Author: Vaishnavi Rai, University of Lucknow
Contents
To The Point
The International Criminal Court is a permanent global tribunal established to examine and, when appropriate, prosecute individuals accused of the most serious offenses that concern the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression.
Earlier this month, Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, announced that the nation would exit the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Hungary announced its intention to exit the International Criminal Court (ICC) soon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is subject to an ICC arrest warrant—came for a state visit. Prime Minister Viktor Orban had invited Netanyahu in November, stating the warrant would have “no effect” in Hungary. The ICC judges had found “reasonable grounds” to believe Netanyahu was criminally responsible for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Israel-Hamas conflict. Netanyahu has denounced the ICC as “antisemitic.”
Although Hungary is a founding ICC member, it will become the first EU nation to leave the court, though the move doesn’t affect ongoing cases. During a joint press conference, Orban referred to the ICC as a “political court” and condemned the warrant. Netanyahu praised Hungary’s “brave and principled” decision to withdraw, urging democracies to confront the court.
Netanyahu and Orban also discussed the decision with former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked Orban for his “clear and strong moral stance,” accusing the ICC of violating international law and undermining Israel’s right to self-defence. Hungary’s move reflects Orban’s pro-Israel foreign policy and scepticism toward global institutions seen as limiting national sovereignty.
Abstract
This piece examines Hungary’s choice to exit the International Criminal Court (ICC), marking it as the first European Union nation to do so. The announcement of the withdrawal came just after the ICC released an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over claimed war crimes and crimes against humanity amid the Israel-Hamas conflict. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán condemned the ICC’s decision as driven by politics and referred to the court as a “political entity.”
The article discusses the legal basis for Hungary’s withdrawal according to Article 127 of the Rome Statute, which allows member countries to exit the ICC by submitting a written notice.
Hungary’s decision is shaped by its close political partnership with Israel and its foreign policy inclination towards national sovereignty rather than international supervision. The section also compares Hungary’s actions with similar situations, including South Africa’s attempt to leave and the Philippines’ successful exit from the ICC.
The piece ends with an examination of the potential repercussions of Hungary’s choice, such as its impact on international law, the power of the ICC, and the prospects for global justice systems. The article provides a comprehensive comprehension of the legal proceedings, political motivations, and global consequences of Hungary’s exit.
Use of Legal Jargon
A member state may leave the ICC by providing writing notice to the UN Secretary-General, according to Article 127 (Withdrawal).
Jurisdiction ratione temporis: The idea that, even after a state withdraws, the ICC still has jurisdiction over crimes committed while it was a member.
Mass or organised attacks against civilians, including as killings, torture, and persecution, are considered crimes against humanity.
Serious violations of international humanitarian law during armed conflict, such as using prohibited weapons or attacking civilians, are known as war crimes. According to the sovereignty idea, a state has complete authority over its internal affairs free from outside intervention. Supranational jurisdiction is the legal power that an international court exercises over national boundaries and laws.
Hungary cites Article 127(1) of the Rome Statute, emphasizing its sovereign right to leave international frameworks it views as politically partial. However, as stated in Article 127(2), any cases initiated prior to the withdrawal will continue, and the Court retains authority over earlier proceedings.
The Proof
Hungary made its choice following the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants in early 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over purported war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Israel-Hamas conflict. Orban, an outspoken advocate for Israel and detractor of what he sees as globalist entities, denounced the court’s ruling, describing it as politically driven and devoid of moral validity.
After Netanyahu’s official visit to Hungary, Orban called the ICC a “political court,” aligning his administration’s foreign policy with Israel’s stance. This visit resulted in discussions at a high level with former U.S. President Donald Trump, highlighting a shared opposition to international judicial overreach. Orban has traditionally condemned organizations such as the European Union and United Nations, advocating for a nationalistic and sovereignty-focused stance on governance and international relations.
