Hungary recently announced that it would begin the process of withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This comes just hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is currently the subject of an ICC arrest warrant—arrived in Hungary for an official visit.
Hungary’s Decision to Exit the ICC
Gergely Gulyás, Chief of Staff to Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, confirmed the decision. He stated, “Hungary will withdraw from the ICC.” Gulyás added that the government would initiate the withdrawal process on Thursday. This process will be carried out in accordance with both constitutional and international legal frameworks. This move marks a significant shift in Hungary’s position regarding the ICC, which has been under increasing scrutiny in the country.
The Timing of the Announcement
The announcement came shortly after Netanyahu, who has been under an international arrest warrant since November due to allegations of war crimes in Gaza, was welcomed at Budapest airport early Thursday morning. Netanyahu’s visit was greeted by Hungary’s Defence Minister. This shows Hungary’s continued support for Israel’s Prime Minister. 
Legal Process and Timeline for Withdrawal
Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC will require the passage of a bill through the country’s parliament. Orbán’s Fidesz party holds a majority in the parliament, which means the bill will likely pass. However, this process could take up to a year, as it requires formal legislative procedures. Orbán’s move to withdraw from the ICC follows the ICC’s controversial arrest warrant. Hungary views the warrant as politically motivated, especially after the court’s actions following the October 2023 attack by Hamas fighters on southern Israel.
Hungary’s Dispute with the ICC
Hungary, which signed the ICC’s founding document in 1999 and ratified it in 2001, has been reluctant to enforce the court’s rulings. Under the court’s jurisdiction, Hungary would typically be obligated to detain and extradite anyone subject to an ICC arrest warrant. However, the Hungarian government argues that the law was never fully incorporated into Hungarian national law. Gulyás has stated that “it was never made part of Hungarian law,” meaning no ICC measures can be legally enforced within the country. As a result, Prime Minister Orbán has declared that Hungary would not respect the ICC’s ruling. He called it “brazen, cynical, and completely unacceptable.”
Hungary’s Growing Criticism of the ICC
Orbán has repeatedly criticized the ICC. He has even suggested that Hungary should reconsider its participation in international organizations like the ICC. This idea gained further weight after the U.S. sanctions were imposed on the court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan. In February, Orbán remarked, “It’s time for Hungary to review what we’re doing in an international organization that is under US sanctions.” These statements highlight Hungary’s growing distance from the ICC. It also emphasizes the country’s focus on international sovereignty and national interests.
Orbán’s Support for Netanyahu
Orbán has been a vocal supporter of Netanyahu for many years. Both leaders share nationalist and sovereigntist views. Hungary has often blocked EU statements and sanctions targeting Israel. This alignment shows the close relationship between Hungary and Netanyahu’s right-wing government. Orbán’s invitation to Netanyahu to visit Hungary came shortly after the ICC issued the arrest warrant. This further demonstrates the political solidarity between the two leaders. Orbán has long maintained that he and Netanyahu share similar political ideologies, especially when it comes to rejecting external interference in national sovereignty.
Netanyahu’s ICC Warrants and International Relations
Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary is his second trip abroad since the ICC issued warrants against him, his former defense chief, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri. In February, Netanyahu also traveled to the United States. The U.S., like Israel, is not a member of the ICC. The ICC had issued its arrest warrants after finding reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and his former defense chief were criminally responsible for actions such as murder, persecution, and using starvation as a weapon of war during the Gaza conflict.
Conclusion
Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the ICC is a powerful statement about the country’s national sovereignty and its alignment with Israel. As the legal process unfolds, the implications of this withdrawal will be felt both in Hungary and across the international community. It remains to be seen whether other countries will follow Hungary’s lead in reconsidering their relationship with the ICC. However, Hungary’s stance clearly reflects the growing divisions over the legitimacy and role of international institutions in the modern geopolitical landscape.
