Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant: Did France Have to Stop His Plane?
Introduction
On 24 September 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu flew to New York for the United Nations General Assembly through Greek, Italian, and French airspace while the Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant remained in force. France authorized the overflight and stated that the Rome Statute did not require action against a state aircraft merely because a person subject to an ICC warrant was on board (Reuters, 2026). The episode raises a narrower question than ordinary arrest: whether a State Party that is subject to an applicable ICC cooperation request must use its control over territorial airspace to compel such an aircraft to land.
The International Criminal Court issued the warrant against Netanyahu on 21 November 2024 in the Situation in the State of Palestine. Pre-Trial Chamber I found reasonable grounds to believe that he bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The warrant is not a conviction or a finding of guilt. The Court’s current case materials continue to list Netanyahu as at large, and the warrant remains operative (International Criminal Court, 2024; International Criminal Court, n.d.).
The Rome Statute places substantial cooperation obligations on States Parties. Article 86 requires full cooperation with the Court, while Article 89 governs requests for arrest and surrender. Where the Court has transmitted the relevant request and Netanyahu is physically present in a State Party, current ICC jurisprudence strongly supports an obligation to arrest and surrender him, notwithstanding his official position, although the separate dispute concerning Article 98 and the immunities of officials of non-party states remains contested (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 86, 89 and 98; International Criminal Court, 2019, 2024, 2025).
Mere overflight presents a different legal problem. The Rome Statute does not expressly require a State Party to intercept, redirect, or force down an aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC warrant. France has taken the position that the Statute creates no such obligation in the case of overflight. That interpretation is legally relevant state practice, but it is not an authoritative judicial determination of the precise scope of Article 89 in this setting.
International air law complicates the analysis because airspace is not legally detached from territorial sovereignty. Article 1 of the Chicago Convention recognizes the complete and exclusive sovereignty of every state over the airspace above its territory (Chicago Convention, 1944, art. 1). The existence of that sovereign authority does not by itself establish that the Rome Statute requires the state to exercise it by preventing passage or compelling a landing.
The distinction between overflight, airport transit, and landing is consequently central. Once an aircraft lands, the wanted person is physically present within the territory and enforcement jurisdiction of the State Party, although arrest may still raise questions concerning immunity, domestic procedure, and the application of the Rome Statute’s cooperation provisions. During mere overflight, an additional legal step is required: the state would first have to act against the aircraft in order to obtain physical custody. Netanyahu’s September 2026 journey places that unresolved boundary between ICC cooperation law, territorial sovereignty, and international air law at the center of the arrest-warrant debate.
1. The Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant
The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu on 21 November 2024 under Article 58 of the Rome Statute. At that stage, the Pre-Trial Chamber was not determining whether Netanyahu was guilty. Article 58 requires reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction and that arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes specified in the Statute (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 58).
According to the Court’s public account of the warrant, Pre-Trial Chamber I found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant bore criminal responsibility as co-perpetrators for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and for the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that they bore responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population (International Criminal Court, 2024a).
These findings belong to the arrest-warrant stage. They do not amount to a confirmation of charges, a trial judgment, or a determination of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Article 66 provides that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 66).
The warrant remains operative. The ICC’s current case information continues to list Netanyahu as “at large” and records the arrest warrant issued on 21 November 2024 (International Criminal Court, n.d.). Its continuing force is particularly significant for international travel because enforcement depends on cooperation by states rather than arrest by the Court itself.
Israel has challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and procedure. On 24 April 2025, the Appeals Chamber reversed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s earlier decision rejecting Israel’s Article 19 jurisdictional challenge and remanded the matter for the Pre-Trial Chamber to rule on the substance of that challenge. The Appeals Chamber did not cancel the arrest warrants; it left the Pre-Trial Chamber to determine what effect, if any, its eventual jurisdictional ruling should have on them (International Criminal Court, 2025a).
Israel subsequently sought withdrawal or vacatur of the warrants and suspension of the investigation. Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected that request on 16 July 2025. The Court’s current defendant record continues to identify Netanyahu as subject to the warrant and at large (International Criminal Court, 2025b; International Criminal Court, n.d.). The validity of an operative warrant must accordingly be distinguished from litigation contesting the jurisdiction on which the proceedings rest.
2. Why the ICC Claims Jurisdiction
Israel is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. That status does not, by itself, exclude an Israeli national from ICC jurisdiction. Article 12 provides several jurisdictional gateways, and the Palestine situation proceeds principally through territorial jurisdiction rather than through Israel’s acceptance of the Statute.
