Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant and Duty to Arrest

1. Introduction

The Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant raises a direct legal question: must States Parties to the Rome Statute arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters their territory while the warrant remains in force? The issue is not only political or diplomatic. It concerns the structure of the International Criminal Court, the duty of state cooperation, and the legal limits of immunity for senior officials accused of international crimes (International Criminal Court, 2024a).

On 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in the Situation in the State of Palestine. The Chamber stated that it found reasonable grounds to believe that both men bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and for crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts (International Criminal Court, 2024a). At this stage, the warrant is not a conviction. It is a judicial measure based on the article 58 threshold of reasonable grounds.

That distinction matters. A warrant does not prove guilt, but it does create legal consequences. Once the ICC issues a valid request for arrest and surrender, the Rome Statute cooperation regime becomes central. Article 86 requires States Parties to cooperate fully with the Court. Article 89 requires compliance with requests for arrest and surrender. Article 27 states that official capacity, including the position of head of government, does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility before the Court (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 27, 86 and 89).

The hard question is article 98(1). That provision prevents the Court from proceeding with a request that would require a requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law concerning state or diplomatic immunity of a third state, unless waiver is obtained (Rome Statute, 1998, art 98(1)). This is the strongest legal objection in Netanyahu’s case because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and Netanyahu is an incumbent head of government.

A serious analysis cannot stop at the phrase “no one is above the law.” That phrase captures the purpose of international criminal justice, but it does not resolve the technical legal conflict. The real issue is whether article 27 removes official-capacity immunity not only before the ICC itself, but also when national authorities of States Parties execute an ICC arrest request against the leader of a non-party state.

The ICC has already developed a strong pro-arrest line of reasoning. In the Al-Bashir litigation, the Court held that official capacity is no bar to arrest and surrender under the Rome Statute's cooperation regime (International Criminal Court, 2019). In the Mongolia/Putin non-compliance decision, the Court again held that a State Party failed to cooperate by failing to arrest a sitting head of state subject to an ICC warrant (International Criminal Court, 2024b). These authorities support the view that States Parties must arrest wanted persons despite their official position.

Netanyahu’s case, however, is not identical to Al-Bashir's. The Al-Bashir litigation involved Sudan and a Security Council referral. The Netanyahu warrant rests on the ICC’s jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine, particularly territorial jurisdiction connected with Palestine’s status within the Rome Statute system. This difference explains why the immunity debate remains legally serious, even though the ICC’s present case law favours the duty to arrest (Akande, 2004; Kreß, 2019; Schabas, 2020).

Jurisdiction is also central. Israel is not a State Party, but ICC jurisdiction does not depend only on the nationality of the accused. Under article 12(2)(a), the Court may exercise jurisdiction where alleged crimes occur on the territory of a State Party. The ICC has treated Palestine as a State Party for Rome Statute purposes and has accepted territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (International Criminal Court, 2021). That finding does not settle every question of Palestinian statehood under general international law, but it supplies the jurisdictional basis on which the Court has proceeded.

Israel has challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and procedure. Litigation after the warrants did not automatically cancel them. Public ICC materials and later reporting confirmed that the warrants remained active while jurisdictional questions continued to be litigated (International Criminal Court, 2025a; Reuters, 2025). This procedural point is essential because a pending challenge is not the same as legal suspension of the duty to cooperate.

The enforcement problem is practical as much as legal. The ICC has no police force. It depends on the states to execute arrest warrants. Hungary’s failure to arrest Netanyahu during his April 2025 visit illustrates the weakness of this system. The ICC later addressed Hungary’s conduct through non-compliance proceedings, showing that refusal to arrest may trigger institutional consequences but not physical enforcement by the Court itself (International Criminal Court, 2025b).

This article argues that, under the ICC’s current interpretation of the Rome Statute, States Parties have a duty to arrest and surrender Netanyahu if he enters their territory while the warrant remains valid. That conclusion follows mainly from articles 27, 86, and 89, reinforced by the Court’s recent cooperation jurisprudence. The strongest objection remains article 98(1), especially because the case concerns an incumbent leader of a non-party state.

The Netanyahu case exposes the central tension of modern international criminal justice. The Rome Statute seeks to prevent official positions from shielding alleged perpetrators of international crimes. General international law still recognises personal immunity for certain senior officials before foreign national courts. The duty to arrest sits at the point where those two bodies of law collide. For lawyers, students, and researchers, the key issue is not whether the warrant is controversial. The key issue is how the Rome Statute allocates legal authority between the ICC, States Parties, and the residual rules of immunity under general international law.

2. The Warrant and Its Legal Basis

2.1 Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant

The Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant is an article 58 measure. It is not a conviction, a finding of guilt, or a final determination that the alleged crimes were committed. It is a judicial order issued at an early stage of ICC proceedings, after the Pre-Trial Chamber concluded that the legal threshold for arrest had been met (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 58).

Article 58 requires the Chamber to be satisfied on two main points. First, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. Second, the arrest must appear necessary for one or more statutory purposes, including securing the person’s appearance, preventing obstruction of the investigation or proceedings, or preventing the continuation of the crime or a related crime (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 58(1)).

The phrase “reasonable grounds to believe” is important. It is a lower standard than the standard required for conviction. It does not require the Chamber to decide that the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires enough material to justify judicial intervention through arrest. The warrant stage is concerned with probable criminal responsibility and the need for arrest, not with final adjudication.

This distinction is essential for accuracy. Calling the warrant a “charge” in the ordinary criminal-law sense may mislead readers if it suggests that the case has already passed a trial-level evidentiary test. At the ICC, criminal proceedings move through several stages: investigation, warrant or summons, initial appearance, confirmation of charges, trial, and possible appeal. The Netanyahu warrant belongs to the pre-trial phase.

The warrant also serves a practical function. The ICC has no police force. Once the Chamber issues a warrant, enforcement depends on cooperation by states. The legal significance of the warrant is not only that it identifies alleged crimes and modes of liability. It also activates the Rome Statute’s cooperation regime, especially the rules on arrest and surrender by States Parties (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 86 and 89).

The article should present the warrant as both narrow and serious. It is narrow because it does not determine guilt. It is serious because it is a formal judicial act by an international criminal court, issued after a Chamber reviewed the Prosecutor’s application and supporting material. The correct legal position is not that Netanyahu has been convicted, but that the ICC has found enough grounds to seek his arrest and surrender for further proceedings.

2.2 Public Charges and Sealed Evidence

The public record identifies several alleged crimes. The ICC stated that the warrant concerns the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. The Chamber also referred to alleged responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population (International Criminal Court, 2024a).

These public descriptions are not the same as the full evidentiary record. ICC arrest warrant materials may include confidential filings, witness evidence, intelligence material, victim-related information, operational details, or other sensitive evidence. Some of that material may remain sealed to protect witnesses, preserve investigative integrity, or prevent interference with future proceedings (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 54 and 68).

The article must separate four categories of material. The first is the public ICC press summary, which identifies the general legal findings made by the Chamber. The second is the Prosecutor’s public statement, which explains the Prosecution’s theory and legal framing. The third is the report of the Panel of Experts, which supported the Prosecutor’s warrant applications. The fourth is the confidential evidentiary material submitted to the Chamber, which is not fully available to the public (International Criminal Court, 2024a; International Criminal Court, 2024b).

That separation matters because public legal commentary often overstates what is known. A reader may know the crimes named by the ICC, the procedural basis of the warrant, and the broad allegations made by the Prosecutor. A reader cannot know every evidentiary detail considered by the Chamber unless that material has been disclosed. A rigorous article should not pretend otherwise.

The public record is still legally meaningful. The Chamber’s announcement indicates that it found reasonable grounds for specific crimes and modes of liability. That gives the legal analysis a defined structure. The article can examine starvation, crimes against humanity, attacks on civilians, and superior responsibility. It should not speculate beyond the publicly available record.

The distinction between public allegations and sealed evidence also protects the presumption of innocence. The Rome Statute expressly recognises that an accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court according to the applicable law (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 66). That rule applies even in cases involving grave allegations, senior political leaders, and intense public controversy.

2.3 Starvation as a War Crime

Starvation as a war crime is not established merely because civilians experience hunger, deprivation, or humanitarian suffering during armed conflict. International humanitarian law recognises that war often produces severe civilian hardship, but it prohibits the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The legal focus is the use of deprivation as a means of conducting hostilities (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8; International Criminal Court, 2011).

The Rome Statute criminalises intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival. Those objects may include food, water, medicine, fuel, electricity, shelter-related supplies, sanitation materials, and items needed to sustain civilian life. The legal inquiry is not limited to food in a narrow sense. It concerns the broader conditions required for civilian survival (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8(2)(b)(xxv); ICRC, 2005).

