Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced his government’s intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), claiming the body has become overly “politicized.” The declaration came during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s official visit to Budapest—his second foreign trip since the ICC issued an arrest warrant against him in November 2024. Standing alongside Netanyahu, Orbán described the ICC as an “otherwise very important court” that had been reduced to a “political forum.”

The Hungarian leader’s announcement triggered immediate political reverberations across Europe and the international community. Israel’s Netanyahu, who faces allegations of war crimes related to the Gaza conflict, applauded Hungary’s move, calling it “a bold and principled decision” and describing the ICC as a “corrupt organisation.” He added that democracies must collectively resist the court’s perceived overreach.

Netanyahu’s Visit and Political Significance

Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary underscores a long-standing alliance between the two nationalist leaders, who have consistently supported each other on the global stage. The trip also serves a dual purpose: strengthening bilateral ties and offering Netanyahu a rare opportunity to push back publicly against the ICC’s actions in a sympathetic environment.

The Israeli prime minister, accused by ICC judges of war crimes including “murder, persecution, and starvation as a weapon of war,” used the visit to assert that both Hungary and Israel are engaged in a shared fight “for the future of our Judeo-Christian civilisation.” Netanyahu’s comments reinforced ideological parallels between the two nations, both led by rightwing governments often at odds with international institutions.

• https://nltv.news.blog/2025/04/07/trump-claims-global-leaders-eager-for-u-s-deals-amid-intensifying-tariff-stance/
• https://nltv.news.blog/2025/04/07/iran-proposes-indirect-us-talks-issues-caution-to-neighbors-amid-rising-strike-threats/
• https://nltv.news.blog/2025/04/07/israel-revises-narrative-on-gaza-medic-deaths-following-leaked-video-of-fatal-strike/

Orbán extended the invitation to Netanyahu a day after the ICC issued its arrest warrant last November, making Hungary the first European country to so openly reject the court’s authority in support of Israel.

Legal and Political Process of Withdrawal

According to Orbán’s chief of staff, Gergely Gulyás, Hungary will begin the formal withdrawal process by submitting a bill to its parliament—controlled by Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party—followed by official notification to the UN Secretary-General. Once completed, Hungary’s withdrawal will become effective one year later.

This move could make Hungary the third country to leave the ICC, following Burundi and the Philippines. However, legal experts have warned that despite claims from Budapest that ICC laws are not legally binding within its borders, as a signatory of the Rome Statute, Hungary is still obliged to cooperate with the court until its withdrawal is complete.

Mixed Global Reactions

The response from international stakeholders was swift and divided. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar praised the Hungarian decision, accusing the ICC of abandoning its foundational principles in an effort to attack Israel’s right to self-defense.

Conversely, the ICC’s governing body expressed grave concern, warning that Hungary’s departure could “cloud our shared quest for justice and weaken the resolve to fight impunity.” The Dutch Foreign Minister, Caspar Veldkamp, stated Hungary must continue to fulfill its ICC obligations as long as it remains a member. Similarly, Human Rights Watch criticized Orbán’s move as “a setback for global human rights protection,” adding it showed how far Hungary was willing to go in undermining international legal norms.

EU Dilemma and Divisions

The announcement also deepens a growing rift within the European Union over how to respond to the ICC warrants. While countries like Spain, the Netherlands, and Finland have stated they would arrest Netanyahu if he entered their territory, others, including Germany and Poland, have shown reluctance, hinting they might allow him to visit without facing detention. France has argued that Netanyahu should enjoy immunity, citing the fact that Israel is not a member of the ICC.

Hungary’s resistance to enforce the warrant puts the country in stark contrast with most EU nations, all of which are ICC members. It also places the bloc in a difficult diplomatic position as it tries to balance internal unity with respect for international law.

Strategic Gains and Political Optics

For Netanyahu, the visit was more than symbolic—it was a strategic display of defiance and resilience in the face of growing international scrutiny. Facing intense pressure over Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza and domestic scandals at home, Netanyahu used the trip to assert his continued relevance on the global stage.

For Orbán, it was another opportunity to challenge liberal internationalism and highlight Hungary’s sovereignty-first foreign policy. By aligning himself with a high-profile leader like Netanyahu and rejecting ICC authority, Orbán reinforced his image as a contrarian figure willing to defy European consensus.

ICC’s Role and Challenges

Established in 2002 and headquartered in The Hague, the ICC is the world’s only permanent court tasked with prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The court has launched over 30 investigations and issued multiple arrest warrants, but its effectiveness is often questioned due to its reliance on member states to enforce its rulings.

Israel, like the United States, Russia, and China, is not a member of the ICC. The court’s decision to pursue charges against Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, along with top Hamas leaders, sparked outrage among Israeli officials, who described the move as politically motivated and antisemitic.

The Road Ahead

Hungary’s attempt to withdraw from the ICC signals a broader challenge to the authority and credibility of international legal institutions. It also marks a turning point in the court’s history, as one of its founding European members prepares to walk away in protest.

The coming months will test whether other nations follow Hungary’s lead or rally to support the court. For now, Orbán and Netanyahu have made clear where they stand—united in opposition to what they view as an unjust and politically weaponized system of international justice.

Their message is unmistakable: sovereignty and political loyalty trump international legal norms. Whether that message resonates beyond their respective domestic audiences remains to be seen.