Unilateral visa restrictions often fail because they target individuals rather than addressing the structural roots of historical wrongs. Instead, South Africa could look to international human rights courts to mediate these competing claims. By leveraging frameworks like the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the state can align its pursuit of reparative justice with established legal norms. This approach shifts the focus from exclusionary border policies toward institutional accountability.
International law provides a mechanism for balancing collective reparations with individual liberties. For example, regional tribunals can set precedents on how much a state may infringe upon movement rights to achieve social equity. This creates a predictable rule of law. Instead of arbitrary bans, the government would operate under a standard recognized by the global community.
Such a shift moves the debate from security-based arguments to rights-based obligations. It forces the government to justify its policies through legal necessity rather than political pressure. Ultimately, this method seeks to repair the past without discarding the constitutional protections that define a modern democracy. It turns a zero-sum conflict into a structured legal process.