International humanitarian law also protects humanitarian relief. Parties to an armed conflict must allow and facilitate relief operations when civilians are inadequately supplied, subject to lawful control arrangements. A party may inspect consignments, regulate routes, and impose security conditions. It may not use those controls as a disguised method of denying indispensable supplies to civilians (Geneva Convention IV, 1949, arts 23 and 59; Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts 54 and 70).

The legal assessment must address intent. Starvation as a war crime requires more than proof that civilians suffered hunger or that humanitarian assistance was insufficient. The prosecution must show that the deprivation was intentionally used as a method of warfare. Evidence may include public statements, policy decisions, restrictions on aid, control of crossings, destruction of food systems, obstruction of relief, and knowledge of the foreseeable civilian consequences. Each element must be proved through evidence, not assumed.

Military necessity does not provide a blank licence. International humanitarian law permits attacks on lawful military objectives and allows certain security measures during hostilities. Yet it does not permit a party to starve civilians as a method of warfare. The prohibition protects civilians even when the opposing force operates nearby or within a densely populated area. The hard factual question is how to distinguish lawful military control measures from unlawful deprivation directed at civilians.

Siege warfare illustrates the difficulty. A siege is not automatically unlawful. It may become unlawful if it is conducted in a way that targets civilians, denies indispensable supplies to the civilian population, or fails to comply with humanitarian relief obligations. The decisive legal issue is not the label “siege,” but the conduct: what was blocked, who was affected, what was intended, and what relief was allowed.

For the Netanyahu case, the article should explain the starvation allegation through legal elements rather than emotional description. The relevant questions are precise. Did the alleged conduct deprive civilians of objects indispensable to survival? Was the deprivation intentional? Was it used as a method of warfare? Were humanitarian relief obligations respected? Was there a link between the accused’s conduct and the alleged deprivation? Those questions define the legal analysis.

2.4 Crimes Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity are different from ordinary domestic crimes and also different from isolated war crimes. They require a contextual element. Under article 7 of the Rome Statute, the alleged acts must form part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7).

The term “attack” in this context does not mean only a military attack. Article 7 uses a broader concept. It refers to a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts against a civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organisational policy. This requirement prevents every serious crime committed during conflict from automatically becoming a crime against humanity (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7(2)(a)).

The words “widespread” and “systematic” perform different functions. “Widespread” usually points to the large-scale nature of the conduct, the number of victims, or the geographic and temporal scope. “Systematic” points to organised patterns, planning, repetition, policy, or coordinated conduct. The prosecution does not need to prove both if one is established, but the evidence must satisfy the contextual threshold (Bassiouni, 2011; Schabas, 2020).

In the Netanyahu warrant, the publicly identified crimes against humanity include murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts (International Criminal Court, 2024a). Murder requires unlawful killing with the required mental element. Persecution requires severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law, by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity targeted. Other inhumane acts cover serious conduct of comparable gravity that intentionally causes great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7(1)).

Persecution is especially demanding. It is not enough to show hardship or unequal treatment. The prosecution must connect the deprivation of rights to discriminatory grounds recognised by the Statute, such as national, ethnic, political, racial, religious, or other prohibited grounds. It must also show the required link to the wider attack against a civilian population (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7(1)(h)).

Other inhumane acts require careful handling because the category is broad. Its breadth does not make it limitless. The conduct must be of similar gravity to the other acts listed in article 7 and must cause serious suffering or serious injury. The article should avoid using this category as a catch-all for every form of civilian harm. It should explain the legal threshold and the need for comparability with listed crimes.

The contextual element is the centre of the analysis. If the alleged acts are examined only as individual incidents, the legal structure of crimes against humanity is lost. The article should ask whether the alleged conduct formed part of a wider course of conduct against civilians, whether that course of conduct was widespread or systematic, whether it reflected a state or organisational policy, and whether the accused knew of that broader attack.

2.5 Superior Responsibility

Superior responsibility is a mode of liability based on authority, knowledge, and failure to act. It does not require proof that the superior personally committed the physical acts. It may apply when crimes are committed by subordinates and the superior fails to prevent or repress them, despite having the necessary authority and knowledge (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 28).

Article 28 distinguishes military commanders from other superiors. For military commanders, the test focuses on effective command and control, or effective authority and control, over forces. For civilian superiors, the standard is framed differently. A civilian superior may incur responsibility where he or she had effective authority and control over subordinates, knew or consciously disregarded information clearly indicating that crimes were being committed or were about to be committed, and failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 28(b)).

The phrase “effective authority and control” is central. Formal title alone is not enough. A senior civilian official may hold high office but still not control the specific actors who committed the crimes. The prosecution must show a real capacity to prevent or punish the relevant conduct. That capacity may be proved through legal powers, operational influence, control over policy, control over resources, command channels, or the ability to direct subordinate institutions.

Knowledge is also essential. Article 28 does not impose strict liability. For civilian superiors, the prosecution must show that the superior knew or consciously disregarded information clearly indicating that subordinates were committing or about to commit crimes. The legal question is not only what the superior should have known in a general moral sense. It is what information was available, what it indicated, and how the superior responded.

Failure to act is the third element. A superior is not responsible merely because crimes occurred under his political leadership. The prosecution must identify necessary and reasonable measures that were within the superior’s power. Such measures may include changing orders, opening humanitarian access, disciplining subordinates, referring matters for investigation, stopping unlawful policies, or using authority to prevent repetition.

The causal link also matters. ICC law requires a connection between the superior’s failure and the crimes committed by subordinates. The article should not present superior responsibility as automatic responsibility for everything done by the state. It is a structured doctrine. It attaches liability where authority, knowledge, omission, and connection to crimes are established.

For Netanyahu, the civilian character of the alleged superior responsibility is especially important. The public warrant summary refers to responsibility as civilian superiors in relation to the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians (International Criminal Court, 2024a). The article should explain that this does not mean the Chamber has already found final responsibility. It means that, at the article 58 stage, the Chamber considered the statutory threshold satisfied for this alleged mode of liability.

This doctrine is legally significant because modern international crimes are often committed through institutions rather than by leaders acting personally on the battlefield. International criminal law addresses that reality by recognising forms of responsibility linked to ordering, aiding and abetting, contribution to group crimes, and superior responsibility. Superior responsibility is one of the tools used to assess the liability of senior civilian officials where alleged crimes are carried out through state or military structures.

3. ICC Jurisdiction in the Palestine Situation

3.1 Territorial Jurisdiction

The ICC’s jurisdiction over the Netanyahu case does not depend on Israel being a party to the Rome Statute. The Court proceeds through territorial jurisdiction. Under article 12(2)(a), the ICC may exercise jurisdiction when the alleged conduct occurred on the territory of a State Party, even if the accused is a national of a non-party state (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 12(2)(a)).

This jurisdictional route is central to the Palestine situation. Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, and the ICC has treated Palestine as a State Party for the purposes of the Statute. In 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I held that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (International Criminal Court, 2021).

That finding is the legal foundation for the investigation. The Court is not claiming jurisdiction because Netanyahu is Israeli. It is claiming jurisdiction because the alleged crimes are said to have occurred on territory covered by Palestine’s acceptance of the Rome Statute. The distinction matters because many objections to the warrant mistakenly frame the issue as if the ICC can act only against nationals of States Parties.

The Rome Statute was designed to allow jurisdiction through different gateways. Nationality is one gateway. Territoriality is another. Security Council referral is a third. In the Palestine situation, the relevant route is territorial jurisdiction, not Israeli consent. That is why Israel’s non-party status does not, by itself, end the legal inquiry.

The Palestine situation remains an active ICC investigation. The Netanyahu warrant should be read within that broader procedural context. It is not an isolated measure. It arises within a continuing investigation into alleged crimes committed in the territory covered by the Court’s Palestine jurisdiction (International Criminal Court, 2024a).

3.2 Non-Party Nationals

The Rome Statute permits the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states when the territorial state is a party to the Statute. This rule is not exceptional within treaty-based criminal jurisdiction. States routinely exercise territorial criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals who commit crimes on their territory. Article 12(2)(a) applies a similar territorial logic at the level of the ICC (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 12(2)(a)).

Aust explains the point clearly in relation to the ICC: the accused does not have to be a national of a State Party if the crime was committed on the territory of a State Party, or if the situation was referred by the Security Council (Aust, 2005). This is one of the basic jurisdictional consequences of the Rome Statute system.

The rule has practical importance. If ICC jurisdiction required both territorial state consent and nationality state consent, leaders and officials of non-party states would often remain beyond the Court’s reach even when alleged crimes occurred on the territory of a State Party. Article 12 avoids that result by allowing the territorial state’s acceptance of jurisdiction to activate the Court’s authority.