Article 12(2)(a) permits the Court to exercise jurisdiction where the conduct in question occurred on the territory of a State Party, subject to the other jurisdictional and statutory requirements of the Rome Statute. Article 12(2)(b) provides a separate nationality basis. When issuing the warrants in 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I expressly rejected the proposition that Israel’s acceptance of ICC jurisdiction was required because the Court relied on Palestine’s territorial jurisdiction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 12; International Criminal Court, 2024a).
Jurisdiction over Netanyahu and the obligations of another State Party asked to arrest him remain separate legal questions. Israel’s non-party status does not negate the territorial gateway accepted by the ICC, but it becomes highly significant when the discussion turns to immunity and Article 98.
2.1 Territorial Jurisdiction in Palestine
Palestine lodged a declaration under Article 12(3) on 1 January 2015 accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014. The following day, Palestine deposited its instrument of accession to the Rome Statute. The Statute entered into force for Palestine on 1 April 2015, and Palestine referred the situation to the Prosecutor on 22 May 2018 (International Criminal Court, 2021).
In February 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I addressed the territorial scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Chamber found unanimously that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute. By majority, with Judge Péter Kovács dissenting, it further held that Palestine qualifies as the territorial state for purposes of Article 12(2)(a) and that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (International Criminal Court, 2021).
That distinction within the decision is legally significant. The finding concerning Palestine’s status as a State Party was not the contested majority holding. The disagreement concerned the consequences of that status for Article 12(2)(a) and the territorial reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. Judge Kovács appended a partly dissenting opinion, while Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut appended a partly separate opinion.
The Chamber also limited the reach of its ruling. It did not purport to determine whether Palestine satisfies every requirement of statehood under general international law, settle an international border dispute, or prejudge future Israeli-Palestinian borders. Its decision concerned the territorial parameters of ICC jurisdiction under the Rome Statute at that stage of the proceedings (International Criminal Court, 2021).
The 2021 ruling remains the institutional foundation for the territorial jurisdiction invoked in the Palestine situation. It supplies the basis on which the Court can proceed against persons accused of crimes allegedly committed within the relevant territory, subject to later challenges concerning jurisdiction, admissibility, and particular cases.
2.2 Israel’s Non-Party Status
Israel’s position outside the Rome Statute system has limited but substantial legal consequences. It does not create a general exemption for Israeli nationals from territorial jurisdiction under Article 12(2)(a). The Court’s 2024 warrant decision expressly proceeded on the basis that Israel’s acceptance was unnecessary where jurisdiction rested on the territory covered by the Palestine situation (International Criminal Court, 2024a).
This does not mean that non-party status is legally irrelevant. Israel continues to dispute the Court’s jurisdictional basis and has used the procedures of the Rome Statute to challenge the proceedings. Those objections concern the validity and scope of the Court’s jurisdiction rather than a rule that nationals of non-party states are categorically outside the ICC’s reach.
The significance of non-party status becomes sharper at the enforcement stage. Israel has not accepted the Rome Statute as a treaty party and has not assumed Article 27 as a treaty obligation. That circumstance underlies the argument that other states may still owe Israel obligations under general international law concerning the personal immunity of its incumbent senior officials.
The resulting distinction is central to the arrest debate. The Court’s jurisdiction over Netanyahu depends principally on Article 12 and the territorial jurisdiction asserted through Palestine. The obligation of another State Party to execute an arrest request engages a different set of provisions, including Articles 27, 86, 89, and 98.
3. When States Parties Must Arrest Netanyahu
An ICC arrest warrant does not execute itself. The Court has no police force or independent enforcement machinery capable of carrying out arrests on national territory. Its system depends on cooperation from states, particularly for the arrest and surrender of persons wanted by the Court (Assembly of States Parties, 2007).
That division of responsibility is built into Part 9 of the Rome Statute. The ICC issues judicial orders and cooperation requests, while national authorities exercise the police and custodial powers needed to secure the person and transfer that person to the Court.
The consequences of Netanyahu’s travel accordingly depend on more than the existence of the warrant. The location of the wanted person, the transmission of the relevant cooperation request, the legal status of the state concerned, and any applicable statutory obstacles all affect the enforcement analysis.
3.1 Article 86 and the Duty to Cooperate
Article 86 establishes the general obligation of cooperation. States Parties must cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within ICC jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 86).
This is a treaty obligation, not a diplomatic courtesy that a State Party may disregard merely because cooperation is politically inconvenient. The precise form of cooperation, however, depends on the more specific provisions governing particular requests.
Article 86 consequently provides the general legal foundation rather than a complete arrest procedure. Arrest and surrender are regulated principally by Article 89, together with provisions governing requests, provisional arrest, consultations, domestic proceedings, and possible conflicts with other international obligations.
