HUNGARY has withdrawn its notice to leave the International Criminal Court, in a dramatic reversal that preserves its membership of the Rome Statute and averts what would have been a damaging rupture with the global justice system.
In a statement on 1 June 2026, the ICC said it welcomed Hungary’s decision to withdraw its notification of withdrawal “with immediate effect,” after the Hungarian government formally notified the United Nations Secretary-General on 29 May 2026. The move follows a 25 May statement from the Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties, which had already welcomed Budapest’s announcement that it would remain in the treaty.
The reversal is a significant political and diplomatic shift. Hungary had previously set in motion its departure from the Court in 2025, a step that drew criticism from supporters of international justice and raised the prospect that it could become the first European Union member state outside the ICC.
That prospect has now been avoided. By remaining inside the Rome Statute, Hungary keeps its obligations as a State Party to the Court, including cooperation with the ICC’s mandate to investigate and prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
The decision also carries wider symbolic weight. The ICC depends on the commitment of member states to uphold the treaty system and support accountability for the world’s most serious crimes. Hungary’s U-turn, coming just as its withdrawal was due to take effect, removes one of the most visible political challenges facing the Court in Europe.
The reversal may also reflect a calculated change in Budapest’s political positioning. Hungary’s planned exit had been widely viewed as a challenge to the Court’s authority and to broader European support for international law. Pulling back at the last moment suggests the government has chosen, at least for now, to remain within the international justice framework rather than deepen its confrontation with it.
For the ICC, the development is a welcome reprieve. But the episode underscores how fragile international legal commitments can be when they collide with domestic politics.