Israel’s objection is not that article 12 contains no territorial gateway. The stronger objection is that Palestine cannot validly supply territorial jurisdiction in the way the ICC has accepted. That objection shifts the debate away from the nationality of the accused and toward the legal status and territorial competence of Palestine within the Rome Statute framework.

For the Netanyahu warrant, the key point is simple. Israel’s non-party status does not automatically prevent ICC jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. The decisive issue is whether the alleged crimes fall within the territory covered by Palestine’s Rome Statute accession and the Court’s 2021 territorial jurisdiction decision.

3.3 The Palestine Statehood Objection

The Palestine statehood objection is one of the most contested parts of the jurisdiction debate. Critics argue that Palestine cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on the ICC because its statehood, borders, and effective control remain disputed under general international law. They also argue that the Oslo Accords limit Palestinian criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals and that Palestine cannot delegate to the ICC a jurisdiction it does not possess.

The ICC’s answer has been narrower than many public debates suggest. The Court did not claim to settle every question of Palestinian statehood for all purposes of international law. It treated the issue as one arising under the Rome Statute. The Chamber focused on Palestine’s accession to the Statute, its status within the Assembly of States Parties, and the legal consequences of that accession for article 12 jurisdiction (International Criminal Court, 2021).

This limited approach is important. The ICC’s position does not resolve final-status questions between Israel and Palestine. It does not determine borders for every branch of international law. It does not settle sovereignty over Jerusalem. It determines whether Palestine can be treated as a State Party capable of triggering the Court’s territorial jurisdiction under the Rome Statute.

That method has advantages and weaknesses. Its advantage is institutional coherence. Once Palestine was accepted as a State Party, the Court treated that status as legally meaningful within the Statute. Its weakness is that it leaves unresolved the deeper public international law debate about statehood, territorial title, and the effect of prior agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The article should avoid overstating either side. It would be inaccurate to say that the ICC has settled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the warrant. It would also be inaccurate to say that disputed statehood automatically defeats ICC jurisdiction. The Court has adopted a treaty-based jurisdictional solution. That solution remains controversial, but it is the operative basis of the Palestine situation.

3.4 Israel’s Jurisdictional Challenge

Israel has argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in the Palestine situation. Its challenge relies on several connected points: Israel is not a State Party, Palestine allegedly lacks full criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, and the Court should not proceed while these jurisdictional objections remain unresolved. Israel has also argued that the Prosecutor should have followed proper notification procedures before pursuing the warrants (International Criminal Court, 2024b).

Pre-Trial Chamber I initially rejected Israel’s jurisdictional challenge and its request for a new article 18 notice. The Chamber considered the jurisdictional challenge premature at that stage and allowed the warrant process to proceed. The warrants were issued on the same date as those procedural decisions (International Criminal Court, 2024a; International Criminal Court, 2024b).

The Appeals Chamber later found that the Pre-Trial Chamber had not adequately reasoned aspects of its decision on Israel’s article 19 challenge. It remanded the issue for further consideration. That remand gave Israel a procedural victory, but it did not automatically cancel the warrants. A remand for renewed reasoning is not the same as a finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction (International Criminal Court, 2025a).

Israel then sought withdrawal, vacatur, or suspension of the warrants. The ICC rejected that request in July 2025. The effect was that the warrants remained in force while jurisdictional litigation continued (International Criminal Court, 2025b).

This procedural sequence is legally important. A pending jurisdictional challenge does not always suspend ICC proceedings. Article 19(7) allows the Court to decide the effect of a jurisdictional or admissibility challenge on ongoing proceedings. The Court may suspend aspects of a case, but suspension is not automatic merely because a state contests jurisdiction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 19(7)).

For the duty to arrest, the consequence is direct. As long as the warrants remain valid and have not been withdrawn, States Parties face cooperation obligations if the Court transmits a request for arrest and surrender. A state may raise legal difficulties through the Statute’s procedures, but it cannot treat Israel’s pending challenge as if it had already invalidated the warrants.

3.5 Complementarity and Admissibility

Jurisdiction and admissibility are separate questions. Jurisdiction asks whether the ICC has legal authority over the situation, the territory, the person, and the alleged crimes. Admissibility asks whether the Court should exercise that authority in a particular case. A court may have jurisdiction, but a case may still be inadmissible (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 12, 17 and 19).

Complementarity is the core admissibility rule. The ICC is not meant to replace national criminal justice systems. It acts when relevant national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute the same case. Article 17 reflects that design by making a case inadmissible when it is being genuinely investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 17).

The phrase “the same case” matters. It is not enough for a state to point to general investigations into the armed conflict, military conduct, humanitarian policy, or individual incidents. The admissibility inquiry focuses on whether domestic proceedings cover substantially the same person and substantially the same conduct as the ICC case (International Criminal Court, 2009; Stahn, 2019).

Complementarity also requires genuineness. Domestic proceedings cannot defeat ICC admissibility if they are designed to shield the person from criminal responsibility, involve unjustified delay inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice, or are not conducted independently or impartially. The test is not whether a state has a sophisticated legal system in general. The test is whether the relevant proceedings are genuine for the specific case (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 17(2)).

This distinction is crucial in the Netanyahu case. Israel may argue that its own legal system can investigate alleged misconduct connected with the Gaza conflict. That argument concerns admissibility, not the basic existence of territorial jurisdiction. To defeat ICC proceedings, it would need to show genuine domestic action addressing substantially the same alleged conduct and responsibility.

A strong legal analysis keeps these issues apart. Jurisdiction concerns the Court’s legal power to act in the Palestine situation. Complementarity concerns whether a specific case should proceed before the ICC despite possible national proceedings. Blending the two creates confusion and weakens the analysis.

The better view is that complementarity remains a possible route for contesting the case, but it does not erase the territorial jurisdiction question. If genuine domestic investigations or prosecutions cover the same case, admissibility may become a serious issue. If domestic action is absent, too narrow, delayed, or directed only at lower-level conduct, the ICC may treat the case as admissible.

4. The Duty to Arrest

4.1 Article 86 Cooperation

Article 86 of the Rome Statute sets out the basic cooperation duty. It requires States Parties to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 86). The wording is broad. It does not frame cooperation as a political choice, diplomatic favour, or optional act of assistance. It is a treaty obligation accepted by states when they join the Rome Statute.

This duty matters because the ICC has no police force. The Court can issue warrants, transmit requests, and make legal findings, but it cannot itself enter a state’s territory to arrest a suspect. Arrest depends on national authorities: police, prosecutors, courts, ministries of justice, and foreign affairs departments. The ICC’s enforcement system is built on domestic execution of international requests.

That structure creates a central weakness in international criminal justice. The Court’s legal authority is international, but the physical act of arrest is national. A warrant has a practical effect only if a state is willing and legally prepared to execute it. For that reason, cooperation is not a secondary feature of the Rome Statute. It is the mechanism through which the Court’s judicial decisions become operational.

In the Netanyahu case, article 86 is the starting point for the duty to arrest. If a State Party receives a valid request connected with the arrest warrant, it cannot treat the matter as a purely political decision. It must approach the request as a binding cooperation obligation under the Statute. Political sensitivity may explain hesitation, but it does not remove the treaty duty.

The correct legal framing is important. A State Party is not being asked to endorse the Prosecutor’s entire theory or declare Netanyahu guilty. It is being asked to cooperate with a judicial process created by a treaty to which it has consented. The arrest would secure the person’s appearance before the Court. It would not itself determine criminal responsibility.

4.2 Article 89 Surrender

Article 89(1) is the operational rule for arrest and surrender. It provides that the Court may transmit a request for arrest and surrender to any state on whose territory the person may be found, and that States Parties must comply with such requests in accordance with the Statute and their national procedures (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 89(1)).

This provision connects the ICC warrant to domestic enforcement. Article 58 authorises the warrant. Article 89 turns that warrant into a request that a State Party must execute. The requested state applies its own procedures, but those procedures operate within the treaty framework. Domestic law may regulate how the arrest occurs; it may not be used to defeat the Statute’s cooperation purpose.

Aust explains the rule in direct terms: a party to the ICC Statute is required to arrest and surrender a person for whom a warrant has been issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber, subject to the Statute’s admissibility framework and procedural safeguards (Aust, 2005). That is the basic architecture of the Rome Statute system.

The word “surrender” is also important. ICC surrender is not identical to extradition. Extradition is usually a state-to-state process, often shaped by reciprocity, nationality rules, political offence exceptions, and bilateral treaties. Surrender under the Rome Statute is a treaty-based transfer of a person to an international criminal court. The requested state does not surrender the person to another state. It transfers the person to the ICC.