3.2 Article 89 and Territorial Presence
Article 89(1) provides that the Court may transmit a request for arrest and surrender to any state “on the territory of which that person may be found.” States Parties must comply with such requests in accordance with the Statute and the procedures established by their national law (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 89(1)).
The provision makes territorial location operationally important. When Netanyahu undertakes a scheduled visit to a State Party that has received the applicable ICC request, he is physically accessible to national authorities in a manner that is absent when an aircraft simply passes through the state’s airspace without landing.
Physical presence does not eliminate other legal questions. National procedures remain applicable, and disputes concerning immunity may arise under Article 98. Article 89 nonetheless provides a more direct legal basis for enforcement when the wanted person is physically present and capable of being arrested.
Netanyahu’s April 2025 visit to Hungary illustrates the distinction. He was present in Hungary from 3 to 6 April while Hungary remained a State Party. After confirming his arrival, the Registry transmitted a request for his provisional arrest pursuant to Article 92. Pre-Trial Chamber I later found Hungary non-compliant for failing to execute the Court’s request and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties (International Criminal Court, 2025c).
The Hungary episode concerned actual presence on national territory. It does not decide the separate question raised by a person who remains aboard an aircraft crossing national airspace without landing. Extending Article 89 from physical territorial presence to an obligation to compel an aircraft to land requires an additional legal analysis.
3.3 Article 97 and Legal Difficulties
Article 97 governs problems that may impede or prevent execution of a cooperation request. When a State Party identifies such a problem, it must consult the Court without delay with a view to resolving the matter (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 97).
The provision identifies several examples, including insufficient information, inability despite best efforts to locate the person sought, mistaken identity, and a potential conflict between execution of the request and a pre-existing treaty obligation owed to another state. The list is expressly non-exhaustive.
Consultation does not amount to a unilateral right to disregard an ICC request. Nor does Article 97 determine whether immunity prevents arrest or whether overflight falls within Article 89. Its function is procedural: it creates a mechanism through which genuine legal or practical obstacles can be raised and addressed within the cooperation framework.
4. Official Capacity and Article 98
The arrest question is complicated by Netanyahu’s position as the incumbent Prime Minister of Israel. General international law recognizes personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae, for certain serving senior officials before the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states.
In the Arrest Warrant case, the International Court of Justice was specifically deciding the immunity of an incumbent foreign minister. In explaining the status of that office, however, the Court placed foreign ministers alongside heads of state and heads of government as senior officials recognized under international law as representatives of their states by virtue of office. The judgment confirmed full immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction and inviolability for the incumbent foreign minister while in office (ICJ, 2002, paras 51, 54).
That doctrine concerns foreign national jurisdiction. The Rome Statute creates a distinct international criminal framework in which Article 27 addresses official capacity, while Article 98 addresses possible conflicts between ICC cooperation requests and international obligations owed to third states. The interaction between those provisions lies at the center of the immunity dispute surrounding Netanyahu.
4.1 Article 27 and Official Position
Article 27(1) provides that the Rome Statute applies equally to all persons without distinction based on official capacity. A person’s status as a head of state, head of government, government member, parliamentarian, elected representative, or public official does not exempt that person from criminal responsibility under the Statute or reduce a sentence (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 27(1)).
Article 27(2) addresses procedural immunity. Immunities or special procedural rules attached to official capacity under national or international law do not bar the ICC itself from exercising jurisdiction over the person (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 27(2)). The statutory rule is consequently clear as to proceedings before the Court.
A more difficult issue arises when national authorities are asked to execute an ICC request. In the 2019 Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, the Appeals Chamber unanimously confirmed that Jordan had failed to comply with its obligation to arrest and surrender Omar Al-Bashir. The Chamber reasoned, among other things, that a State Party executing an ICC request is assisting the Court rather than exercising its own criminal jurisdiction against the foreign official (International Criminal Court, 2019).
The Al-Bashir situation is relevant but not identical to Netanyahu’s case. Darfur had been referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council, a feature that generated additional arguments concerning Sudan’s relationship with the Rome Statute. Netanyahu’s warrant, by contrast, rests on the territorial-jurisdiction route accepted in the Palestine situation. The broader reasoning of the Appeals Chamber on immunity remains important, but the different jurisdictional foundations should not be collapsed into one another.
The Court reinforced its cooperation position in 2024 when Pre-Trial Chamber II found that Mongolia failed to arrest Vladimir Putin during his visit. Russia is not a State Party, and Putin was its incumbent president. The Chamber held that his official position did not relieve Mongolia of its obligation to execute the Court’s request and referred Mongolia’s non-compliance to the Assembly of States Parties (International Criminal Court, 2024c).
