On Thursday, April 3rd, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced during a press conference that his government has begun the process to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The announcement coincided with a visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, following an invitation extended in November 2024 by the Hungarian government—shortly after the ICC issued an international arrest warrant against him.
ICC's Actions and Reputation
Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary marks a significant milestone, as it is his first trip to a European country since the arrest warrant was issued. Hungary, however, has consistently voiced strong support for Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023. In recent months, the Hungarian government has gone further, openly accusing the ICC of antisemitism and even labeling it “the enemy of humanity.”
Under the Rome Statute, the 123 member states that have ratified the treaty are legally obligated to arrest any political figure subject to an international warrant who enters their territory. Hungary’s decision to reject this obligation, however, is far from unique. For years, the ICC has faced growing skepticism from governments around the world and has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative legal body it aspires to be. Many leaders criticize the Court as weak and biased, arguing that it undermines national sovereignty and applies international justice unevenly, treating similar cases in drastically different ways depending on the political context.
This critique is especially prominent among African nations. Concerns about the Court’s fairness and impartiality have fueled disillusionment across the continent. A notable example came in 2016, when South Africa announced its intention to withdraw from the ICC after welcoming Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir despite the arrest warrant against him. That move sparked a broader call from the African Union for a collective withdrawal of member states and for reforms to the ICC through the United Nations Security Council.
What's to come?
Following South Africa’s lead, both Burundi and Gambia declared their intentions to exit the Court. However, as of today, only Burundi has completed the full withdrawal process, officially cutting ties with the ICC in 2017. Other nations continue to voice their dissatisfaction, using the threat of withdrawal as leverage to demand institutional reform and a more balanced approach to international justice.
Despite ongoing criticism, the ICC remains a key pillar of the international legal system and a symbol of the global commitment to accountability. However, the ongoing war in Gaza has once again highlighted the Court’s limited ability to enforce its rulings, exposing the gap between international legal principles and political realities. In practice, many leaders continue to act with impunity, often violating international law without facing meaningful consequences.