communities have mobilized from the bottom up, creating locally driven systems of care, protection, and resource-sharing to meet the needs of citizens in the absence of state assistance. Coalitions of mutual aid groups have formed, community based networks of resource sharing and assistance, manifesting as community kitchens, shelter committees, and emergency response rooms. These are especially crucial in Sudan due to the logistics of the war, where the “halting [of] international aid groups have failed to consistently access conflict areas.” Where these larger organizations have failed, local efforts have stepped up, with thousands of volunteers working in large solidarity networks called emergency response rooms (ERRs). These ERRs have emerged as primary responders, supplying food, water, organizing evacuations, and providing healthcare. For millions of people these ERRs are a lifeline, with many only receiving aid from these groups alone. These community based responses are powered by a rich heritage of social solidarity in Sudan, one that cannot be defined by war or borders.

Many of these EER efforts are focused on the affected women and children who have been disproportionately targeted throughout the war and needs have been “especially neglected by the international aid response.” Women and children have been targets of sexual violence, rape, and human trafficking, women’s response groups have been created in response, a part of the larger EER network. Specific resources like shelter, protection, and psychological services are being tailored to women and children to try and combat the widespread violence they are facing. 

These grassroots efforts are working to empower and unite community members in Sudan. These localized missions are efficient in providing assistance to those who the international aid system cannot reach. Localized organizations like the EERs are able to bypass barriers faced by international organizations to provide direct assistance. Yet, these grassroots groups face other serious challenges, such as chronic underfunding, limited protection, and exposure to violence that is much more difficult to confront as individuals rather than large institutional actors. Even though these localized operations are often the only groups able to provide support in areas inaccessible to international organizations, they receive only a very small fraction of overall humanitarian funding.

9. Counterarguments

It could be argued that supranational intervention is not the best solution to global crisis due to the undermining of state sovereignty that could worsen the situation through destabilizing an already weak state. This suggests that long-term stability is better achieved through strengthening state capacity rather than bypassing or replacing it with external authority. While state strength is important, cases similar to the Sudanese civil war show that collapsed states cannot take care of their citizens on their own. Attempts to strengthen the state would result in resources being drained away from the people in need, and instead being funneled into a corrupt power struggle. International aid is not attempting to replace a state’s sovereignty; it is only meant to fill critical gaps in support where a state cannot. Another argument is that the character of the state matters more in the hindrance of aid than the global system itself. While it is true that the level of conflict and receptiveness of the nation changes the accessibility of aid delivery, it is not true to say that these factors matter more than the structural limitations of the nation-state system. This is because the global nation-state framework itself often creates the very conditions that make states uncooperative. With a state’s character heavily depending on the context of which it is put in.

10. Conclusion

When a state fails in the nation-state system, the autonomy it possesses leads to civilians being stranded, vulnerable, and lacking essential protections from both the state and the international system. This is due to the exacerbation of crises due to the nation-state norms of self-reliance, fiscal greed, and little infrastructure for international cooperation. This issue is highlighted in the humanitarian crisis taking place in Sudan. Sudan’s colonial legacy left it vulnerable to state collapse, where its infrastructure can no longer support its population. These issues are marginalizing the vulnerable and stranding the stateless, and can only be addressed through rethinking international norms. International cooperation must become a priority, and precedence must be given to people over the state. 

This requires larger cooperation and funding for major international organizations, strengthening international law enforcement to ensure protections, and reforming global governance to give greater representation to local voices in global issues. While some argue that international cooperation is inefficient and threatens national autonomy, the failures of sovereignty-focused approaches imply that cooperation is essential. International and grassroots efforts show that change is possible, and that this supranational and subnational mobilization is saving lives. As the international system continues to shift, this could be a time for global change, one to address a faltering system and coordinate to alleviate suffering.