As the world struggles with the challenges of justice, a pivotal moment emerged on December 29, 2023, when South Africa made a major step in international law by filing a 750-page lawsuit against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), noting that the Genocide Convention had been breached as Israel has been in Gaza (Sondos Asem, 2024). This is in line with the history of South Africa in fighting against apartheid and the country’s commitment to human rights, in particular, the issues concerning Palestinians. South Africa’s position on the case has been influenced by the apartheid legacy in the area, which has shifted the country’s focus on its foreign relations to assist oppressed communities elsewhere. The case has drawn major attention to the significance of international legal systems in resolving challenging disputes and ensuring governmental responsibility. This essay also looks at the broader implications of identity-based foreign policies on international norms. By analyzing this, this essay adds to the discussion of global justice and the changing role of international law. As a result, this essay is dedicated to answering the question, “How does South Africa’s approach reflect the principles of Constructivism in International Relations?”
The Constructivism theory argues that states act as they do because of their identities, values, and shared norms instead of purely material interests (Theys, 2018). From this perspective, South Africa’s case against Israel is consistent with the country’s post-apartheid identity of opposing oppression and upholding human rights. Such historical identity defines its empathy towards the Palestinian cause as it considers its fight against structural inequalities that are systemic in the West. Constructivism emphasizes how South Africa’s choice to pursue this lawsuit goes beyond legal means, attempting to strengthen global norms against colonialism and human rights crimes. By appealing to the ICJ, South Africa seeks judicial accountability and influences global attitudes, catalyzing a normative shift in international responses to oppression (ISSAfrica.org, 2024). This action represents a symbolic call to collective action, encouraging other countries to advocate for international human rights norms.
ANALYSIS
Constructivist principles in International Relations theory are demonstrated by South Africa’s strategy of filing a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel under Article 5 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (2008) (Hunter, 2024). The filing of this complaint was an interesting development given that South Africa had only recently been liberated from the two-decade apartheid regime (Lawal, 2024). In this regard, South Africans have constructed a post-apartheid image of themselves that upholds justice, equality, and human rights, and this construction inevitably shapes how they view issues that are more or less linked to their history (Omi, 2024). For example, South Africa used its giant position to draw attention to Israel’s violent actions against the Palestinians, which it considered genocide, and to emphasize the prevalence of institutionalized violence such as that of apartheid. Such a stance has been expressed before by Nelson Mandela stating: “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinian people.” (Mandela, 1997).
Constructivism, which emphasizes that state actions are driven by social norms and identities rather than material interests, provides a strong foundation for examining this approach (Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K., 1998). South Africa’s ICJ submission goes beyond legal responsibilities, it is a deliberate effort to shape global views about human rights. By invoking the Genocide Convention and submitting extensive evidence, including statements from Israeli officials, South Africa aims to institutionalize norms against systemic violence, fostering collective accountability in the international system (DIRCO, 2023). The case not only aligns with South Africa’s treaty responsibilities, but it also attempts to change global attitudes, paving the way for other countries to follow suit (ICJ South Africa v. Israel: Human Rights Law Centre Statement, 2024)
The question, ‘Can Constructivism hold Israel accountable?’ creates an interesting argument. Although Constructivism does not explicitly include enforcement mechanisms, it does emphasize norms, identity, and speech as determinants of state and international community behavior. South Africa’s speech acts addressing the country’s legally binding linking of filing the ICJ with treaty responsibilities are yet another example of how rhetoric can draw international attention and change the character of state accountability (DIRCO, 2023). The endorsement of the UN Special Advisor on Genocide Prevention, the existence of other international institutions, and backing from human rights organizations all contribute to this normative pressure (Nderitu, 2024; (ICJ South Africa v. Israel: Human Rights Law Centre Statement, 2024). While Constructivism cannot guarantee quick legal consequences, it does stress the long-term influence of normative shifts, which may lead to more comprehensive accountability frameworks (John Gerard Ruggie, 2002).
Actions on the international legal stage demonstrate that South Africa embraces constructivist principles. South Africa’s purpose at the ICJ reflects its post-apartheid legacy and also carries a moral obligation to redress global injustice, committing itself specifically to the liberation of the Palestinian people. This stance is an insistence on overall collective benefit, both in terms of human rights and justice. At the same time, it demands an end to oppressive international structures. South Africa shows how constructivism integrates historical experience into theory by framing the ICJ case as a moral and legal issue. However, constructivism also has limitations. Incidents involving powerful states cannot be easily brought to court. Yet the future of this normative strategy may lie in its ability to introduce subtle but imperative changes to the international liability system (Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J., 2010). In the long run, this strategy can prolong and reform constructivism’s presence in world politics.
The way South Africa realized its legal action against Israel is indicative of the intersection between the country’s domestic identity and foreign policy. In terms of post-apartheid values, South Africa managed to introduce a historical experience as a push for general world advocacy for justice. This strategy is in itself constructivist, as it shows how states can redefine existing patterns of authority without resorting to coercion, against norms in the international community. For example, South Africa’s partnerships with human rights institutions and interactions with international institutions increase its moral authority but also create normative pressure on Israel and its allies to reconsider their actions. For these reasons, constructivist rhetoric raises legitimate issues about the feasibility of these approaches in the real world. After all, these approaches can spark debate, and change long-term attitudes regarding human rights, but lack the advocacy power to generate compliance, especially from powerful states. As such, it points to a key problem in constructivist applications, the contrast between normative expectations and the realities of international power politics.
CONCLUSION
Thus, in the end, the case of South Africa, where the country finds itself addressing the question of justice for Palestine through the ICJ, would raise the question of the persistent relevance of constructivism in understanding the challenges in the scope of international relations. A case filed against Israel as a potential act of genocide falls back within South Africa’s actions as profoundly post-apartheid. This action characterizes what South Africa is all about in light of the ideologies of human rights, justice, and resistance to oppression. Such actions emphasize historical experiences as well as normative principles associated with its foreign policy, demonstrating how identity can shape advocacy for fair world trade.
Constructivism emphasizes the importance of norms, identity, and discourse in international action. This is strongly illustrated by the actions taken by the South African government in this instance. South Africa links the obligations flowing from the treaty with its legal obligations, relying on its moral authority to draw international attention to the systemic violence against Palestinians. However, this strategy has limitations because, on the one hand, it will play a role in norm-building and conversations about human rights. Moreover, it lacks an enforcement mechanism that could hold powerful states like Israel accountable in the near future.
In this sense, South Africa’s constructionist strategy has long-term potential in terms of changing the way the world views such collective action. With the collaboration of human rights bodies and multilateral institutions, South Africa is helping to slowly institutionalize norms against systemic violence and oppression. While this will not lead to quick legal results, it sets an example that other countries can follow and highlights the importance of normative advocacy in the field of international politics.
