Hungary has become the first European country to announce plans to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) after deciding to ignore an international arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The decision comes after President Viktor Orban hosted Netanyahu despite the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for him over war crimes in Gaza.
As a member of the ICC, Hungary is obliged to arrest anyone for whom such a warrant has been issued if they enter its territory. Instead, Orban gave him a ceremonial welcome.
Following the visit, a senior government official confirmed Hungary’s intention to leave the Court. It will be some time before it is clear whether Hungary will actually carry out this threat, as withdrawal from the ICC requires at least a year after the formal written notification is submitted. Nevertheless, the announcement itself represents a significant political moment.
Hungary's open rejection of an important part of international law is further evidence of the profound tectonic changes taking place in international relations.
For much of the 1990s and early 2000s, Western foreign policy was focused on building institutional mechanisms to preserve the liberal international consensus that had emerged after the end of the Cold War. The establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Criminal Court were two of the most concrete manifestations of this effort.
Both institutions represent an attempt to introduce a legal and judicial framework into international politics. Unlike its ad hoc predecessors, the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the ICC is a permanent court of justice. Its mission is to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious crimes, such as genocide.
Even at the height of its popularity, the idea that international relations should be subject to clearer rules and judicial prosecution was met with considerable skepticism and opposition - especially among states whose interests and power could be most constrained by an effective international judicial system.
The United States, Russia, and Israel initially signed but never ratified the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, and later withdrew their signatures, while China and India never signed the treaty.
Within the European Union, Hungary has consistently acted as a kind of Trojan horse for the interests of authoritarian regimes, especially Russia, China and Serbia.
European countries in general (and EU members in particular) have always been among the strongest supporters of the ICC. The continent has a historical experience with perhaps the most significant experiment in international criminal justice, the Nuremberg trials for Nazi crimes. That legacy continues to strongly support Europe’s commitment to punishing those responsible for aggression and crimes through criminal justice.
Countries like Hungary, which were emerging from behind the Iron Curtain in the 1990s, were no exception. There was no ideological or practical reason to oppose the establishment of the ICC.
Moreover, states aspiring to membership in the European Union found it useful to support the court. Except for Belarus and Azerbaijan, every European country has ratified the Rome Statute, and none has abandoned it. Until now.
The rise of kleptocratic authoritarianism in Hungary means that its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) should not be particularly surprising. Within the European Union, Hungary has consistently acted as a kind of Trojan horse for the interests of authoritarian regimes, especially Russia, China and Serbia.
Its abandonment of the values and principles that should be at the very foundation of the European project goes far beyond the mere issue of support for international institutions and justice.
However, the broader international context is also becoming increasingly unfavourable to the idea of legal regulation and judicial conflict resolution. Countries that previously pretended to be committed to international law are increasingly becoming outlaws. The most striking example is, of course, Russia, which is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine, a crime under the Rome Statute.
More importantly, the United States is increasingly turning its back on international rules. Many of the institutions it helped establish are now systematically collapsing.
While Donald Trump may be doing the most damage, the US essentially disabled the WTO’s appeals court mechanism during the Barack Obama administration. Last year, the Joe Biden administration came close to imposing sanctions on the ICC for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu.
As a result, the European Union and a handful of other states are increasingly isolated in their support for the ICC and other elements of the so-called “rules-based order.” While Hungary’s withdrawal represents another blow to that order, it remains unclear how deeply committed other EU members really are to these principles.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has promised to find a way to allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Germany, despite a valid arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The open disregard for the obligation to arrest Netanyahu places Hungary among those states that proudly display their disregard for international law almost as a badge of honor. The experience of one such country is particularly instructive.
When Omar Al-Bashir, then-President of Sudan and accused of crimes against humanity, visited South Africa in June 2015, he was allowed to attend the summit and later leave the country, despite court orders for his arrest. Ten years later, South Africa is leading the international legal offensive against Israeli crimes in Palestine.
Netanyahu would almost certainly be arrested today in South Africa, as well as in a number of other African and Muslim countries that have in the past strongly protested against the arrest warrant for Al-Bashir.
Effective rules and their enforcement at the international level require consistent and credible support from a broad coalition of states, and the ICC appears increasingly devoid of both.
The text is taken from the portal "theconversation.com"
Translation: NB
Bonus video:
