In a recent development, Hungary has declared its intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), the sole ongoing global tribunal dedicated to prosecuting war crimes and genocide. This announcement closely followed the red-carpet reception of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Hungarian authorities, despite his outstanding arrest warrant from the ICC over alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza. Should Hungary fulfill its withdrawal promise, it will only be the third nation to resign from the institution in its over two-decade history. The withdrawal process involves a lengthy year-long procedure.
This gesture of solidarity by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who was instrumental in signing the Rome Statute roughly two decades ago during his initial term, signals a notable shift. The Rome Statute, enacted in 2002, was pivotal in establishing the ICC, aiming to try individuals accountable for extreme violations such as war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, especially when national jurisdictions are unable or refuse to act against such crimes. Hungary initially joined in 1999 and ratified the agreement by the end of 2001.
In recent developments, Ukraine formally became the ICC’s newest member state in January, expanding the number of participants to 125. However, notable global powers, including the United States, Russia, China, and Israel, remain outside the court’s membership. Despite having issued 60 arrest warrants and securing 11 convictions, including the high-profile arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte last month, the ICC remains a subject of contention. Duterte was charged for his role in overseeing a fatal anti-drug campaign during his presidency.
The procedural route to withdraw from the ICC, as outlined by the Rome Statute, necessitates the notifying of the UN Secretary-General, after which the exit is officially effective one year later. Despite announcing its decision, Hungary remains obliged under the treaty to cooperate with ongoing investigations that existed prior to their withdrawal announcement. As emphasized by Prof. Göran Sluiter of international criminal law, Hungary is still legally bound to detain Netanyahu if circumstances allow.
This move by Hungary places it in a minority group, alongside Burundi in 2017 and the Philippines in 2019 under Duterte’s leadership, as nations that have opted to exit the ICC. Should Hungary proceed as planned, it would be unique amongst EU nations for not holding ICC membership.
The ICC’s warrant for Netanyahu, which also targets his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif, links them to accusations of employing starvation as combat tactics and civil target attacks during the 13-month conflict in Gaza. Israeli authorities have firmly rejected these allegations. The warrant against Netanyahu is particularly significant as it marks the first instance of a sitting leader from a key Western ally facing war crimes and crimes against humanity charges.
Hungary’s stark defiance of the ICC warrant has drawn criticism, with the ICC reiterating Hungary’s duty to cooperate. Human rights organizations have similarly disapproved of Hungary’s actions. Human Rights Watch’s international justice director, Liz Evenson, stresses the importance of EU nations compelling Hungary to fulfill its legal obligations regarding Netanyahu’s arrest. This situation mirrors a prior instance where Mongolia faced criticism for not arresting Russian President Vladimir Putin during an official visit, a lapse referred to the Assembly of States Parties by the ICC.