In April, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Budapest for talks about the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants regarding the devastating Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A month later, Hungary officially notified the United Nations Secretary-General about its withdrawal from the ICC, with Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán asserting that the ICC has become a “political court”.
Hungary’s withdrawal comes only a few months after U.S President Trump accused the ICC of engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and its close ally Israel” and signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the ICC.
While many members of the European Union (EU) have expressed strong condemnations and concerns regarding Hungary’s withdrawal and consequently, its alignment with fundamental EU values, the departure has only further exacerbated the ICC’s ongoing challenges with authority and enforcement under state jurisdiction.
ICC’s Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Netanyahu
On Nov. 21, 2024, the ICC’s Pre-trial Chamber I issued warrants of arrest for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Former Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, alleging crimes against humanity and war crimes in the State of Palestine between October 2023 to May 2024. Following the decision, Israel rejected the accusations and described the warrants as politically motivated, as reported by The Guardian. In support, Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, took to X (formerly twitter) claim that the ICC’s arrest warrant was “brazen, cynical and completely unacceptable.” In a show of disapproval, Orbán invited Netanyahu to visit Hungary, guaranteeing his security and freedom.
Despite ratifying the Rome Statute - the text that outlines the ICC’s structure and areas of jurisdiction - in 2001, Hungary’s dismissal and disobedience of the court’s ruling went directly against the treaty. More specifically, its invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to contradict Article 89 of the Rome Statute, “Surrender of persons to the Court”, which calls for signatories to comply with the court’s request for an arrest and surrender of an individual. Essentially, if Prime Minister Netanyahu were to set foot in Budapest, Hungary would be responsible for arresting and surrendering him to the court, in compliance with its ICC obligations.
As a result, Hungary also found itself in violation of Article 86 of the treaty, “General obligation to cooperate”, which writes out state parties’ obligation to cooperate fully with the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes.
In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, to impose sanctions on the ICC, accusing the court of having “abused its power”and issuing “baseless warrants” targeting Netanyahu and Gallant. The Hungarian Foreign Minister, Péter Szijjártó, in a Facebook post, said that Trump’s sanctions were “absolutely understandable”, as reported by Devdiscourse, while the ICC condemned its sanctions, and accused the United States of seeking to “harm its independent and impartial judicial work.” In a similar response, a joint statement in support of the ICC was issued, referencing the court’s responsibility in “ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes, and justice for victims”. Nearly all EU member states were signatories to the statement, with the exceptions of the Czech Republic, Italy and Hungary. Its support for the order exemplified Hungary’s continued backing of Netanyahu and refusal to comply and cooperate with the ICC.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s April Visit to Hungary
On April 3, 2025 Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in Budapest, officially commencing his four-day visit, sending a clear message about Hungary’s political stance. With there being an arrest warrant issued for Netanyahu, Hungary authorities were supposed to arrest and surrender him to the court, as per the Rome Statute, prompting heavy international pressure. Upon notification of his arrival, The Registry of the ICC submitted a request for the provisional arrest of Mr Netanyahu to the Hungarian authorities along with the invitation to consult with the court without delay, to which Hungarian authorities did not respond or request consultations too.
Just hours later, Orbán announced his intention to withdraw Hungary from the ICC, saying that “the otherwise very important court” had transformed into a “diminished political forum”, as reported by The Guardian. Netanyahu praised Hungary’s response and support saying that both governments were “fighting a similar battle for the future of our common [Judeo-Christian] civilization”, and hailing its act of “[walking] out of this corruption and this rottenness.”
Following Netanyahu’s visit, the Hungarian parliament approved a bill on May 20 starting the official withdrawal process from the ICC. The bill passed with 134 members voting in favor and 37 against, displaying lawmakers backing the government’s plan with a strong consensus. On June 2, 2025, Hungary formally notified the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, António Guterres that Hungary was withdrawing from the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC. The move makes Hungary the third country to withdraw from the Rome Statute, and the only EU member not party to the Rome Statute.
As per Article 127 of the Rome Statute, the controversial withdrawal only comes into effect one year after notifying the secretary general, meaning it will officially take place on June 2, 2026; until then Hungary is still bound to follow the Rome Statute prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.
International Pushback & Diplomatic Strains
The announcement of Hungary’s withdrawal sparked disapproving responses and pointed reactions from around the globe, placing enormous pressure on the Hungarian government. Among many critics, Liz Evenson, International justice director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) expressed her frustration, saying “after refusing to arrest Netanyahu, an ICC fugitive, when he visited the country, Hungary is now doubling down on impunity by leaving the court altogether.” She went on to suggest that “The European Union and ICC members should press Hungary to reconsider this decision given the court’s critical work across the globe.”
Similarly, the EU has long expressed its support and legal commitment to upholding the values of the Rome Statute. In response to Hungary’s decision, many member states have expressed their disappointment including Denmark, Belgium, Finland among others. For new member nations to join the EU, they must adhere to and ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC; therefore, Hungary’s withdrawal and defiance-Human Rights Watch says-contradicts common EU objectives and values. Furthermore, with there being previous concerns raised by the EU, such as Hungary’s need “to strengthen rule of law and its budgetary implications”, its withdrawal amplifies Hungary’s current tensions with the EU.
Finland - the current President of the Assembly of States for the ICC - expressed its regret and concern over Hungary’s decision, and reiterated its obligation to adhere to the Rome Statute until the withdrawal takes effect in 2026. However, Prime Minister Orbán has made it clear that “he will not respect the court’s Israel ruling”, arguing that ICC measures cannot legally be carried out in Hungary, although Hungarian legal experts and international lawyers have expressed their concern, citing the court’s commitment to eradicating impunity.
Wider Implications and The Road Ahead
Hungary’s open refusal to abide as per the court’s regulations and the Rome Statute highlights the importance of cooperation between states in order to truly uphold international justice. Despite the ICC’s Pre-trial Chamber I officially finding that “Hungary failed to comply with its international obligations under the Statute” on July 24, it still raises the question of the enforcement capability of the ICC and its dependence on member nations, seeing as it does not have its own police force.
As Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament said “Hungary’s exit from the ICC should serve as a wake-up call – not just for the EU, but for the entire international community.” Yet if one of the founding members of the ICC and its Rome Statute can so openly defy the court without immediate consequence, how long before other nations follow when it suits their political interests?