EXPLAINER: Don’t hold your breath

South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), filed in January 2024 on allegations of genocide in Gaza, has entered a critical phase. However, the legal reality facing European investors and businesses operating across the African continent is stark: this case could take years—potentially a decade or more—to reach a final judgment, with limited immediate consequences for market stability or bilateral trade relationships.

**Understanding the ICJ's Glacial Pace**

The International Court of Justice operates under a fundamentally different timeline than national courts or commercial arbitration. The South Africa case follows a predictable but lengthy procedural sequence: written pleadings, oral arguments, deliberations, and judgment. Even in urgent cases, the ICJ typically requires 2-4 years to deliver preliminary rulings. Final merits judgments routinely extend beyond 5 years. South Africa's case, given its complexity and geopolitical sensitivity, will likely occupy the Court's docket well into the 2030s. This temporal reality is crucial for investors: any business decisions based on speculation about the ICJ's eventual ruling would be imprudent.

**The Structural Problem with International Law Enforcement**

A deeper issue confronting European investors is the enforcement mechanism—or more accurately, the absence of one. Even if the ICJ rules in South Africa's favour, the decision is non-binding in practical terms. The UN Security Council would theoretically enforce any reparations order, but permanent members (including the United States, Russia, and China) wield veto power. Israel would face no enforceable legal consequences without Security Council action, which Washington would almost certainly block. This structural weakness explains why the ICJ remains a forum for legal principle-setting rather than real-world enforcement. European investors should understand: this case is about international law's moral authority, not economic leverage.

**Market Implications for European Players**

For European entrepreneurs operating in South Africa or across Africa more broadly, the ICJ case presents minimal direct market risk. South African equities have already absorbed the geopolitical volatility surrounding the Gaza conflict. The rand's weakness reflects inflation and fiscal concerns, not judicial proceedings. More relevant to investors are downstream effects: potential economic sanctions against Israel (whether unilateral or coordinated by the AU) could disrupt supply chains in technology, agriculture, and defense sectors. However, such sanctions are political decisions, not legal outcomes from The Hague.

The case does highlight South Africa's increasing assertiveness in international forums—a statement of soft power rather than economic capacity. This positioning may influence trade negotiations, investment frameworks, and development partnerships across Africa, where South Africa plays a convening role. European investors should monitor these political currents, not the ICJ's courtroom dynamics.

**A Waiting Game**

The practical advice for European business leaders is straightforward: South Africa's genocide case against Israel is legally significant but economically inconsequential in the medium term. Legal battles at the ICJ are endurance tests, not catalysts for immediate market movement. Investors should focus on fundamental African market drivers—regulatory stability, currency fluctuations, commodity prices, and infrastructure development—rather than speculating about judicial verdicts that may remain hypothetical for years.

---

#