In the Netanyahu situation, the practical consequence is clear. If Netanyahu enters the territory of a State Party and the Court has transmitted a request for arrest and surrender, article 89 requires that state to act. The state may follow its domestic procedures, but it cannot transform those procedures into a disguised refusal.

This does not mean that every legal difficulty disappears. A requested state may raise issues under article 97. It may also invoke arguments about article 98 if it claims that compliance would conflict with obligations concerning immunity. Yet the starting point remains article 89: compliance is required unless the Statute itself provides a legally recognised route for addressing the difficulty.

4.3 Article 59 Domestic Proceedings

Article 59 governs proceedings in the custodial state after arrest. It requires the state that has arrested the person to bring him promptly before its competent judicial authority. That authority must determine whether the warrant applies to the person, whether the arrest was carried out through proper process, and whether the person’s rights were respected (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 59).

The domestic court does not conduct a full trial. It does not decide guilt. It does not reassess the entire evidentiary basis of the ICC warrant. It does not replace the Pre-Trial Chamber as the judicial body responsible for the Rome Statute case. Its function is limited and procedural.

This limited role is essential to the system. If every national court could reopen the merits of the ICC case before surrender, ICC proceedings could be blocked by lengthy domestic litigation in every requested state. Article 59 avoids that result. It gives the arrested person judicial protection while preserving the ICC’s authority over the international criminal case.

The domestic judge may check identity. This prevents the surrender of the wrong person. The judge may check whether the arrest followed proper national procedure. This protects legality under domestic law. The judge may also examine whether basic rights were respected. These safeguards matter because international criminal justice cannot depend on arbitrary detention.

At the same time, article 59 does not allow the custodial state to decide that the ICC lacks jurisdiction simply because the government disagrees with the Court. Jurisdictional and admissibility challenges belong within the Rome Statute framework. They may be raised before the ICC by actors entitled to do so under article 19. They are not meant to be converted into a full domestic retrial at the arrest stage.

Applied to Netanyahu, article 59 would mean that a State Party arresting him would bring him before a domestic judicial authority. That authority would examine the procedural legality of the arrest and the identity of the person arrested. The broader questions of ICC jurisdiction, admissibility, immunity, and criminal responsibility would remain governed by the Rome Statute process.

4.4 Article 97 Consultations

Article 97 provides a consultation mechanism when a requested state identifies problems that may affect the execution of an ICC request. These problems may include insufficient information, inability to locate the person, conflict with an existing treaty obligation, or other circumstances that may impede or prevent execution (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 97).

The point of article 97 is structured legal dialogue. A State Party facing a genuine legal obstacle should not simply ignore the request. It should consult the Court, identify the problem, and seek a solution within the Statute. Consultation protects both the Court and the requested state. It allows the Court to clarify the request and allows the state to raise concrete legal difficulties.

Article 97 is not a unilateral veto. It does not permit a state to declare that compliance is politically inconvenient and stop there. It also does not allow a state to convert disagreement with the ICC into non-cooperation. The requested state must point to a specific legal or practical problem that affects execution.

In the Netanyahu case, article 97 would be relevant if a State Party claimed that arrest would create a conflict with obligations concerning immunity under international law. The proper route would be consultation with the Court. The state would need to explain the alleged conflict, identify the legal basis, and engage with the ICC’s interpretation of articles 27, 89 and 98.

This matters because article 98 objections should not be made casually. A serious immunity objection requires legal reasoning. It must explain why the person enjoys immunity, why that immunity remains opposable to the ICC request, why article 27 does not remove the obstacle, and why article 98 prevents execution. Article 97 supplies the procedural space for that debate.

A state that refuses to arrest without meaningful consultation weakens its legal position. It may still be argued that it faced a legal impediment, but failure to use the Statute’s consultation mechanism makes the refusal look less like lawful caution and more like non-compliance. In high-profile cases, that distinction is not merely technical. It affects the credibility of the state’s legal justification.

4.5 Article 87(7) Non-Compliance

Article 87(7) addresses the consequence of failure to cooperate. If a State Party fails to comply with a request by the Court, and that failure prevents the Court from exercising its functions and powers, the Court may make a finding of non-compliance. It may then refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the situation, to the Security Council (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 87(7)).

This is the ICC’s main institutional response to non-arrest. It is not physical enforcement. The Court cannot send officers to compel an arrest. Its response is legal and institutional: a finding that the state failed to comply, followed by referral to the political body responsible for the treaty system.

The Hungary episode illustrates the point. Netanyahu travelled to Hungary in April 2025 and was not arrested. Hungary was still a State Party at the relevant time, although it announced withdrawal while hosting him. The ICC later addressed Hungary’s failure to arrest and surrender Netanyahu through non-compliance proceedings under article 87(7) (International Criminal Court, 2025).

The legal significance of the Hungary episode is not that the ICC physically enforced the warrant. It did not. The significance is that the Court treated failure to arrest as a breach of cooperation obligations. That response confirms the Court’s view that States Parties cannot avoid arrest duties merely because the wanted person is a senior political leader or because the case is diplomatically sensitive.

Withdrawal does not erase prior obligations. Under the Rome Statute, withdrawal takes effect only after the relevant treaty period has passed, and it does not affect cooperation obligations connected with proceedings that arose while the state was bound by the Statute (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 127). A state cannot host a wanted person, announce withdrawal, and treat the announcement as an immediate shield against all existing duties.

The practical weakness remains obvious. A non-compliance finding may damage a state’s legal reputation and create pressure inside the Assembly of States Parties. It may also influence diplomatic relations with other States Parties and civil society scrutiny. It does not guarantee arrest. The ICC system still depends on states choosing to comply with their treaty obligations.

For the Netanyahu warrant, article 87(7) shows the consequence of refusal but also the limit of ICC power. A State Party that fails to arrest may be found non-compliant. The Court may refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties. Yet the final enforcement gap remains: without national action, the warrant cannot be executed. That gap is not accidental. It is built into the Rome Statute’s cooperation model.

5. Official Capacity and Immunity

5.1 Article 27 and Official Position

Article 27 of the Rome Statute is one of the clearest anti-immunity provisions in modern international criminal law. It states that the Statute applies equally to all persons, without distinction based on official capacity. It then specifies that official capacity as a head of state, head of government, government member, parliamentarian, elected representative, or public official does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility before the ICC (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 27(1)).

The purpose of article 27 is to prevent public office from becoming a shield against accountability for international crimes. This reflects a long development in international criminal law, visible in the Nuremberg Charter, the statutes of the ad hoc criminal tribunals, and later the Rome Statute. The central idea is that international crimes are not rendered legally invisible because they are allegedly committed through state power or by senior state officials (Cassese, 2008; Schabas, 2020).

For the Netanyahu case, article 27 means that his position as Prime Minister of Israel does not bar the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over him. The Court’s jurisdiction is directed at the person, not the office. The office may be relevant to modes of liability, access to information, control over policy, or the ability to prevent crimes. It does not create a substantive exemption from ICC jurisdiction.

Aust explains the point in practical terms. Heads of state, heads of government, and other officials fall within ICC jurisdiction under article 27, despite their official position (Aust, 2005). This is important because the Rome Statute system would be structurally weak if the highest officials, who may have the greatest influence over state policy, were automatically outside the Court’s reach.

Article 27 also serves the principle of equality before the Court. It does not create a special rule only for unpopular leaders or defeated states. It applies formally to all persons covered by the Statute’s jurisdictional rules. The difficulty in the Netanyahu case is not whether article 27 exists. The difficulty is how far article 27 affects the obligations of States Parties when they are asked to arrest the incumbent head of government of a non-party state.

5.2 Article 27(2) and Procedural Immunity

Article 27(2) goes further than article 27(1). Article 27(1) removes official capacity as a substantive bar to criminal responsibility. Article 27(2) addresses immunities and special procedural rules attached to official capacity. It states that immunities or special procedural rules that may attach to official capacity under national or international law shall not bar the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the person (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 27(2)).

This provision is central to the pro-arrest argument. If official-capacity immunity cannot stop the ICC from exercising jurisdiction, the same official status should not allow States Parties to refuse the arrest and surrender needed for that jurisdiction to function. Otherwise, article 27(2) would be incomplete in practice. The Court could assert jurisdiction in theory, but States Parties could avoid cooperation whenever the wanted person held high office.

The ICC’s cooperation system supports that reading. Articles 86 and 89 require States Parties to cooperate fully and to comply with requests for arrest and surrender. If those provisions are read with article 27(2), the result is a strong duty to execute ICC warrants without treating official position as a procedural obstacle. This is the logic behind the ICC’s modern case law on official capacity and arrest duties.

