The ICC Warrant and Hungary’s Obligations

On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, alleging commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip beginning October 8, 2023. As a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, Hungary was previously obligated to execute these warrants should Netanyahu enter its territory. However, Hungary announced its intention to withdraw from the ICC in April 2025, a decision formally notified to the United Nations on June 2, 2026, with withdrawal taking effect on that date.

Despite the impending withdrawal, legal experts argue Hungary retains obligations while still a member state. Alice Autin, an international justice researcher at Human Rights Watch, stated, “Despite its move to leave the ICC, Hungary is still a member country and is still obligated to arrest and surrender individuals wanted by the court.” This position is based on the principle of continued obligation during the withdrawal period.

A History of Non-Compliance and Escalating Tensions

This isn’t the first instance of Hungary failing to comply with ICC directives. Netanyahu visited Hungary in April 2025 without being arrested, prompting a rebuke from ICC judges who found Hungary in non-compliance. The finding was referred to the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC’s oversight body, but resulted in limited action during its December session. This lack of decisive response has fueled concerns about the ICC’s authority and the potential for impunity.

The situation is further complicated by the broader geopolitical context. As Israel and the United States engage in escalating military actions involving Iran and Lebanon, the risk of further violations of international humanitarian law increases. The Israeli military’s recent escalation of attacks in Lebanon, including mass evacuations, raises concerns about potential forced displacement – a war crime under international law. Human Rights Watch has extensively documented these concerns.

Orbán’s Domestic Policies and the Rule of Law

Hungary’s stance on the ICC is viewed by many as part of a broader pattern of eroding democratic norms under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Since assuming power in 2010, Orbán’s government has been accused of undermining judicial independence, suppressing independent media, and discriminating against vulnerable groups. Critics point to the frequent use of states of emergency to bypass parliamentary oversight as evidence of a slide towards authoritarianism.

The European Union has expressed concerns about Hungary’s rule of law record, initiating a procedure under Article 7 of the EU treaty in 2018. However, concrete action has been stalled by a lack of consensus among EU member states. The European Commission’s assessment of Hungary’s ICC withdrawal, initiated in May 2025, has also yielded no discernible progress.

Did You Know?

EU Response and International Implications

The lack of a strong response from the EU has drawn criticism. Many argue that the EU’s failure to hold Hungary accountable sends a dangerous signal, potentially emboldening other states to disregard international legal obligations. The U.S. State Department has consistently advocated for adherence to international law and the principles of the ICC.

EU leadership and member states are now facing mounting pressure to take decisive action. Calls are growing for the EU to urge Hungary to reverse its withdrawal from the ICC, publicly reaffirm its obligations, and cooperate with the court by arresting Netanyahu. Some advocate for considering Hungary’s withdrawal as a breach of fundamental EU values, potentially triggering further legal proceedings.

What message does Hungary’s potential inaction send to victims of alleged war crimes? And what responsibility does the international community bear in ensuring accountability for serious human rights violations?

Frequently Asked Questions