Hungary's decision to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) after officially receiving Benjamin Netanyahu cannot be understood solely as another foreign policy episode or as a one-off expression of support for Israel. This withdrawal—more than symbolic—represents a new chapter in the consolidation of an international illiberalism, a network of alliances that articulates complicity between authoritarian, deeply ideologized projects, which mutually reinforce each other in their contempt for international law, multilateral mechanisms, and, above all, human rights.
Viktor Orbán's reception of Netanyahu at the height of an ICC arrest warrant against him for war crimes in Gaza is not an isolated diplomatic act, but a calculated gesture of institutional disobedience. It is a challenge to the international legal architecture, but also a clear message to its political partners: the global far right not only justifies, but also protects and even legitimizes the most violent practices of power, as long as they are framed within a racialized and anti-pluralist security narrative.
Orbán, like other illiberal leaders, has understood the moment: in a Europe increasingly moving toward authoritarianism and a heavy hand, gestures like this are celebrated by political sectors seeking to weaken the international frameworks that limit state impunity. It is no coincidence that Hungary has avoided fully incorporating the obligations of the Rome Statute into the legal framework, leaving the door open to this type of tactical solution. Although his announcement coincides with renewed Israeli bombing of Gaza and the renewed support of figures such as Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.
The scene is even more disturbing when viewed as a whole: countries such as the Czech Republic, Romania, Argentina, and even France and Germany have adopted ambiguous or openly permissive positions toward the ICC mandate. The problem is not only Hungary: it is the growing erosion of a minimal consensus on the limits of state violence when it is exercised against racialized populations or considered security threats. The arrest warrant against Netanyahu is based on solid evidence of war crimes, such as the use of starvation as a weapon or the systematic killings of civilians in Gaza. Disobeying it is not a sign of realpolitik, but rather an active renunciation of the defense of international humanitarian law.
The far right does not need to hold power in every state to advance its agenda: it is enough to shape the framework for what is permissible. Netanyahu's visit, welcomed as a strategic ally by ultra-nationalist leaders, illustrates how a parallel legitimacy is articulated, a community of interests that scorns multilateralism, deactivates institutional controls, and reduces justice to a matter of ideological affinities.
Hungary's withdrawal from the ICC under these conditions should set off all the alarm bells. Not because its departure would have a devastating legal effect—the court has already suffered similar attacks from the US, Russia, and Israel—but because it signals the political retreat of the values the court represents: accountability, the protection of civilians, the universality of human rights.
In this sense, what's at stake is not only the credibility of the ICC, but the very role of international law as a check on the crimes of power. And the question that arises is clear: how many states are more willing to sacrifice international law in the name of ideological alliances that normalize violence and authoritarianism?