The argument is not only textual. It is also institutional. The ICC depends on national authorities to execute warrants. If States Parties could invoke the official position of a suspect as a reason not to arrest, article 27 would lose much of its practical effect. The most senior alleged perpetrators would remain protected not because the Court lacks jurisdiction, but because states refuse to perform the cooperation duties that make ICC jurisdiction effective.

The Netanyahu warrant brings this issue into sharp focus. The pro-arrest position is that a State Party cannot rely on Netanyahu’s official capacity as Prime Minister of Israel to refuse arrest. Under this view, article 27(2), read with articles 86 and 89, removes procedural immunity for the purposes of ICC cooperation. The requested state is not exercising ordinary national criminal jurisdiction for its own case. It is assisting an international court whose Statute rejects official-capacity immunity.

5.3 Article 98(1) and Third-State Immunity

Article 98(1) creates the strongest legal counterargument. It provides that the Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance that would require the requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law concerning state or diplomatic immunity of a third state, unless the Court first obtains that third state’s cooperation for the waiver of immunity (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 98(1)).

This provision matters because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. Israel has not accepted article 27 as a treaty obligation. It has not waived immunities through accession to the Statute. Netanyahu is also the incumbent head of government. Under general international law, incumbent heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers enjoy personal immunity before foreign national courts during their term of office (International Court of Justice, 2002).

The restrictive argument reads article 98(1) as a protection for third-state immunities. On this view, a State Party asked to arrest Netanyahu would be required to act inconsistently with obligations owed to Israel under general international law. Since Israel has not waived immunity, the Court should not proceed with a request that forces the requested state into that conflict (Gaeta, 2009; Akande, 2004).

This argument is serious because article 98(1) would otherwise have little work to do in high-level official cases. If article 27 always removes immunity for everyone, including officials of non-party states, in the hands of national authorities executing ICC requests, article 98(1) becomes narrow. It would apply mainly to diplomatic premises, diplomatic agents, visiting forces agreements, or other specialised immunity arrangements. Some scholars argue that such a narrow reading does not reflect the full purpose of article 98 (Akande, 2004; Gaeta, 2009).

The counterargument is that article 98(1) regulates conflicts between ICC requests and external immunity obligations, but it does not preserve immunity where the Rome Statute system itself removes the bar. Under the ICC’s approach, a State Party executing an ICC request is not acting as an ordinary national criminal court asserting unilateral jurisdiction. It is performing a treaty duty owed to an international court. That distinction is decisive in the Court’s pro-arrest reasoning.

For Netanyahu, article 98(1) is the point at which the legal debate becomes most difficult. The question is not simply whether heads of government enjoy immunity under general international law. They do so before foreign national courts. The question is whether that immunity remains opposable when a State Party acts under a Rome Statute request issued by the ICC in a case where the Court claims jurisdiction.

5.4 Personal Immunity Under General Law

Personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae, protects certain incumbent senior officials against the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states while they hold office. The International Court of Justice confirmed in the Arrest Warrant case that incumbent foreign ministers enjoy full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before foreign national courts, even when suspected of international crimes (International Court of Justice, 2002).

The rationale is functional. Personal immunity protects the ability of the state to conduct international relations through its highest representatives. It is not a personal privilege in the moral sense. It protects the office and the state functions attached to that office. For that reason, it applies only to a small group of senior officials, generally heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers (Fox and Webb, 2015; Watts, 1994).

This immunity is procedural. It does not erase criminal responsibility. The ICJ in Arrest Warrant made clear that immunity from jurisdiction does not mean impunity. A protected official may still be prosecuted in his own state, prosecuted after leaving office for private acts and possibly some prior or subsequent conduct, prosecuted before certain international criminal courts, or prosecuted where immunity has been waived (International Court of Justice, 2002).

The distinction between national courts and international criminal tribunals is crucial. Personal immunity is strongest before foreign domestic courts. International criminal tribunals operate on a different legal plane when their constitutive instruments remove official-capacity immunity. The Nuremberg Tribunal, the ICTY, the ICTR, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the ICC all reflect the principle that official position does not bar responsibility before an international criminal tribunal (Cassese, 2008; Cryer et al., 2019).

The Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Charles Taylor decision is often cited in this debate. The Appeals Chamber held that the incumbent head of state of Liberia could not invoke personal immunity before an international criminal tribunal. The tribunal distinguished proceedings before international courts from proceedings before national courts (Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2004).

That distinction helps the ICC, but it does not fully solve the Netanyahu problem. The arrest would be executed by national authorities, not by ICC officers. The requested state’s police and courts would physically arrest the incumbent head of government of a non-party state. The legal issue is whether they act as national authorities bound by ordinary immunity rules, or as agents of cooperation with an international court whose statute excludes official-capacity immunity.

This is why the immunity debate remains unsettled. Official capacity and immunity are related, but not identical. Article 27 removes official capacity as a bar before the ICC. Article 98(1) appears to recognise that requested states may have separate immunity obligations toward third states. The hardest cases involve officials of non-party states because they have not consented to article 27 through treaty membership.

5.5 The Article 27 and 98 Collision

The collision between article 27 and article 98(1) is the core legal difficulty in the Netanyahu arrest debate. Article 27 tells the Court that official capacity and attached immunities do not bar its jurisdiction. Article 98(1) tells the Court not to proceed with a request that would force a requested state to violate immunity obligations owed to a third state unless a waiver is obtained. Each provision has a clear function. The difficulty lies in applying them together.

The ICC reading gives priority to article 27 in the cooperation context. On this view, article 27 removes official-capacity immunity not only before the Court, but also for States Parties executing ICC requests. Articles 86 and 89 then require cooperation. A State Party may not invoke the wanted person’s official position as a reason to refuse arrest and surrender. This reading preserves the effectiveness of the Rome Statute’s anti-impunity design.

The ICC’s Al-Bashir case law strongly supports this reading. The Appeals Chamber held that there is no head-of-state immunity before an international court and that Jordan failed to comply with its obligation to arrest and surrender Omar Al-Bashir (International Criminal Court, 2019). The Court’s later non-compliance finding concerning Mongolia and Vladimir Putin also treated the official position as no bar to arrest under the Rome Statute cooperation regime (International Criminal Court, 2024).

The restrictive reading gives greater force to article 98(1). It argues that article 27 binds States Parties and removes immunities between them, but it cannot remove the immunities of officials of non-party states without that state’s consent, Security Council action, or another valid rule of international law. Under this view, a State Party arresting Netanyahu would breach obligations owed to Israel unless Israel waived immunity or the Court could identify a separate legal basis displacing it.

This restrictive reading relies heavily on consent. Treaties generally do not create obligations for third states without their consent. Since Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, critics argue that article 27 cannot be used to strip its incumbent head of government of personal immunity before the national authorities of States Parties. Article 98(1), on this account, exists precisely to prevent the Court from creating that conflict (Akande, 2004; Gaeta, 2009).

The ICC reading responds that the Court is exercising jurisdiction based on the territorial state’s acceptance of the Statute. In the Palestine situation, the Court relies on Palestine’s article 12(2)(a) territorial jurisdiction. Once the ICC has jurisdiction and issues a valid arrest request, States Parties must cooperate. The requested state is not imposing its own criminal jurisdiction over a foreign leader. It is assisting an international court under a treaty regime that excludes official-capacity immunity.

The strongest pro-arrest position also points to the nature of international crimes. Genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are not ordinary offences. International criminal law developed partly to prevent state officials from shielding those most responsible for large-scale crimes. If article 98(1) is read too broadly, the officials most capable of directing state policy may become the least reachable by the Court whenever their state has stayed outside the Statute.

The strongest restrictive position warns against bypassing the law of treaties and immunities. The Rome Statute is powerful, but it is still a treaty. Non-party states have not accepted all of their obligations. If the Statute is interpreted to remove immunities of non-party leaders without consent, critics argue that the Court extends treaty effects beyond the parties and weakens the stability of general international law.

The better article must present this conflict honestly. The ICC’s current case law largely favours the pro-arrest position. A State Party that refuses to arrest Netanyahu would face a serious risk of being found non-compliant. Yet the restrictive article 98(1) argument remains one of the most credible legal objections to the duty to arrest an incumbent leader of a non-party state.

For the Netanyahu case, the practical legal answer is clear inside the ICC system but contested in wider doctrine. Inside the ICC system, States Parties are expected to arrest and surrender persons subject to valid warrants, regardless of official position. In broader international law, the continuing disagreement concerns how far the Rome Statute can affect personal immunities owed to non-party states. That unresolved tension is what makes the Netanyahu warrant a major test for the relationship between international criminal justice and sovereign equality.

