The Security Council today extended for one month the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime, including targeted sanctions and an arms embargo, in order to allow more time for negotiations on whether to expand the measures.
Unanimously adopting resolution 2828 (2026) (to be issued as document S/RES/2828(2026)), the Council — acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations — also reaffirmed the mandate of the associated Panel of Experts and extended that mandate until 9 November.
Today’s text is considered a short-term technical rollover. The sanctions regime, as well as the Panel’s mandate, were last renewed on 12 September 2025, for a year, two decades years after they were first adopted through Council resolution 1591 (2005).
At its most recent briefing on Sudan, the Council heard that the escalating war in that country — now in its fourth year — has deepened the world’s largest displacement and worst humanitarian crisis and raised fresh fears of mass atrocities.
United States Pushes to Expand Arms Embargo, Listing Measures across Sudan
The representative of the United States, who put forward today’s resolution, made a case for expanding the sanctions regime. While there is broad support in the Council to do this, some members “desire to take no action whatsoever”, he said. That will result in more suffering and death in Sudan, he said, refusing “to rubberstamp another year of maintaining the status quo”.
Describing the current sanctions regime as outdated and insufficient to address the realities of today’s war, he said the scope of the arms embargo must be widened across the entire territory of Sudan. He also stressed the need to “expand the listing measures to include horrific actions such as conflict-related sexual violence, kidnapping for ransom and attacks on humanitarian personnel” and strengthen the mandate of the Panel of Experts.
“A long-term technical rollover of this mandate is not an option,” he said, adding that this short-term text will provide the time and space necessary to make substantive changes to the sanctions regime. He called on delegates to negotiate in good faith and expand the sanctions regime to address current realities.
Arms Embargo Violates UN Charter, Sudan Insists
Sudan’s delegate, however, asked: “What measures has the penholder taken to deter the genocide committed by a militia supported by one of its closest partners in the region?” Sudan will continue to object to any initiative to expand the arms embargo. An arms embargo contravenes Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which guarantees Member States the right to self-defence, he asserted.
The Sudanese Armed Forces “have the right to produce, acquire and retain conventional and necessary weapons and other means required to protect sovereignty”, he insisted, citing experts who find that an arms embargo impedes a State’s ability to reestablish control over its territory. While the State remains bound by its international legal obligations, “armed groups operating outside State authority enjoy considerable freedom to acquire weapons”, he pointed out.
The resolution rolled over today has, for 20 years, “hindered the implementation of law and prevented us from exerting security in Darfur”, he said. It also allowed armed groups to loot Sudan’s resources. “It cannot be acceptable” to replace multilateral diplomacy with unilateral efforts “pursued by one State based on its national interests”, he stressed.
London Calls for Pragmatism, as Moscow Opposes More Sanctions, Beijing Argues against ‘Forced’ Adoption of Texts
Despite the unanimous adoption, stark divisions emerged as Council speakers explained their vote.
The representative of the United Kingdom welcomed United States efforts to steer negotiations and “update the regime in light of a conflict that has changed significantly since these measures were first established”. Noting that “more than 1,000 civilians were killed in drone strikes between January and May this year alone”, she urged “all members to approach the next phase of negotiations with pragmatism and flexibility”.
Along similar lines, Latvia’s delegate expressed support for expanding the geographic scope of the sanctions regime and strengthening its implementation. “The conflict has spread far beyond Darfur” and sanctions should “make unmistakably clear that conflict-related sexual violence constitutes grounds for designation and must carry consequences”.
However, China’s delegate, who voted in favour of the resolution to allow more time for discussion, stressed the need to avoid “the forced adoption of texts that are clearly contentious”. Sanctions “must not serve as a substitute for diplomatic efforts”. The Council must focus on how to better implement existing mechanisms, he said, warning that arbitrarily expanding coercive measures will worsen the humanitarian situation and “may even fuel the prospect of Sudan's fragmentation”.
Moscow, the Russian Federation’s delegate said, “will not allow even a hint of broadening” of the Sudan restrictions, which is “fully in line with the position of the legitimate Government of the country — which many of those present are not ready to hear”.
It is unclear, she said, why the Council is asked to broaden the scope for listing at this time, rather than in 2023, when the Rapid Support Forces were threatening Khartoum. Currently, Sudan’s armed forces “have a definite advantage on the ground” and must be adequately resourced to protect civilians. In the coming period “before we have a fully fledged resolution”, she urged the sponsors to consider the position of those who favour a technical rollover of last year’s document for one year.