4.2 Article 98 and Third-State Immunity
Article 98(1) supplies the principal statutory basis for the contrary argument. It provides that the Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance that would require a requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law concerning the state or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third state, unless the Court first obtains the cooperation of that third state for waiver of the immunity (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 98(1)).
For Netanyahu, the objection begins with Israel’s non-party status. Israel has not accepted Article 27 through accession to the Rome Statute. The argument is that States Parties may nonetheless owe Israel customary international-law obligations concerning the personal immunity and inviolability of its incumbent head of government before their national authorities.
On the restrictive reading, Article 98 prevents the ICC from placing a requested state in conflict with those external obligations. Article 27 may remove official-capacity barriers before the Court itself, but, according to this position, a treaty cannot automatically eliminate the immunity of an incumbent official of a non-party state when that immunity is owed under general international law (Akande, 2004; Gaeta, 2009).
The ICC has taken a different approach. In the Al-Bashir appeal, the Appeals Chamber held that Article 98 does not itself create, recognize, or preserve immunity. It regulates the Court’s handling of a cooperation request when an applicable immunity exists. The Appeals Chamber concluded that head-of-state immunity did not bar Jordan from arresting and surrendering Al-Bashir in the circumstances before it (International Criminal Court, 2019).
Pre-Trial Chamber II applied similar reasoning in the Mongolia decision. It held that personal immunity attached to Putin’s official position was not opposable before the ICC and did not excuse Mongolia from executing the arrest-and-surrender request. The Chamber accordingly rejected Mongolia’s reliance on immunity and Article 98 (International Criminal Court, 2024c).
These decisions establish a clear position within ICC jurisprudence, but they have not eliminated the wider doctrinal controversy. Scholars continue to dispute whether the distinction between foreign national jurisdiction and national authorities acting in support of an international court is sufficient to displace immunity owed to officials of non-party states, particularly where no Security Council referral alters the legal relationship between the non-party state and the Court (Akande, 2004; Gaeta, 2009; Kreß, 2019).
The immunity dispute also remains distinct from the overflight question. Even if the Rome Statute requires a State Party to arrest Netanyahu once he is physically present and the relevant cooperation request applies, that conclusion does not itself establish a duty to create physical presence by intercepting an aircraft or compelling it to land. That separate issue requires consideration of Article 89 alongside territorial sovereignty and international air law.
5. What ICC Practice Has Already Established
The Rome Statute does not provide the International Criminal Court with a centralized enforcement service capable of arresting suspects abroad. Its cooperation jurisprudence has consequently developed through cases in which States Parties encountered wanted officials but declined to execute Court requests. Those decisions define the position the ICC currently takes on official capacity, immunity, and non-cooperation.
Three episodes are especially relevant to Netanyahu. The Al-Bashir litigation produced the leading Appeals Chamber judgment on head-of-state immunity and arrest. The Mongolia decision applied the Court’s approach to the incumbent president of a state that had never joined the Rome Statute. Hungary then brought the issue directly into proceedings concerning Netanyahu.
None of those cases concerned a wanted person whose only connection with the requested state was uninterrupted passage through its airspace. They provide substantial guidance where national authorities have physical access to the person sought, but they do not decide whether the cooperation regime requires a state to create that access by compelling an aircraft to land.
5.1 Al-Bashir and the Duty to Arrest
The leading authority is the Appeals Chamber’s 2019 judgment concerning Jordan’s failure to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. Bashir attended an Arab League summit in Jordan in March 2017 while subject to ICC arrest warrants. Jordan argued that his immunity as the incumbent head of a non-party state prevented execution of the Court’s request.
The Appeals Chamber unanimously confirmed that Jordan had failed to comply with its obligation to arrest and surrender Bashir. It rejected the proposition that his incumbent status prevented arrest at the request of the ICC. The Chamber concluded that customary international law does not recognize head-of-state immunity before an international court and reasoned that national authorities executing an ICC request act in support of the Court rather than exercising their own criminal jurisdiction over the foreign leader (International Criminal Court, 2019).
Article 98 did not alter that conclusion. In the Appeals Chamber’s interpretation, the provision does not itself create, recognize, or preserve an immunity. It regulates how the Court proceeds where an applicable immunity would otherwise place the requested state in conflict with an international obligation. The judgment remains the ICC’s most authoritative appellate statement on the relationship between official capacity, immunity, and cooperation.
Its application to Netanyahu requires care. The Darfur situation reached the ICC through Security Council Resolution 1593, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Appeals Chamber considered the consequences of that referral alongside its broader reasoning on immunity. The Palestine situation has no equivalent Security Council referral, and the jurisdictional route underlying Netanyahu’s warrant is consequently different.
