Hungary stays in ICC; Netanyahu warrants intact

Prime Minister Péter Magyar said on May 23 that Hungary was withdrawing its intention to leave the International Criminal Court, reversing a move taken under his predecessor Viktor Orbán. The decision keeps Hungary inside the Rome Statute system and leaves in place the court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants were issued on November 21, 2024 in the ICC’s Palestine case after judges rejected Israel’s jurisdictional challenges. Hungary’s change removes the prospect of an imminent formal break by one of Netanyahu’s closest European allies. ### What exactly did Hungary reverse? Government resolutions published in Hungary’s official gazette on May 23 revoked the country’s earlier termination of the Rome Statute and of the agreement on the ICC’s privileges and immunities, according to Hungarian state news agency MTI as reported by Diplomacy & Trade. Magyar separately wrote that his government was withdrawing Hungary’s intention to leave the court. (yahoo.com) April 2026 had been the key political backdrop. Human Rights Watch said Magyar, then prime minister-elect, had pledged at his first international press conference to reverse Hungary’s move to leave the ICC after campaigning on restoring rule of law and relations with the European Union. ### Why do Netanyahu and Gallant still matter in this decision? (dteurope.com) The International Criminal Court said on November 21, 2024 that Pre-Trial Chamber I had issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant after unanimously rejecting challenges filed by Israel under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute. The court said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two bore criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. (hrw.org) Because Hungary is remaining a state party, the legal framework requiring cooperation with the court is preserved. Human Rights Watch said ICC member countries are required to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territory. That legal obligation exists even though enforcement depends on national authorities. ### Didn’t Orbán already signal Hungary would not enforce the warrant? (icc-cpi.int) Viktor Orbán’s government had already shown it was willing to defy the court politically. Jurist reported earlier in May that Hungary moved to exit the ICC amid controversy over the Netanyahu warrant, while Human Rights Watch said Budapest should arrest Netanyahu if he visited. (hrw.org) Péter Magyar had taken the opposite public line before entering office. The reports surfaced in April and May that he said if Hungary remained an ICC member and a person wanted by the court entered its territory, that person “must be taken into custody.” ### Does Hungary’s decision change the warrants themselves? (jurist.org) The warrants do not depend on Hungary alone. The ICC case remains open regardless of Budapest’s domestic reversal, and the court’s November 2024 decision remains the operative judicial act. Hungary’s move matters because it avoids weakening the court through a formal withdrawal by a member state closely aligned with Netanyahu. That is an inference from Hungary’s state-party status and the court’s continuing case. (msn.com) The immediate practical effect is narrower. Any arrest would still depend on whether Netanyahu or Gallant travel to an ICC member willing to execute the warrants. Human Rights Watch said both men remain fugitives before the court. ### What comes next procedurally? The ICC’s Palestine docket continues from the November 21, 2024 warrants and related jurisdiction rulings. (icc-cpi.int) Hungary’s next concrete step is implementation of the May 23 government resolutions that revoked the withdrawal process. Netanyahu and Gallant remain listed in the court’s case arising from the Gaza war, and any future travel to ICC member states will keep the enforcement question alive. (hrw.org)