Hungary’s exit from the International Criminal Court: A sign of the times

New Delhi: Hungary’s decision to disregard an international arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marks a significant shift in international relations.
This move comes after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán hosted Netanyahu despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for him over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
As a signatory to the Rome Statute, Hungary was obligated to arrest individuals with such warrants entering its territory. Instead, Orbán extended a warm welcome. Following Netanyahu’s visit, a senior Hungarian official confirmed plans to leave the ICC, making Hungary the first European country to announce such a decision.
Although it will take at least a year to formalize the departure, the announcement itself is a landmark moment.
Hungary’s defiance against international law reflects broader shifts occurring in global politics. In the 1990s and early 2000s, much of Western foreign policy focused on institutionalizing mechanisms to preserve the liberal international consensus that emerged after the Cold War.
The creation of the WTO and the ICC were prime examples of this effort. Both institutions were meant to enforce international rules, with the ICC specifically focused on prosecuting individuals for crimes like genocide.
Despite widespread support for such mechanisms, the idea of subjecting international relations to legal and judicial oversight has always faced criticism. Powerful nations, such as the US, Russia, and Israel, initially signed but later withdrew their support for the Rome Statute that established the ICC, while China and India never signed it at all.
European countries, however, have been strong supporters of the ICC. They have drawn on their own historical experiences, particularly the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, to endorse international criminal justice.
When Hungary emerged from behind the Iron Curtain in the 1990s, it had no ideological reason to oppose the ICC. In fact, many Eastern European nations saw supporting the court as an opportunity to align with the EU and its values.
As a result, nearly all European countries ratified the Rome Statute, and none had previously left – until now. Hungary’s departure is no surprise, given the rise of authoritarianism under Orbán’s leadership. Hungary has increasingly aligned itself with authoritarian regimes, particularly Russia, China, and Serbia.
Orbán’s departure from EU values goes beyond rejecting international justice; it signals a deeper fracture with the liberal order. Globally, the environment for international law and institutions has grown less favorable. Countries once committed to these principles, including Russia, have become pariahs.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of the Rome Statute, and yet it continues to flout international law.
More significantly, the US, which played a key role in establishing international institutions, has turned its back on many of them. Under Donald Trump, the US undermined various international agreements, and under Joe Biden, the administration considered sanctions against the ICC for issuing warrants for Israeli officials, including Netanyahu.
These developments leave the EU and a handful of other countries increasingly isolated in supporting the ICC and the broader “rulesbased international order.” Hungary’s exit is another blow to the credibility of international legal frameworks.
Yet, it is unclear how committed other EU member states are to the ICC. In fact, Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, promised to find a way to allow Netanyahu to visit Germany despite the outstanding ICC arrest warrant. Hungary’s open defiance of international law has placed it alongside countries that openly flout legal obligations.
South Africa, for example, allowed Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, who was wanted for crimes against humanity, to attend a summit in 2015 despite a court order for his arrest.
At the time, many African and Muslim countries supported Bashir, opposing the ICC’s efforts to prosecute him. Today, however, South Africa is at the forefront of international campaigns against Israel’s actions in Palestine. Were Netanyahu to visit South Africa now, he would almost certainly be arrested.
This shift underscores the difficulty of maintaining effective international rules and enforcement. The ICC requires consistent and credible support from a broad coalition of states, yet such support is increasingly rare.
As Hungary and other countries like the US and Russia pull away from the ICC, the future of international justice looks increasingly uncertain.