Hungary stays in ICC, preserving existing arrest warrants

Péter Magyar said on May 23 that Hungary was reversing its plan to leave the International Criminal Court, preserving the country’s obligations under the Rome Statute and keeping existing ICC arrest warrants legally active on its territory. Hungarian media reports and follow-up coverage said the move unwound Viktor Orban’s earlier plan to quit the court after Benjamin Netanyahu visited Budapest in April 2025 without being detained. The immediate legal effect is narrow but concrete: the warrants already issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant remain in force in Hungary. The broader political dispute over how, or whether, ICC member states enforce those warrants remains unresolved. ### Why does Hungary’s decision matter if the warrants already existed? The ICC said on November 21, 2024 that Pre-Trial Chamber I had issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant after rejecting Israel’s jurisdictional challenges in the Palestine case. Because Hungary is a state party to the Rome Statute unless and until a withdrawal takes effect, remaining inside the court system means those warrants continue to carry legal force there. (yahoo.com) Hungary became central to the dispute in April 2025, when Netanyahu visited Budapest after Orban had rejected the warrants and announced plans to leave the court. The Times of Israel, citing the court, later reported that the ICC asked Hungary to explain why it had not enforced the warrant during that visit. ### What exactly did Magyar say? (icc-cpi.int) Péter Magyar said on Friday that his government was withdrawing Hungary’s intention to leave the ICC, according to reports carried by Yahoo and The Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post said the decision came a month after Magyar had stated that if Hungary remained an ICC member and a person wanted by the court entered its territory, “that person must be taken into custody.” (timesofisrael.com) That language matters because Article 127 of the Rome Statute sets a delay before withdrawal takes effect. Earlier reporting on Hungary’s planned exit said the process would not have taken effect until June 2, 2026, meaning Hungary’s ICC obligations would have continued in the interim in any case. ### Does this make an arrest of Netanyahu in Hungary likely? Benjamin Netanyahu’s April 2025 visit showed the limits of the court’s enforcement power when a member state refuses to act. (yahoo.com) The ICC has no police force of its own and depends on member states to execute warrants, a gap that has repeatedly shaped the practical effect of its decisions. That means Hungary’s reversal preserves legal exposure for Netanyahu and Gallant on paper, but does not by itself guarantee detention if either man travels there. (jurist.org) The inference that enforcement remains political as well as legal is drawn from Hungary’s past non-compliance and the court’s subsequent request for an explanation. ### Are Smotrich and Ben-Gvir already under ICC warrants too? Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are not publicly subject to ICC arrest warrants based on the court’s own statements now available. Reports circulated in May 2026 that the court might be considering action against the two ministers, and Smotrich himself accused the ICC of pursuing such a step. The ICC, however, denied reports that it had already issued warrants for Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, according to Times of Israel coverage published on May 17. (timesofisrael.com) TRT World separately reported that scrutiny was widening toward the two ministers, framing that as part of a broader focus on settlement policy and conduct in the occupied territories rather than only wartime decisions in Gaza. (abc.net.au) ### What happens next for Hungary and the court? Hungary now remains subject to the ICC framework that governs cooperation with arrest warrants, according to Magyar’s May 23 statement reversing the withdrawal plan. Any future trip by Netanyahu or Gallant to Hungarian territory would again test whether Budapest enforces the court’s orders. The next concrete marker is not a new Hungarian filing but any public ICC action on Hungary’s past non-compliance or any future travel by the two Israeli officials. (timesofisrael.com) (yahoo.com)