Budapest, Hungary – The Hungarian government announced its decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday, citing the court as a “political tool.” Prime Minister Viktor Orban made the announcement during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing an ICC arrest warrant.

Orban expressed Hungary’s stance on leaving the ICC, stating that the court has diminished in significance by becoming a tool for political agendas. Netanyahu, in turn, commended Hungary for its bold decision and reiterated the importance of standing up against what he referred to as a corrupt organization.

The two leaders refrained from taking questions during the press conference, where Netanyahu’s visit marked his first time on European soil since the ICC issued the arrest warrant in May 2024. The ICC accused Netanyahu of war crimes, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare and other inhumane acts.

Despite being a signatory to the Rome Statute, Hungary has pledged to begin the withdrawal process in alignment with its legal obligations. The decision would make Hungary the only European Union country not part of the ICC, showing a split among EU members regarding the handling of arrest warrants issued by the court.

Hungary’s strong support for Israel has been evident, with many Hungarians displaying pro-Israel sentiments. The country’s withdrawal from the ICC has sparked further discussions about the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the court, especially concerning non-member states like Israel.

The ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants against top leaders of close allies of the United States has drawn criticism from past administrations, with President Donald Trump even taking measures against the court. The geopolitical implications of such actions have underscored the complexities of international law and justice.

As Hungary prepares to sever ties with the ICC, the global community continues to grapple with the implications of withdrawing from international legal frameworks and the broader implications for geopolitical relationships. The decision underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing national sovereignty with international accountability in an increasingly interconnected world.