Recently, Hungary announced its decision to exit from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This announcement comes just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu begins his visit to Budapest. The ICC has already issued warrants for Netanyahu, among other officials. This decision comes on the heels of the ICC’s forceful denunciation of Israeli war crimes perpetrated during military actions in Gaza. Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC reflects Hungary’s long-running conflict with the ICC. This international court has recently come under fire for its alleged political bias and accusations of antisemitism.
The ICC, based in The Hague, is the world’s only permanent court for prosecuting individuals for crimes against humanity. It specifically takes aim at grave crimes under international law, including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Most recently, in August the firm surpassed 30 active cases. Yet, it often runs into problems of acknowledgement and compliance with its decisions. Hungary is not a state party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Except that it signed the court’s founding document back in 1999, and ratified it in 2001.
Just last week, the ICC released warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Ibrahim al-Masri. They find themselves accused of war crimes related to the current offensive in Gaza. The judges ruled that there were clear grounds to suspect criminal liability of Netanyahu and Gallant. They are accused of extensive crimes, including murder, persecution, and employing starvation as a method of warfare.
Ignoring such grave allegations, Hungary has eagerly obstructed the ICC from pursuing any credible country actions against Israel. The country has repeatedly blocked the court from issuing declarations or penalties about Israeli military operations. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was unequivocal. He promised that under his government, the ICC’s ruling would not stand – or have any impact – in Hungary. This aligns with Orbán’s larger attack on the ICC’s legitimacy.
Orbán continued, “It is time for a country like Hungary to reconsider its role within an international organization which is subject to US sanctions. This seemingly innocuous statement conceals a surging undercurrent of fear among Hungarian officials that, on balance, the ICC is not in Hungary’s best interests.
Government spokesman, Gergely Gulyás, pointed out that Hungary never adopted it into its legislation. He seemed to suggest that Hungary considered its responsibilities to the ICC to be optional. This perspective has fueled discussions within Hungary about its role in international organizations, particularly those perceived as biased or politically motivated.
Withdrawing from the ICC has been legislative in nature. The implementation steps for Hungary require passing a bill through parliament and then formally notifying the United Nations Secretary-General. This process will take at least a year to be completed. Thus, although Hungary’s withdrawal has begun, it does not come into effect right away.
The ICC is right to be proud of its 124 member states. Among the impressive UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan and a plethora of African, Latin American and Asia-Pacific countries. The court remains committed to punishing those who commit heinous acts. It fills the gap when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to act.
Hungary’s withdrawal could further complicate the ICC’s efforts to pursue justice regarding allegations of war crimes in various global conflicts. Hungary- ICC tensions expose deeper geopolitical realities. Most importantly, they highlight how Western countries like the US and UK react to systemic and international legal frameworks.