6. ICC Case Law on Arrest Duties

6.1 The Al-Bashir Line

The Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir judgment is the ICC’s strongest authority on the duty of States Parties to arrest a wanted person despite official capacity. The case arose after Jordan, a State Party to the Rome Statute, failed to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir during his visit to Jordan in 2017. At the time, Al-Bashir was subject to ICC arrest warrants for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur (International Criminal Court, 2019).

The Appeals Chamber confirmed that Jordan had failed to comply with its obligation to arrest and surrender Al-Bashir. The Court rejected the view that his status as an incumbent head of state barred arrest by a State Party executing an ICC request. It held that there is no head-of-state immunity before an international court and that official capacity does not prevent the operation of the Rome Statute cooperation regime (International Criminal Court, 2019).

The judgment is important because it links article 27 with the duty of cooperation. Article 27 removes official capacity as a bar to ICC jurisdiction. Articles 86 and 89 require States Parties to cooperate with the Court and comply with arrest and surrender requests. The Appeals Chamber treated those provisions as part of a single enforcement structure. A State Party cannot accept the Court’s jurisdictional system and then refuse arrest because the wanted person holds a high office.

The Al-Bashir judgment also relied on the nature of the ICC as an international court. The Appeals Chamber distinguished the ICC from ordinary national courts. Before foreign domestic courts, sitting heads of state usually enjoy personal immunity. Before an international criminal court with jurisdiction, the same immunity does not operate in the same way. That distinction is central to the Court’s reasoning (International Criminal Court, 2019; Akande, 2004).

Yet Al-Bashir is not identical to Netanyahu. Sudan was not a State Party, but the Darfur situation came before the ICC through a United Nations Security Council referral. That matters because the Security Council referral supplied an additional legal route by which Sudan was placed in a position analogous to a State Party for cooperation with the Court, at least according to one strand of ICC reasoning (Akande, 2009; Kreß, 2019).

The Netanyahu case rests on a different jurisdictional route. It does not depend on a Security Council referral. It depends on the ICC’s acceptance of territorial jurisdiction in the Palestine situation under article 12(2)(a). The Court treats Palestine as a State Party for Rome Statute purposes and proceeds on the basis that alleged crimes occurred on territory covered by that jurisdiction (International Criminal Court, 2021).

This difference does not destroy the relevance of Al-Bashir, but it limits easy analogies. The strongest pro-arrest use of Al-Bashir is its general statement that official capacity does not bar arrest and surrender to the ICC. The weaker use would be to ignore the special role of the Security Council referral in the Darfur situation. A careful article should rely on Al-Bashir as a major authority, while recognising that Netanyahu presents a harder article 98(1) problem because Israel is a non-party state and there was no Security Council referral.

6.2 The Putin and Mongolia Decision

The Mongolia/Putin non-compliance decision reinforces the ICC’s modern approach to arrest duties. Vladimir Putin was subject to an ICC arrest warrant issued in March 2023 in the Situation in Ukraine. Mongolia, a State Party to the Rome Statute, received him during an official visit in September 2024 and did not arrest him. In October 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that Mongolia had failed to cooperate with the Court (International Criminal Court, 2024).

The legal importance of the decision lies in its treatment of official position. Putin was, and remains, the sitting President of the Russian Federation. Russia is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Mongolia argued, in substance, that it faced legal and diplomatic constraints connected with the immunity of an incumbent head of state. The ICC rejected that position and treated Mongolia’s failure to arrest and surrender Putin as non-compliance (International Criminal Court, 2024).

This decision is highly relevant to Netanyahu because it involves a sitting leader of a non-party state. Like Israel, Russia has not accepted the Rome Statute as a treaty party. Like Netanyahu, Putin held one of the offices traditionally protected by personal immunity under general international law. The Court still concluded that Mongolia had a duty to cooperate.

The Mongolia decision supports the ICC’s view that article 27 is not confined to abstract jurisdiction before the Court. It also affects the cooperation duties of States Parties. If the Court issues a valid arrest request, a State Party is expected to execute it, even where the wanted person is an incumbent head of state of a non-party state. That approach strengthens the pro-arrest position in the Netanyahu case.

The decision also shows the continuing limits of ICC enforcement. Mongolia was found non-compliant, and the matter was referred to the Assembly of States Parties. Putin was not arrested. The result was institutional condemnation, not physical enforcement. This reflects the Rome Statute’s enforcement model: the Court can make legal findings, but arrest still depends on state action.

The Mongolia decision narrows the practical space for States Parties that wish to avoid arresting Netanyahu while claiming legal justification. A State Party may still raise article 98(1), but the ICC’s recent practice indicates that the Court is unlikely to accept official position alone as a valid reason for non-execution. The burden would fall on the requested state to provide a more precise legal explanation.

6.3 The Hungary and Netanyahu Episode

Hungary provides the most direct practical test of the Netanyahu warrant. Netanyahu travelled to Hungary in April 2025 while subject to the ICC arrest warrant. Hungary did not arrest him. During the visit, the Hungarian government announced its intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute system (International Criminal Court, 2025a; Guardian, 2025).

At the time of the visit, Hungary was still bound by the Rome Statute. A state’s announcement of withdrawal does not produce immediate legal effect. Under article 127, withdrawal takes effect only one year after the written notification is received by the United Nations Secretary-General, unless the notification specifies a later date. Until withdrawal takes effect, the state remains bound by its treaty obligations (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 127).

Article 127 also protects existing duties. Withdrawal does not affect obligations arising while the state was a party. It does not remove duties connected with criminal investigations and proceedings that began before the withdrawal became effective. This rule prevents a state from avoiding cooperation by announcing withdrawal after a politically difficult request has already arisen (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 127(2)).

The ICC later addressed Hungary’s conduct through non-compliance proceedings. Pre-Trial Chamber I found that Hungary had failed to comply with the Court’s request concerning the provisional arrest of Netanyahu and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties under article 87(7) (International Criminal Court, 2025b).

The Hungary episode matters for three reasons. First, it confirms that the ICC treats the Netanyahu warrant as legally operative against States Parties. Second, it shows that withdrawal cannot be used as an immediate escape from existing obligations. Third, it exposes the practical weakness of the system: even when the Court finds non-compliance, the wanted person may leave the territory without arrest.

Hungary also shows how political arguments can be translated into procedural resistance. A government may describe the Court as politicised, question jurisdiction, or announce withdrawal. Those acts may carry political weight, but they do not automatically suspend cooperation obligations. The legal question remains whether the state was bound by the Statute at the relevant time and whether it complied with the Court’s request.

For the Netanyahu case, Hungary is more than an example. It is the first major instance in which a State Party failed to arrest him after the warrant and faced ICC non-compliance consequences. That makes it central to any serious analysis of the duty to arrest.

6.4 State Practice After the Warrant

State practice after the Netanyahu warrant has been mixed. Some States Parties indicated that they would respect their obligations under the Rome Statute. Others responded cautiously, avoided a clear arrest commitment, or raised immunity concerns. This divergence matters, but it should not be misunderstood.

Mixed practice is evidence of enforcement weakness. It is not, by itself, proof that the legal duty does not exist. International legal obligations are often breached, especially when compliance carries a high political cost. Non-compliance may reveal the fragility of enforcement, but breach does not automatically rewrite the rule.

Several European states faced immediate pressure to clarify their position after the warrant. Some officials emphasised respect for the ICC and the rule of law. Others gave more guarded responses, especially where relations with Israel, security policy, or immunity arguments were politically sensitive. France, for example, publicly recognised the complexity of immunity issues in relation to leaders of non-party states, while also affirming the importance of accountability for international crimes (Reuters, 2024).

Slovenia later took a stronger position by banning Netanyahu from entering the country, citing the ICC arrest warrant and its commitment to international law (Associated Press, 2025). That step is not the same as arrest, but it reflects one form of state response to the warrant: avoiding the direct arrest problem by preventing entry.

Hungary moved in the opposite direction. It hosted Netanyahu, declined to arrest him, and announced withdrawal from the ICC system. The ICC treated that conduct as non-compliance, which confirms that the Court did not view Hungary’s position as a lawful alternative interpretation of the Statute (International Criminal Court, 2025b).

This range of responses shows the difference between legal obligation and political enforcement. The Rome Statute creates a cooperation duty for States Parties. The actual execution of that duty depends on domestic law, political will, institutional independence, diplomatic calculations, and the state’s willingness to absorb the consequences of arresting a foreign leader.

A strong legal analysis should not turn uncertain state practice into a false balance. The ICC’s case law points clearly toward a duty to arrest. Some states may resist, delay, or qualify that duty. That resistance is relevant because it shows the political limits of enforcement. It does not erase the statutory obligation accepted by States Parties.

