South Africa is a remarkable country known for its natural beauty, attracting many expats seeking an outdoor and relaxed lifestyle. In fact, in 2007, South Africa was voted the 5th most beautiful country in the world!
Cape Town, South Africa
Not only that, the weather is delightful most of the year, expats coming here can go for a hike in the morning, enjoy a wine tasting tour in the afternoon, and finish their day watching the sunset on the beach!
Relocating to South Africa: Key Considerations
Visa Requirements
Obtaining a visa to South Africa can be tricky. For example, the tourist visa for which most nationals must apply in advance allows you to travel to a South African port of entry where an immigration official will then determine if you are allowed to enter South Africa and for how long you can stay for that particular visit.
Visitors are restricted to the activity or purpose for which their visas were issued. The most common type of visa foreigners apply to when considering employment in South Africa is the General Work Visa. This permit allows you to work in South Africa for an extended period, and you will gain a temporary residency visa.
Read also: Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority
To apply for this visa, you must already have an employment offer and your employer has to prove that no suitable local candidate could be found even though the position was advertised. This will serve to prove to the department of home affairs that the position cannot be filled by available local talent.
Healthcare System
South Africa’s private healthcare is comparable with the best facilities found in Europe and the United States. The hospitals, staff, and medical care are given the best standards, something many expats are used to back in their home countries.
If you are planning to move to South Africa from the US, this plan is one you should check out.
Job Market
South Africa has a high unemployment rate, measured at 28.18% in 2019. Therefore, it can be hard to find a job in South Africa as an expat unless you have specific skills and qualifications needed in the country.
As mentioned above, the best way to find a job in South Africa is to do it before you arrive in the country.
Read also: Discover Thula Thula
Cost of Living
South Africa is considered a relatively cheap place to live, especially if compared to other Western countries. The cost of living in South Africa is, on average, 38% lower than in the United States. Eating out and alcohol is also considered cheap.
Compared to other countries, South Africa has a low cost of living.
Popular Expat Locations
The most popular city in South Africa for expats is Cape Town. Two of the most popular areas where expats live in Cape Town are Gardens and Vredehoek.
Some people prefer to live in the villa’s neighborhoods, where each house has its own guard, high fence, and a swimming pool.
Banking
Opening a bank account in South Africa as an expat is relatively easy. Non-resident bank accounts can be set up for expats on tourist visas.
Read also: Unveiling Agulhas National Park
Language and Culture
Another reason why moving to South Africa might be on your radar is that the English language is widely spoken in this country, even though there are eleven official languages spoken there, ten of them being indigenous to South Africa.
To many, South Africa is associated with Apartheid - “apartness” in the language of Afrikaans, which was a system of legislation that upheld segregationist policies against non-white citizens of South Africa. Some years later, in 2018, South Africa was named the third most inclusive country in the world, behind only Canada and the United States.
The culture and traditions of South Africa are very varied as it is a combination of different African tribes, however, people, in general, are very warm, creative, and tolerant towards others.
Expats moving to South Africa can experience a typical big-city life vibe if they move to Cape Town or Johannesburg. There are areas filled with cafes, restaurants, bars, and you can shop for your groceries in big chain supermarkets such as Woolworths, buy clothes in Zara and H&M, or other more luxurious boutiques.
South Africa Travel Guide - The Best in Two Weeks
South Africa and the International Court of Justice
On 29 December 2023, South Africa instigated proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel's conduct in the Gaza Strip violated their obligations under the Genocide Convention. South Africa requested the Court to issue preliminary measures and framed its case for the commission of acts of genocide within the broader context of Israel’s conduct towards Palestinians during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza.
Israel’s foreign ministry responded by calling the proceedings baseless a blood libel and accused South Africa of functioning as the legal arm of Hamas. On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
The ICJ ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention, and to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The case continues to evolve - Germany offered to intervene on Israel’s behalf, and was subsequently condemned by Namibia.
Key Dates and Actions
- 29 December 2023: South Africa initiates proceedings against Israel at the ICJ.
- 26 January 2024: The ICJ issues provisional measures, ordering Israel to take steps to prevent genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian assistance.
- Ongoing: The case continues to evolve with international responses and further submissions.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The acts were: killing members of the protected group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the protected group.
Separately, hearings begin in February 2024 in regard to a U.N. The submission asserts that "acts and omissions by Israel ... are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent ... to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group". Genocidal actions alleged in the suit included the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of their homes, their expulsion and displacement, as well as the blockade on food, water and medical aid to the region. South Africa alleged that Israel had imposed measures preventing Palestinian births through the destruction of essential health services vital for the survival of pregnant women and their babies.
In an effort to establish genocidal intent behind the actions, a very difficult task, South Africa cited statements by Israeli leaders, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's invocations to "Remember what Amalek has done to you," referencing the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites in the Bible, President Isaac Herzog's statement "It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It's absolutely not true. ... and we will fight until we break their backbone," and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant's 'situation update' advising Israel is "imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed.
