Hungary's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sparked a debate about international justice and accountability. But what does this mean for the arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin? Let's dive in.
On June 2, 2026, Hungary's withdrawal from the ICC will officially take effect, a year after the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán notified the United Nations of its decision.
Here's the crucial part: Until that date, Hungary is still bound by the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. This means Hungary is still obligated to arrest individuals subject to an ICC warrant if they enter its territory. This includes none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin, should he step foot in Hungary before June 2026.
- For context: The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023, alleging war crimes related to the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine since the war began. Russia has vehemently denied these allegations, calling them "outrageous."
Budapest, however, has accused the Hague-based court of being politically motivated. This move makes Hungary the first EU member state to leave the ICC since its founding in 2002. The Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties, which oversees the ICC, expressed its regret, stating that the decision "clouds our shared quest for justice and weakens efforts to fight impunity".
The ICC's enforcement capabilities have always been a challenge. For example, South Africa failed to detain Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir in 2015, despite an ICC warrant for war crimes and genocide. Mongolia and Hungary have also declined to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during visits, leading to formal findings of "non-cooperation" by ICC judges. But there were no further sanctions or penalties.
The court depends on its member states to carry out arrests, as it lacks its own enforcement mechanisms. Human rights observers point out that failing to act on ICC warrants, often citing diplomatic immunity or domestic political concerns, undermines the court's authority and emboldens those accused of serious international crimes.
But here's where it gets controversial... Hungary's move raises questions about the future of international justice. What do you think? Does Hungary's decision undermine the ICC's authority, or is it a valid critique of the court's perceived political biases? Share your thoughts in the comments!