The procedural outcome was also more nuanced than a complete affirmation of the earlier ruling. Although the Appeals Chamber upheld the finding that Jordan had violated its cooperation obligations, a majority reversed the decision to refer Jordan’s non-compliance to the Assembly of States Parties and the Security Council. The case remains authoritative on the arrest obligation without making every aspect of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s disposition part of the appellate holding.
5.2 Putin and Mongolia
The Mongolia decision is particularly relevant because it involved an incumbent leader of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute. Vladimir Putin has been subject to an ICC arrest warrant since March 2023 in the Situation in Ukraine. Russia is not a State Party.
Putin visited Mongolia in September 2024. Mongolia, which is a State Party, did not arrest him. On 24 October 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that Mongolia had failed to cooperate with the Court and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties under Article 87(7) (International Criminal Court, 2024c).
The Chamber rejected Mongolia’s reliance on Putin’s official position and on Article 98. It held that Article 27 applies irrespective of whether the official represents a State Party or a non-party state and concluded that personal immunity did not prevent Mongolia from executing the Court’s arrest-and-surrender request.
That reasoning is significant for Netanyahu because Israel, like Russia, has not joined the Rome Statute. At least at Pre-Trial Chamber level, the Court does not regard the combination of non-party nationality and incumbent leadership as sufficient to excuse a State Party from executing an arrest request.
The decision did not receive appellate review. Mongolia sought leave to appeal the non-compliance decision, together with related relief, but Pre-Trial Chamber II rejected those requests on 29 November 2024 (International Criminal Court, 2024d). The ruling consequently remains an important expression of the Court’s current position, while the broader international-law controversy over third-state immunities remains unresolved outside the ICC’s own jurisprudence.
5.3 Hungary and Netanyahu
Hungary provides the most direct precedent because it concerned Netanyahu himself. He visited Hungary from 3 to 6 April 2025 while the ICC warrant was in force. After confirming his arrival, the Registry transmitted a request for his provisional arrest under Article 92. Hungarian authorities did not execute it (International Criminal Court, 2025c).
Pre-Trial Chamber I subsequently found that Hungary had failed to cooperate with the Court and, on 24 July 2025, referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties under Article 87(7). The finding concerned a concrete opportunity to arrest Netanyahu while he was present on Hungarian territory and accessible to national authorities.
Hungary announced during Netanyahu’s visit that it intended to leave the ICC and deposited a notification of withdrawal with the UN Secretary-General on 2 June 2025. Under Article 127, that notification would ordinarily have taken effect one year later.
The withdrawal never became effective. On 29 May 2026, Hungary notified the UN Secretary-General that it was withdrawing its earlier notification of withdrawal. The UN depositary record accordingly confirms that Hungary remained continuously a State Party to the Rome Statute (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).
This later development does not alter the legal position during Netanyahu’s April 2025 visit. Hungary was unquestionably a State Party at that time. More importantly for the overflight issue, the case concerned Netanyahu entering the country and becoming physically accessible to Hungarian authorities. It did not address whether a State Party must intercept an aircraft that merely crosses its airspace without landing.
6. Netanyahu’s September 2026 Flight Through Europe
On 24 September 2026, Netanyahu traveled to New York for the United Nations General Assembly aboard Israel’s official government aircraft while the ICC warrant remained operative. Flight-tracking data reported by Reuters showed the aircraft crossing Greek, Italian, and French airspace before continuing toward the United States (Reuters, 2026).
Greece, Italy, and France are parties to the Rome Statute. The fact that the aircraft crossed all three states does not establish that their governments adopted the same legal position. Contemporary reporting did not show Greece or Italy formally endorsing the interpretation subsequently articulated by France. Italy’s Foreign Ministry stated that it could not immediately confirm whether Israeli authorities had requested authorization for the overflight (Reuters, 2026).
France expressly defended its decision. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux stated that the clearance was consistent with international law and that the Rome Statute does not impose an obligation concerning the overflight of a state aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant (Reuters, 2026).
The position was not new. France had already used essentially the same formulation in official parliamentary responses concerning Netanyahu’s earlier overflights in February, April, and July 2025. Those responses maintained that the Rome Statute did not create an obligation concerning such passage by an aircraft that France characterized as a state aircraft (Assemblée nationale, 2025a; 2025b; 2025c).
The September 2026 journey nevertheless transformed a recurring legal argument into a concrete enforcement episode. France, a State Party to the Rome Statute, authorized an actual overflight while the passenger remained subject to an ICC arrest warrant. Its conduct and accompanying explanation provide state practice relevant to the interpretation of the cooperation regime, although they do not bind the Court or other States Parties.