After the filing of the charges on 29 December, the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejected the allegations "with disgust", stating that Israel operates according to international law and focuses its military actions solely against Hamas, and that the residents of Gaza are not the enemy.
On legal grounds, the Israeli team argued that the court has no jurisdiction over this case, as no disputes exist between the country and South Africa. Israel further argued that South Africa had failed to show intent, a fundamental element of genocide, about the acts which are the subject of the complaint, in order for it to fall within the provisions of the Genocide Convention and therefore asserted that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the Gaza war.
In its initial ruling on 26 January 2024, the court accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention, and found it has prima facie jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Court did not specify which rights, and clarified that this was not a ruling on whether Israel was in breach of the convention.
According to Joan Donoghue, the President of the court during the initial hearing, this did not mean that the court had found that Israel was plausibly committing genocide; instead the test that it was considering was whether the "rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa" are plausible. The standard for a provisional finding of plausibility is low, and much lower than the standard for establishing a violation occurred, which would be determined at the conclusion of the case.
In response to the ruling, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "The charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it's outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it ... South Africa, a longstanding advocate for the Palestinian cause, praised the ruling.
In its response on 15 February, Israel described South Africa's claims of an "unprecedented military operation" in Rafah on 11 February to rescue two Israeli hostages, which Hamas claimed had killed dozens of Palestinians, as an "outrageous distortion," and asserted that Hamas was demonstrating "contempt for the law" by failing to comply with the ICJ's call for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages.
On 16 February, the Court rejected South Africa's request, stating that the provisional measures that it had issued in January were applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and did not demand the indication of additional provisional measures, while also stressing that Israel must respect those earlier measures.
On 6 March, South Africa filed a second request for additional measures, requesting the court to order additional emergency measures to require that Israel provide humanitarian assistance to address starvation and famine in Gaza. In its statement, South Africa argued, "The situation is urgent.
Before closing the hearing on 17 May, the ICJ requested Israel provide more information about humanitarian conditions in its declared "evacuation zones" in Gaza. On 24 May 2024, the court ordered a halt to Israel's Rafah offensive.
On 5 April 2024, the court set the schedule for comprehensive submissions of legal opinions by South Africa and Israel. The time limit for the South African memorial was set to be 28 October 2024, and for the Israeli response 28 July 2025. South Africa filed its memorial on 28 October 2024.
Hathaway note South Africa's invocation of erga omnes partes, a doctrine of legal standing which "allows a State party to a treaty protecting common legal rights to enforce those rights even if the State is not directly affected by the violation".
David Scheffer, who served as the first United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, criticized South Africa's case for what he called a "complete lack of recognition... that Israel is at war," and argued that any Palestinian civilian deaths are the result of a military action against an enemy which Israel has "a justifiable right to attack in self-defense," rather than genocidal intent.
An analysis, published in the Just Security forum, argues that the primary difference between South Africa and Israel position lies in competing narratives presented by both parties. The South African application followed a narrative of "...Israel commencing a massive attack on the Gaza Strip [after the events of October 7th], ...causing widespread destruction of an unprecedented nature, and severely impacting the entire population of Gaza".
South Africa's allegations at the ICJ, regarding Israel's actions, have drawn criticism from some publications and individuals. Following the alleged participation of UNRWA employees in the Hamas-led attack on Israel, several countries suspended funding for UNRWA.
On 28 January 2024, a conference on resettling Gaza was attended by 11 cabinet ministers and 15 coalition members of the Israeli Knesset.
In June 2024, a three-person United Nations-backed committee released a report on the war in Gaza that accused Palestinian armed groups and Israel of committing war crimes, including crimes against humanity.
Yuval Yoaz, an Israeli lawyer and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, described the core issue as "whether the qualification - 'which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part' - applies only to 'any other action', or also to 'military offensive'".
On 9 January 2024, Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Petra de Sutter stated she was encouraging her government to support the suit, stating, "Belgium cannot stand by and watch the immense human suffering in Gaza. We must act against the threat of genocide".
On 12 January 2024, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed support for the lawsuit.
On 14 January 2024, Spanish Minister of Social Rights Pablo Bustinduy stated that they were working on making the Spanish government support the suit, by stating "full support for the lawsuit that South Africa has filed against Israel to stop the genocide of the Palestinian people.
The Irish government initially announced it will not join South Africa's case against Israel.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki welcomed the ICJ's interim ruling, saying it "recognised the gravity of the situation on the ground".
Marco Sassoli, a professor of international law at the University of Geneva, said that not "everyone in the West is in favour of Israel and [not] everyone in the Global South is opposed to Israel," adding that "Both Western States and the Global South have double standards. Double standards are a poison for the credibility of international law."
Popular articles:
tags: #Africa
