In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From April 3 to 6, 2025, he visited Hungary at the invitation of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a man whose relationship with the rule of law often draws international criticism. This meeting raised more than just eyebrows — it illuminated a deeper issue concerning Hungary’s disregard for its commitments to international law and justice.

The situation is not just about diplomatic exchanges between two political leaders but about the very functioning of international justice mechanisms. Hungary’s actions stand in direct violation of the principles laid out by the ICC, of which it is a member. The Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998, obliges its member states to fully cooperate with the court, including the execution of arrest warrants. On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet Hungary not only welcomed the Israeli leader with open arms but also made it clear that it would not arrest him despite the mandate from the ICC.

Shifting attitudes toward the ICC in Europe

This marks a troubling development. It is the first time in the history of the ICC that an individual indicted for such serious crimes has been able to travel freely within a European country without facing the legal consequences outlined by the court. This issue echoes an earlier incident when former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir traveled freely through Africa despite an arrest warrant issued against him by the ICC in 2010. But this is a new precedent for a EU member state, which undermines the credibility of international legal frameworks that are meant to transcend political alliances.

Interestingly, some European leaders, like German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz and Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, have shown an unsettling degree of sympathy with Hungary’s position. They have suggested that Netanyahu would likely not face arrest even if he traveled through their countries. Such statements reflect a broader trend within Europe — an unwillingness to challenge Israel’s actions on the international stage. The reluctance of these leaders to adhere to their legal obligations under the Rome Statute exposes a significant gap in the enforcement of international justice, particularly when it comes to powerful and politically influential states.

Hungary distances itself from the ICC

The ICC was established in the wake of the UN tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and its founding principle was clear:No one is above the law. Carla Del Ponte, the prosecutor of these tribunals, famously declared at the start of the trial of Slobodan Milošević, the former Serbian president, “Nobody is above the law, or beyond the reach of international justice.” These words, once emblematic of the ideals of the international justice system, now seem increasingly hollow in light of recent events. The fact that Hungary has openly defied its legal obligations while the international community looks on with little action underscores the erosion of this once universal ideal.

Hungary tried to legalize its welcoming of an indicted war criminal by starting the process to withdraw from the ICC. This is, however, no fix. Even though the Hungarian government has announced its desire to leave the court, it remains bound by the Rome Statute until the process of withdrawal is completed. This means that Hungary remains obligated to fulfill its responsibilities, including executing ICC warrants, until its departure from the court is finalized. This legal obligation, however, has not stopped the Hungarian government from hosting Netanyahu and openly flouting its commitments.

Yet, in a rare display of prudence, Netanyahu’s plane reportedly avoided Dutch, Irish and Icelandic airspace on its way to Washington after his visit to Hungary. Should an emergency landing have been required in any of these countries, it is likely that he would have been arrested, demonstrating that there are states in Europe committed to upholding international law despite Hungary’s defiance.

The future of international justice

The question now arises: Will other leaders who have been indicted by the ICC, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, enjoy the same impunity as Netanyahu? Putin, who is charged with child abduction in Ukraine, could find himself in a similar situation. Putin, however, would certainly not find the indulgence Netanyahu would probably in Germany. As the former EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell once said, European diplomacy “is the art of managing double standards.”

Israel and the US have been applying immense pressure on international legal bodies, including the ICC and the International Court of Justice, to shield Israel from accountability. Will they now push European nations into halting their financial contributions to the ICC, a body that is primarily funded by European countries with Germany leading the way? Critics decry the ICC budget as exorbitant. In reality, it is 4,300 times smaller than the US defense budget. When it comes to military spending, it is common to use a different scale. Doesn’t this show that the world — or at least the US — trusts the law of force more than the force of law? Both military spending and maintaining international tribunals are supposed to be investments in peace. A rebalancing toward more law and less force would bring the world away from further suffering and cataclysms that could threaten human survival.

Hungary’s hosting of Netanyahu is more than a diplomatic incident — it is a stark reminder of the challenges facing international justice today. It forces us to ask whether global justice systems can truly hold the powerful accountable or whether they will continue to bend under the weight of political interests. The international community’s failure to take decisive action in this case raises fundamental questions about the future of the ICC and the very notion of global justice in a world where power and influence often trample over legal commitments.

[Avery Ewing edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.