7. Did France Have to Stop Netanyahu’s Plane?
The difficult question is not whether France exercised sovereignty over the airspace crossed by Netanyahu’s aircraft. It did. The narrower issue is whether the Rome Statute required France to use powers associated with that sovereignty to prevent the aircraft from continuing toward the United States.
Neither the Al-Bashir judgment, the Mongolia decision, nor the Hungary finding resolved that problem. Each concerned a wanted person who had entered a State Party in circumstances in which national authorities could, as a practical matter, arrest him without first altering the legal or physical status of an aircraft in flight.
Overflight adds another step. Before an arrest could occur, the state would need to obtain physical access to the passenger by regulating or acting against the aircraft itself. The Rome Statute’s cooperation provisions must consequently be considered alongside the international law governing sovereign airspace and aviation.
7.1 Sovereignty Over Territorial Airspace
Article 1 of the Chicago Convention provides that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. The International Court of Justice has likewise recognized that sovereignty under customary international law extends to the airspace above state territory (Chicago Convention, 1944, art. 1; ICJ, 1986, para. 212).
France accordingly possessed legal authority over access to its sovereign airspace. The precise rules governing a particular flight depend, however, on the classification of the aircraft and the legal basis on which overflight permission has been granted.
France publicly characterized the aircraft carrying Netanyahu as a state aircraft. Article 3(c) of the Chicago Convention provides that a state aircraft of one Contracting State may not fly over the territory of another state without authorization through special agreement or otherwise, and must comply with the terms of that authorization (Chicago Convention, 1944, art. 3(c)).
Article 3(b) does not itself expressly classify every government-owned or government-used passenger aircraft as a state aircraft. It specifically provides that aircraft used in military, customs, and police services are deemed to be state aircraft. France’s characterization of Netanyahu’s aircraft can accordingly be reported as the position adopted by the French government without treating that classification as automatically applicable to every official government flight.
Sovereign authority and treaty obligation remain distinct. France’s capacity to grant, deny, or condition access to its airspace does not by itself establish that Articles 86 and 89 of the Rome Statute require those powers to be exercised for the purpose of executing an ICC warrant.
7.2 Does Article 89 Cover Mere Overflight?
Article 89(1) permits the Court to transmit an arrest-and-surrender request to a state “on the territory of which that person may be found.” It does not specify how that language applies when the wanted person is aboard an aircraft that crosses sovereign airspace without landing (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 89(1)).
A broad interpretation has a plausible textual foundation. State sovereignty extends into national airspace, and a passenger aboard an aircraft is physically located within that airspace while the aircraft passes overhead. The word “territory” in Article 89 is not expressly limited to the land surface.
The difficulty arises from the function of Article 89. It regulates arrest and surrender within a statutory framework that also contemplates custody, domestic arrest procedures, judicial safeguards, and transfer to the Court. Those mechanisms ordinarily assume that national authorities can obtain physical control over the person sought.
During uninterrupted overflight, that control does not already exist. The state would first have to take action affecting the aircraft before national authorities could arrest the passenger. That additional step was absent in Jordan, Mongolia, and Hungary, where the wanted official had already entered the state in a form that allowed domestic authorities to act directly against him.
The treaty text does not presently resolve whether the phrase “on the territory of which that person may be found” extends far enough to require a State Party to create physical access by compelling an aircraft to land. Article 89 does not clearly exclude territorial airspace, but neither does it expressly impose an interception or forced-landing obligation.
7.3 What Article 89(3) Adds to the Debate
Article 89(3) contains the Rome Statute’s most explicit treatment of air transit. It applies when a person is already being surrendered to the ICC by another state and transportation to the Court requires passage through the territory of a State Party (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 89(3)).
The provision distinguishes uninterrupted air transportation from landing. No transit authorization is required when the person is transported by air and no landing is scheduled. If an unscheduled landing occurs, the transit state may require a transit request and may detain the person while that request is obtained, subject to the 96-hour limitation prescribed by Article 89(3)(e).
Netanyahu’s September 2026 journey did not fall within this regime. He was neither in custody nor being surrendered to the ICC. Article 89(3) cannot be treated as a direct rule governing independent travel by a person who is subject to an arrest warrant.
Its structure nevertheless has interpretive relevance. The Statute itself distinguishes uninterrupted air passage from circumstances in which the aircraft lands and the person becomes accessible within the transit state. That distinction does not determine the meaning of Article 89(1), but it weighs against assuming that the Rome Statute treats every form of presence in sovereign airspace as operationally identical.