This political position is not completely original. Hungary has frequently contested international organizations, particularly the European Commission, and has often aligned with nations criticized for violating international law—like Russia and Israel. This strategic positioning reinforces Hungary’s reputation as a defender of national sovereignty amid growing globalization
Case Laws
Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir (ICC, 2009–2015)
The case of Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir involves the measures taken by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sudan’s leader Omar Al-Bashir, claiming his participation in genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur. The ICC in 2009, issued an arrest warrant for Al-Bashir over allegations crimes against humanity and war crimes. In 2010, another leave was released that encompasses allegations of genocide. Al-Bashir was allowed to be a collaborator rather being directly engaged in the crimes. The Sudanese government didn’t fete the ICC’s governance and clearances.
South Africa’s tried Withdrawal (2016)
In 2016, South Africa made moves to exit the International Criminal Court (ICC). The country’s view of the ICC’s “governance change” docket and a original political context shaped this decision after the government failed to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, an ICC wanted individual. The High Court later declared the pullout notice unconstitutional and void, directing its cancellation, yet the government continued to express its desire to depart.
Philippines v. ICC (2019)
The Philippines became a member of the ICC on 1 November 2011, but it issued a withdrawal notice in 2018 that was effective as of 17 March 2019. Nevertheless, the ICC maintained governance over supposed crimes that took place in the Philippines while it was a state party, from November 2011 to March 2019.
Conclusion
Hungary’s exit from the International Criminal Court (ICC) signifies an important change in the worldwide legal and political scene. While allowed by Composition 127 of the Rome Statute, this decision carries deeper political counter arguments. Hungary is the first nation in the European Union to exit the ICC, and its choice followed nearly after the Court released an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán explicitly condemned the ICC, labelling it a “political court” and claiming that the warrant was unfair and prejudiced.
This decision showcases Hungary’s overall foreign policy under Orbán, emphasizing public sovereignty, robust partnerships with nations such as Israel, and a cautious stance toward global institutions. While Hungary is legally permitted to exit the ICC, this decision has sparked significant worries regarding the erosion of international initiatives aimed at fostering justice and accountability for acts including genocide, war offenses, and crimes against humanity.
Even after withdrawal, Hungary is still obligated by the Rome Statute for offenses carried out prior to its exit becoming effective. The ICC will maintain jurisdiction over any investigations or proceedings that commenced while Hungary remained a member.
This choice also underscores a broader worldwide trend: certain nations are becoming more uneasy with international legal institutions they perceive as threatening their political interests or national sovereignty. Should additional countries replicate Hungary’s approach, the ICC’s legitimacy, authority, and effectiveness might face significant damage.
In summary, Hungary’s exit signifies a legal shift and conveys a political statement .It highlights the conflict between local autonomy and global responsibility. Although the ICC remains committed to global justice, its future could hinge on the collective resolve of its member states to uphold a rules-based international system, even when it becomes politically challenging.
FAQS
1. Is Hungary’s exit from the ICC lawful?
Yes, article 127 of the Rome Statute permits any member state to exit by delivering a written notice to the UN Secretary-General. The withdrawal takes effect one year after the notice is acknowledged.
2. Is it possible for the ICC to continue prosecuting offenses that occurred in Hungary prior to the withdrawal?
Indeed. Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute states that withdrawal does not influence any proceedings that were started prior to the date when the withdrawal becomes effective.
3. Has any EU nation ever pulled out from the ICC previously?
No, Hungary is the initial EU member country to make this move. Additional withdrawals (such as the Philippines and Burundi) included non-EU nations.
4. What prompted Hungary to leave the ICC?
The direct cause was the arrest warrant issued for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Hungary views the ICC’s actions as politically driven and inconsistent with its national interests and partnerships.
5. What effect does Hungary’s exit have on international law?
Although the legal basis for withdrawal is explicit, the wider consequences may include a diminishment of the ICC’s legitimacy and an increasing tendency of countries to dismiss international accountability systems.
