Hungary’s parliament has approved legislation to stop the country’s planned withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), reversing a decision launched under the previous government and keeping Hungary inside the Hague-based tribunal.

As we reported, as a first step, the Tisza-led government officially withdrew the country’s intention to withdraw from the ICC, thereby reversing one of the Orbán government’s most controversial foreign policy decisions.

The bill was passed on Wednesday in a fast-tracked procedure, with 133 MPs voting in favour, 37 against and five abstaining, largely along party lines. The new law revokes the withdrawal process that had been initiated in 2025 and is set to take effect the day after it is officially promulgated.

For international readers: the ICC is the world’s permanent international criminal court, established under the Rome Statute, and it prosecutes individuals — not states — accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression (in specific circumstances). Member states are expected to cooperate with the court, including, in principle, executing ICC arrest warrants.

ICC reversal blocks an exit that was due to take effect in June

Hungary’s previous government, led by Viktor Orbán, initiated the country’s withdrawal from the ICC in 2025, describing the court as politically motivated.

That process was on track to become effective on 2 June 2026, according to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, the court’s oversight body.

The new legislation, submitted by Prime Minister Péter Magyar and backed by his Tisza Party, moves to halt that withdrawal before it could take effect. In reporting on the bill, supporters argued that continued ICC membership is needed to uphold international peace and security, protect human rights and ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes.

The move was welcomed by the Assembly of States Parties, which described the decision as important for the court’s work and the broader system of international justice. The Assembly of States Parties is the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC, composed of representatives of states that have ratified and acceded to the Rome Statute.

Background: why Hungary moved to leave the ICC in 2025

The 2025 withdrawal initiative followed a highly political dispute over the ICC’s actions related to the Israel–Gaza war. Orbán’s government announced the intention to leave after a visit to Budapest by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was under an ICC arrest warrant over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the time, Hungary rejected the idea of arresting Netanyahu and criticised the court in unusually blunt terms, with officials framing it as no longer impartial. The planned exit drew international criticism, including from human rights organisations, who argued it would weaken accountability for grave crimes and undermine the EU’s credibility on rule-of-law issues.

Hungary’s reversal now places the country back on a path of formal alignment with ICC obligations — a notable change in tone and direction after a year in which the country had been heading towards becoming the first EU member state to exit the court.

There are numerous indications that Viktor Orbán sought to play a mediating role on the international political stage; it is therefore conceivable that he wanted to facilitate visits by Benjamin Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin and offer asylum to politicians facing arrest. One of the fundamental conditions for the peace talks would have been, for example, that the aforementioned leaders attend a potential peace conference in Budapest.

What the parliamentary vote tells us

The vote split reflected Hungary’s current political divide. The bill passed with the Tisza Party’s 133 MPs backing it, while Fidesz–KDNP voted against and five MPs abstained, reported as coming from Mi Hazánk, Telex says.

Opponents have continued to argue that the ICC has become politicised, a claim frequently raised by governments critical of the court’s investigations and arrest warrants. Supporters, however, argue that leaving would have reduced Hungary’s influence in global justice debates and weakened commitments shared across the EU on accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What happens next

The immediate next step is procedural: the law comes into force after promulgation. Politically, the decision will likely be read internationally as an attempt by the new government to reset Hungary’s relationship with EU partners and with rules-based international institutions, Reuters said.

Substantively, staying in the ICC means Hungary remains bound by the Rome Statute framework and, in principle, continues to be expected to cooperate with the court’s work. That matters not only in high-profile geopolitical cases, but also in the longer-term credibility of international justice at a time when accountability for war crimes — including in Ukraine and the Middle East — remains a central international issue.

If you missed it: Péter Magyar on phone with Benjamin Netanyahu: they agreed on two issues