The Netanyahu warrant has made the cooperation problem visible. The Court can interpret the Rome Statute, issue warrants, and declare non-compliance. States control borders, police, and surrender procedures. The duty to arrest exists within that tension. It is legally grounded, but its execution depends on national authorities willing to act when the wanted person is politically powerful.

7. Domestic Execution by States Parties

7.1 Implementing Legislation

The duty to arrest under the Rome Statute depends on domestic legal machinery. Article 89 requires States Parties to comply with ICC requests for arrest and surrender, but the actual arrest is carried out by national authorities. Each State Party needs internal rules identifying who receives ICC requests, which police body executes arrest, which court reviews the detention, and which authority transfers the person to the Court (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 59 and 89).

A treaty obligation without clear implementing legislation creates a serious enforcement risk. Police may not know which authority has competence. Courts may lack procedural rules for surrender hearings. Ministries may delay transmission of the request. Defence lawyers may challenge the arrest on domestic constitutional grounds. The result is not necessarily a lawful refusal, but a delay. In ICC practice, delay can be enough to defeat enforcement if the wanted person leaves the territory.

Implementation also matters because ICC surrender is not ordinary extradition. Extradition usually operates between states and may include political offence exceptions, nationality protections, reciprocity rules, or executive discretion. ICC surrender is a treaty-based process directed toward the International Criminal Court. Domestic law must reflect that difference, or national authorities may wrongly apply extradition concepts to an ICC request (Aust, 2005; Cryer et al., 2019).

In the Netanyahu case, a State Party would need more than a general commitment to international criminal justice. It would need a functioning legal channel capable of acting quickly if he entered its territory. The relevant question would be practical as well as legal: can the state identify the request, issue the arrest instruction, bring the person before a competent court, and complete surrender procedures before diplomatic pressure or travel logistics make arrest impossible?

Poor implementation allows governments to hide behind legal uncertainty. A state may say that it respects the ICC while claiming that domestic procedures require additional review, cabinet approval, parliamentary action, or clarification. Some procedural checks are legitimate. Others may operate as a political delay. Clearly, implementing legislation reduces that space for avoidance.

7.2 Courts and Executive Discretion

Domestic execution involves both courts and governments. Courts usually control legality. They may review identity, procedural regularity, detention safeguards, and the statutory conditions for surrender. This judicial role protects the person arrested and prevents arbitrary executive action (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 59).

The executive often controls the first and most sensitive steps. Government authorities receive the ICC request, transmit it internally, coordinate with police, manage diplomatic communications, and arrange transfer to The Hague. Foreign affairs and justice ministries may also decide how to respond to claims of immunity, security risks, or diplomatic consequences.

This division creates a space where political reluctance can appear as procedural caution. A government may delay transmission to the police. It may request repeated legal opinions. It may avoid confirming the presence of the wanted person. It may wait for the official visit to end. Such conduct may not look like outright refusal, but it can produce the same result.

Domestic courts can limit executive avoidance if they have jurisdiction to compel action or review inaction. Yet courts usually act only after a concrete arrest, application, or challenge. If the executive never triggers the process, judicial control may arrive too late. The most decisive moment may occur before any court is involved.

This problem is acute for visits by senior officials. Official travel is planned with security, protocol, and diplomatic coordination. If a State Party knows that a wanted person will arrive, the executive has time to prepare. Failure to act cannot easily be defended as a surprise. In such circumstances, procedural delay may reveal a lack of political will rather than genuine legal complexity.

For the Netanyahu warrant, domestic execution would test the independence and speed of national institutions. A State Party may publicly support the ICC but still hesitate if arresting a sitting Israeli prime minister creates diplomatic, security, or economic pressure. The Rome Statute does not treat political inconvenience as a legal defence to non-cooperation (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 86 and 89).

7.3 Transit and Official Travel

Official travel creates special enforcement problems. A wanted person may enter a State Party for a formal visit, pass through an airport, use a military aircraft, attend an international conference, or cross airspace without landing. Each situation raises a different legal question.

Physical presence on the territory of a State Party is the clearest case. If the person is present and the ICC has transmitted a valid request, article 89 is triggered in its ordinary form. The requested state must execute the arrest and surrender process in accordance with the Statute and national law (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 89(1)).

Airport transit may also create jurisdiction if the person is physically present within the state’s territory, even briefly. The difficulty is practical. Transit may be short, security arrangements may be controlled, and the state may claim that it lacked adequate time to act. That argument is weaker if the transit was scheduled and known in advance.

Overflight is different. If an aircraft merely crosses the airspace of a State Party without landing, the wanted person is not in the custody or physical reach of that state in the same way. The Rome Statute does not make every overflight equivalent to territorial presence for arrest purposes. A state may have aviation powers, but interception of an aircraft carrying a foreign head of government would raise separate issues of air law, safety, sovereignty, and diplomatic consequences.

Official visits add another layer. Host states often extend protocol treatment, security protection, and diplomatic courtesies to visiting leaders. Those arrangements do not automatically override ICC obligations. A State Party cannot remove a Rome Statute duty simply by labelling the visit official. Article 27 rejects official position as a bar to ICC jurisdiction, and the Court’s cooperation case law strongly resists immunity-based refusal by States Parties (International Criminal Court, 2019; International Criminal Court, 2024).

The route of travel can determine the practical risk of arrest. A wanted person may avoid States Parties, choose non-party destinations, use direct flights, or avoid landing in jurisdictions likely to comply with the ICC. This is why ICC warrants may restrict movement even without immediate arrest. They create a legal risk map.

For Netanyahu, travel planning has direct legal significance. Entry into the territory of a State Party willing to enforce ICC obligations creates arrest exposure. Travel through non-party states creates a different risk profile. Overflight and short transit raise harder questions, but planned physical presence in a State Party is the strongest case for execution.

7.4 Non-Party Safe Territory

Non-party states do not generally have Rome Statute arrest duties merely because the ICC has issued a warrant. The Rome Statute binds its parties. A state that has not joined the Statute has not accepted the treaty’s cooperation obligations unless another legal basis applies (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 12, 86 and 89).

This distinction is essential for the Netanyahu warrant. The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Netanyahu’s travel to the United States raises different legal questions than travel to a State Party. The United States may have political, diplomatic, or domestic legal reasons to act or not act, but it does not carry the same treaty-based duty of arrest and surrender under articles 86 and 89.

A non-party state may still face obligations in special circumstances. The Security Council may create binding cooperation duties in a referral or enforcement framework. A non-party state may also choose to cooperate voluntarily with the ICC. It may have domestic legislation allowing cooperation. It may also have obligations under other treaties or customary rules, depending on the crime and the legal setting. Those are separate bases, not ordinary Rome Statute party obligations.

The difference between party and non-party territory shapes the practical effect of the warrant. A wanted person may travel more safely to non-party states. That does not make the warrant meaningless. It narrows safe travel options, increases diplomatic cost, and creates legal risk whenever the person enters the territory of a State Party.

The article should not imply that all states have the same duty. That would be legally inaccurate. The strongest arrest duty falls on States Parties that receive an ICC request. Non-party states stand outside that treaty framework unless a separate rule brings them into cooperation. This distinction makes the analysis more precise and prevents overstatement.

For Netanyahu, non-party territory functions as a practical shield, not a declaration that the warrant lacks legal effect. The warrant remains active within the ICC system. Its enforcement depends on the legal status and conduct of the state where he is physically present.

7.5 Consequences of Non-Arrest

If a State Party fails to arrest a person subject to an ICC request, the Court cannot force its police to act. The ICC has no independent enforcement arm. Its main response is legal: it may make a finding of non-compliance under article 87(7) and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, in Security Council referral situations, to the Security Council (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 87(7)).

A non-compliance finding is not symbolic only. It records that a State Party failed to perform a treaty obligation. It may damage the state’s legal credibility, attract diplomatic pressure, and create scrutiny inside the Assembly of States Parties. It may also affect the state’s reputation as a supporter of international criminal justice.

Yet the practical limit is obvious. A finding of non-compliance does not place the wanted person in custody. It does not undo the missed opportunity to arrest. It may create pressure after the fact, but it cannot substitute for timely national action. This is the central enforcement gap in the Rome Statute system.

The Hungary episode shows the problem. Hungary did not arrest Netanyahu during his April 2025 visit. The ICC later treated Hungary’s failure as non-compliance and referred the matter within the Rome Statute institutional framework (International Criminal Court, 2025). That response confirmed the Court’s legal position, but it did not result in arrest.