7.4 Interception and Forced Landing
An arrest obligation during overflight would require measures that do not arise during an ordinary official visit. Before French authorities could take Netanyahu into custody, the aircraft would first have to land. State action could occur before entry by denying overflight authorization or, after entry, through instructions affecting the aircraft’s route or landing.
Those measures engage aviation law as well as ICC cooperation law. If France’s characterization of the aircraft as a state aircraft is accepted, Article 3(c) of the Chicago Convention makes overflight dependent on authorization. Refusing permission before the aircraft enters national airspace is legally and operationally different from seeking to compel a landing after authorization has already been granted.
Interception raises additional concerns. Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention contains specific safeguards for civil aircraft, including the principle that weapons must not be used against civil aircraft in flight and that interception must not endanger persons aboard or the safety of the aircraft. Those provisions cannot automatically be transferred to an aircraft treated as a state aircraft because Article 3(a) excludes state aircraft from the Convention’s ordinary application (Chicago Convention, 1944, arts 3 and 3 bis).
The classification issue does not resolve the Rome Statute question. Articles 86 and 89 impose cooperation obligations, but neither provision expressly instructs a requested state to intercept an aircraft, cancel or withdraw an overflight clearance, order a route change, or compel a landing so that the wanted person can be arrested.
France’s sovereignty over the airspace consequently establishes legal authority over the flight, not by itself an ICC duty to force the aircraft down. A further interpretive step is required before control over airspace can be converted into a specific obligation to use that control to secure an arrest.
7.5 France’s Interpretation of the Rome Statute
France has repeatedly maintained that the Rome Statute does not impose an obligation regarding the overflight of French territory by a state aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant (Assemblée nationale, 2025a; 2025b; 2025c; Reuters, 2026).
That interpretation has a limited textual basis. The Statute contains no provision expressly requiring interception or compulsory landing in these circumstances. Article 89(1) addresses arrest and surrender of a person who may be found on a state’s territory, while Article 89(3) separately recognizes uninterrupted air transit in the different context of a person already being surrendered to the Court.
France’s position is not an authoritative interpretation binding the ICC or other States Parties. It represents the view of one State Party, applied through its own overflight decisions. A future ICC cooperation decision could interpret Articles 86 and 89 differently, particularly if the Court were asked directly to determine whether territorial airspace falls within the operational scope of an arrest request.
The legal conclusion remains limited. France has articulated a legally arguable interpretation of an issue the Rome Statute does not expressly resolve, but existing ICC jurisprudence does not establish that mere overflight either necessarily triggers or necessarily excludes an obligation to secure the wanted person’s arrest.
8. Overflight, Transit, Landing, and Official Visits
The enforcement analysis changes according to the form of travel involved. A person may be aboard an aircraft continuously crossing national airspace, remain aboard after landing, disembark during airport transit, or enter the state for an official visit. These situations do not give national authorities the same degree of physical access.
Mere overflight is the most uncertain case. The aircraft is within sovereign airspace, but the wanted passenger is not already accessible to national police. Obtaining custody would first require state action affecting the aircraft, and the Rome Statute contains no express provision prescribing such a measure.
A landing changes the factual position but does not automatically eliminate every legal obstacle. If Netanyahu disembarks and enters the state, the analogy with Hungary becomes substantially stronger: national authorities have physical access to him, and Articles 59 and 89 provide the statutory framework for arrest and surrender, subject to the applicable cooperation request and any immunity dispute (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 59 and 89).
Airport transit may remain more difficult where the passenger stays aboard an official aircraft. Although the aircraft is on the ground within the state, questions may persist concerning access to the aircraft, its legal status, national arrest procedures, and immunity. Landing alone should not be treated as if it resolves every issue connected with enforcement.
An emergency or unscheduled landing also removes one feature that makes overflight distinctive: the state no longer has to compel the aircraft to enter its territory at ground level before authorities can seek access to the passenger. Article 89(3)(e) creates a specific detention mechanism for an unscheduled landing only where the individual is already being transported to the ICC under the surrender regime. It does not directly govern Netanyahu’s independent travel.
An official visit in which Netanyahu disembarks and becomes accessible to national authorities remains the clearest factual setting for application of the ICC’s existing cooperation jurisprudence. Hungary demonstrates how the Court approaches that situation. The unresolved legal margin lies further away from that model, especially where the aircraft never lands and an arrest would first require regulatory or coercive action directed at the flight itself.
Also read
Conclusion
The Netanyahu ICC Arrest Warrant continues to have concrete legal consequences for States Parties. Within the ICC system, the Al-Bashir Appeals Chamber judgment, the Mongolia non-compliance decision, and the Hungary finding support the Court’s position that official status does not by itself excuse failure to execute an applicable arrest request when the wanted person is accessible to national authorities within the requested state.
