In March 2026, the Middle East once again found itself at the centre of global politics. The escalation of the conflict, provoked by Iran’s actions, the international community’s harsh response and the sharp rise in energy prices have heightened fears regarding regional stability. However, behind these high-profile events lies an issue that is no less significant, yet less discussed: the legal status of the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Although the warrant was issued back in 2024 on charges of war crimes, it remains in force. Nevertheless, its practical implementation faces serious obstacles. Netanyahu retains his freedom of movement and continues to perform his official duties, which clearly demonstrates the complexity of enforcing such decisions. The root of the problem lies in the very architecture of the ICC: the court lacks its own enforcement bodies, and its activities depend entirely on the will and cooperation of sovereign states. As Israel does not recognise the jurisdiction of this body, the court’s options are extremely limited.
This case exposes a deeper systemic problem in international justice. Even among countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, there is no unified approach to fulfilling obligations. By 2026, a number of European states had still not taken decisive steps to execute the warrant, preferring to adopt a wait-and-see stance.
Historical experience confirms this trend. The arrest warrant for former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir remained unenforced for years, whilst the attempt to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin to justice sparked an unprecedented diplomatic backlash. These examples demonstrate that the effectiveness of international institutions depends directly on the prevailing political climate and the balance of power on the global stage.
Political pressure also exerts a significant influence. Previous experience of investigations into US actions in Afghanistan led to the Donald Trump administration imposing sanctions against ICC staff, which called the court’s independence into question.
The financial aspect also plays a key role: a significant portion of the ICC’s budget is funded by contributions from European Union countries. At the same time, alternative views on international justice, promoted by the BRICS countries, are gaining popularity.
Thus, the Netanyahu case serves as a clear indicator that the authority of the International Criminal Court and international law as a whole depends directly on the level of global support and the willingness of states to cooperate. The current situation calls for the search for new mechanisms to strengthen trust in international legal institutions.