This pattern is familiar in ICC practice. The Court’s authority is judicial; enforcement is decentralised. States Parties accepted the duty to cooperate, but the Court still depends on their institutions, political will, and domestic procedures. When a state refuses, the Court can declare a breach. It cannot execute the warrant itself.

For the Netanyahu case, the consequence is clear. The legal duty to arrest may be strong within the Rome Statute system, but coercive execution remains national. A State Party that fails to act risks a finding of non-compliance and reputational cost. The wanted person may still avoid custody if the state chooses political protection over treaty performance.

Also Read

• Difference between ICJ and ICC: Jurisdiction, Power, and Limits

• Arrest Warrant Case Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium

• Duterte ICC Trial and the Law of Accountability

• Darfur Genocide

• Crimes Against Humanity in Contemporary International Law

• Nuremberg Trials Analysis

• The Evolution of Universal Jurisdiction in Human Rights Enforcement

• Prosecutor v Tadić Case

8. Conclusion

Under the ICC’s current interpretation of the Rome Statute, States Parties have a duty to arrest and surrender Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters their territory while a valid ICC request is in force. That conclusion follows from the combined operation of articles 27, 86, and 89. Article 27 removes official capacity as a bar to ICC jurisdiction. Article 86 creates the general duty of full cooperation. Article 89 gives operational effect to that duty by requiring States Parties to comply with requests for arrest and surrender (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 27, 86, and 89).

The ICC’s case law reinforces this position. The Al-Bashir line confirms that official capacity does not defeat the arrest and surrender obligations of States Parties. The Mongolia/Putin decision applies the same logic to the sitting head of state of a non-party state. The Hungarian proceedings concerning Netanyahu show that the Court treats failure to arrest him as a cooperation breach, not as a lawful political choice (International Criminal Court, 2019; International Criminal Court, 2024; International Criminal Court, 2025).

The strongest objection remains article 98(1). Netanyahu is the incumbent head of government of Israel, and Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. The restrictive view argues that a State Party cannot be required to breach immunity obligations owed to a non-party state unless that immunity has been waived or displaced by another valid rule of international law. This objection is not rhetorical. It reflects a real tension between the Rome Statute’s anti-impunity design and the general international law of personal immunity (Akande, 2004; Gaeta, 2009; Kreß, 2019).

The ICC has largely resolved that tension in favour of arrest duties within its own legal order. Its approach treats article 27 as removing official-capacity immunity for ICC proceedings and for cooperation by States Parties. On that reading, a requested state does not act as an ordinary national court asserting unilateral criminal jurisdiction over a foreign leader. It acts as a State Party assisting an international court whose constitutive treaty excludes official-capacity immunity.

That position is dominant inside the ICC system, but it is not uncontested in wider doctrine and state practice. Some states and scholars remain concerned that article 27 cannot remove the personal immunity of officials of non-party states without consent, Security Council action, or another recognised legal basis. The Netanyahu case is difficult precisely because both sides rely on serious legal principles: accountability for international crimes on one side, sovereign equality and third-state immunity on the other.

The practical reality is even sharper. The ICC can issue arrest warrants, interpret the Rome Statute, and make findings of non-compliance. It cannot arrest Netanyahu by itself. The Court has no police force and no independent enforcement arm. Arrest depends on domestic authorities, implementing legislation, courts, police cooperation, and political willingness.

This enforcement gap does not erase the legal duty. It exposes the weakness of international criminal justice when law confronts geopolitical cost. A State Party may be legally required to arrest, yet still refuse, delay, or create procedural obstacles. The consequence may be a finding of non-compliance and reputational damage, but not automatic custody.

The Netanyahu case tests more than one arrest warrant. It tests whether States Parties will treat Rome Statute cooperation as a binding legal commitment when the wanted person is politically powerful, diplomatically protected, and supported by influential allies. The legal answer within the ICC system is clear enough: a valid request requires arrest and surrender. The unresolved question is whether States Parties will act on that duty when compliance is costly.

References

1. Akande, D. (2004) ‘International law immunities and the International Criminal Court’, American Journal of International Law, 98(3), pp. 407–433. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/international-law-immunities-and-the-international-criminal-court/C89D9DA7B44DA181205D51801A8B1E05 (Accessed: 02 April 2026).

2. Akande, D. (2009) ‘The legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC and its impact on Al Bashir’s immunities’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(2), pp. 333–352. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/7/2/333/902217 (Accessed: 02 April 2026).

3. Associated Press (2025) Slovenia bans Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from entering, citing an ICC arrest warrant [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/slovenia-israel-travel-ban-benjamin-32f77e2f2657fbfd82af7a2b632f2cc0 (Accessed: 02 April 2026).

4. Aust, A. (2005) Handbook of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Bassiouni, M.C. (2011) Crimes against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Cassese, A. (2008) International Criminal Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Cryer, R., Robinson, D. and Vasiliev, S. (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Fox, H. and Webb, P. (2013) The Law of State Immunity. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Gaeta, P. (2009) ‘Does President Al Bashir enjoy immunity from arrest?’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(2), pp. 315–332. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/7/2/315/902208 (Accessed: 03 April 2026).

10. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) 75 UNTS 287. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949 (Accessed: 03 April 2026).

11. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977) 1125 UNTS 3. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977 (Accessed: 03 April 2026).

12. The Guardian (2025) Hungary to pull out of “political” ICC as Netanyahu visits Budapest [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/03/hungary-to-pull-out-of-icc-as-netanyahu-visits-hungary (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

13. International Committee of the Red Cross (2005) Customary IHL Database: Rule 53. Starvation as a Method of Warfare [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule53 (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

14. International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121 (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

15. International Criminal Court (2009) Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, Appeals Chamber, 25 September 2009 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2009_06998.PDF (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

16. International Criminal Court (2011) Elements of Crimes [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

17. International Criminal Court (2019) The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, ICC-02/05-01/09-397, Appeals Chamber, 6 May 2019 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2019_02593.PDF (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

18. International Criminal Court (2021) Situation in the State of Palestine, Decision on the “Prosecution request pursuant to article 19(3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine”, ICC-01/18-143, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 5 February 2021 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2021_01165.PDF (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

19. International Criminal Court (2024a) Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges (Accessed: 05 April 2026).

20. International Criminal Court (2024b) Report of the Panel of Experts in International Law [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf (Accessed: 07 April 2026).

21. International Criminal Court (2024c) Situation in Ukraine, Finding under article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by Mongolia with the request by the Court to cooperate in the arrest and surrender of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and referral to the Assembly of States Parties, ICC-01/22-90, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 24 October 2024 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/22-90 (Accessed: 07 April 2026).

22. International Criminal Court (2025a) Situation in the State of Palestine, Judgment on the appeal of the State of Israel against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision on Israel’s challenge to jurisdiction, ICC-01/18-422, Appeals Chamber, 24 April 2025 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-422 (Accessed: 07 April 2026).

23. International Criminal Court (2025b) Situation in the State of Palestine, Decision on the State of Israel’s request to have arrest warrants withdrawn, vacated, or declared of no force or effect and to suspend the Prosecutor’s investigation, ICC-01/18-457, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 16 July 2025 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-457 (Accessed: 07 April 2026).

24. International Criminal Court (2025c) Situation in the State of Palestine, Finding under article 87(7) of the Statute on Hungary’s non-compliance, ICC-01/18-462, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 24 July 2025 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-462 (Accessed: 09 April 2026).

25. Kreß, C. (2019) Preliminary Observations on the ICC Appeals Chamber’s Judgment of 6 May 2019 in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal. Occasional Paper Series No. 8. Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. Available at: https://iipsl.jura.uni-koeln.de/sites/iipsl/Home/190530_OPS_No._8__Kress_.pdf (Accessed: 09 April 2026).

26. Reuters (2024) France believes Israel’s Netanyahu has immunity from ICC warrant [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-says-israels-netanyahu-has-immunity-will-continue-working-with-him-2024-11-27/ (Accessed: 09 April 2026).

27. Reuters (2025) ICC judges reject Israel’s request to withdraw Netanyahu arrest warrant [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/icc-judges-reject-israels-request-withdraw-netanyahu-arrest-warrant-2025-07-16/ (Accessed: 10 April 2026).

28. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 2187 UNTS 90. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf (Accessed: 10 April 2026).

29. Schabas, W.A. (2020) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. 6th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Special Court for Sierra Leone (2004) Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, SCSL-2003-01-I, Appeals Chamber, 31 May 2004 [online]. Available at: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/sierra-leone-special-court-ruling-immunity-taylor (Accessed: 10 April 2026).

31. Stahn, C. (2019) A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32. Watts, A. (1994) ‘The legal position in international law of heads of states, heads of governments and foreign ministers’, Recueil des Cours, 247, pp. 9–130.