Netanyahu’s September 2026 journey presented a different problem. France exercised sovereignty over the relevant airspace and authorized the aircraft to cross it. That authority over the flight does not, without an additional legal basis, establish that the Rome Statute required France to intercept the aircraft or compel it to land.
Article 89 does not expressly answer that question. Its arrest-and-surrender framework applies most directly where a wanted person can be taken into custody after entering the state in a form accessible to national authorities and where the applicable ICC request is in place. Article 89(3), in a different surrender context, also shows that the Statute expressly distinguishes uninterrupted air transit from landing.
France has adopted the position that overflight by a state aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC warrant creates no arrest obligation. That view is neither an ICC judgment nor a rule binding other States Parties. On the authorities currently available, the Court’s cooperation jurisprudence is substantially clearer where Netanyahu lands or otherwise becomes physically accessible to authorities in a State Party than where his aircraft merely passes through its airspace.
References
Akande, D. (2004) ‘International law immunities and the International Criminal Court’, American Journal of International Law, 98(3), pp. 407–433. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3181639 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Assemblée nationale (2025a) ‘Question écrite n° 4276: M. Netanyahu a survolé l’espace aérien français malgré un mandat d’arrêt (CPI)’ [online]. Response published 6 May 2025. Available at: https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/questions/QANR5L17QE4276 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Assemblée nationale (2025b) ‘Question écrite n° 7089: Survol de l’espace aérien français par Benjamin Netanyahu’ [online]. Response published 15 July 2025. Available at: https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/questions/QANR5L17QE7089 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Assemblée nationale (2025c) ‘Question écrite n° 8880: Survol de l’espace aérien français par M. Netanyahu visé par un mandat de la CPI’ [online]. Response published 2 December 2025. Available at: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/questions/QANR5L17QE8880 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Assembly of States Parties (2007) Report on the Conference on International Criminal Justice held in Turin, Italy, 14–18 May 2007, ICC-ASP/6/INF.2, 19 October 2007 [online]. Available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/library/asp/icc-asp-6-inf-2_english.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) (1944) signed at Chicago 7 December 1944, entered into force 4 April 1947, 15 UNTS 295, ICAO Doc 7300. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/2024-12/7300_cons.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Gaeta, P. (2009) ‘Does President Al Bashir enjoy immunity from arrest?’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(2), pp. 315–332. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqp030 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103177 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2019) Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, Appeals Chamber, 6 May 2019, ICC-02/05-01/09-397-Corr [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/05-01/09-397-corr (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2021) Decision on the ‘Prosecution request pursuant to article 19(3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 5 February 2021, ICC-01/18-143 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-143 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
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’, 21 November 2024 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2024c) 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, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 24 October 2024, ICC-01/22-90 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/22-90 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2024d) Decision on Mongolia’s requests for leave to appeal, temporary stay of the proceedings and related matters, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 29 November 2024, ICC-01/22-111 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/22-111 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2025a) Judgment on the appeal of the State of Israel against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s ‘Decision on Israel’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19(2) of the Rome Statute’, Appeals Chamber, 24 April 2025, ICC-01/18-422 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-422 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2025b) 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, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 16 July 2025, ICC-01/18-457 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-457 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (2025c) Finding under article 87(7) of the Statute on Hungary’s non-compliance with the Court’s request to cooperate in the provisional arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and referral to the Assembly of States Parties, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 24 July 2025, ICC-01/18-462 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-462 (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
International Criminal Court (n.d.) ‘Netanyahu’ [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
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://www.toaep.org/ops-pdf/8-kress (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 3 bis) (1984) signed at Montreal 10 May 1984, entered into force 1 October 1998, ICAO Doc 9436. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/secretariat/legal/Administrative%20Packages/3bis_EN.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘France says ICC warrant posed no obstacle to Netanyahu overflight’, 24 September 2026 [online]. Available at: https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/09/24/france-says-icc-warrant-posed-no-obstacle-to-netanyahu-overflight (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted at Rome 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
United Nations Security Council (2005) Resolution 1593 (2005), S/RES/1593(2005), adopted at the 5158th meeting, 31 March 2005. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/544817?ln=en (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
United Nations Treaty Collection (2025) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Hungary: Withdrawal, Depositary Notification C.N.225.2025.TREATIES-XVIII.10, 3 June 2025 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.225.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).
United Nations Treaty Collection (2026) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Hungary: Withdrawal of Notification of Withdrawal, Depositary Notification C.N.180.2026.TREATIES-XVIII.10, 29 May 2026 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2026/CN.180.2026-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2026).