Core facts

• 1 Jan 2015Palestine accepts ICC jurisdiction — Article 12(3) declaration covering crimes from 13 June 2014.
• 2 Jan 2015Rome Statute accession — Palestine deposits its instrument of accession.
• 1 Apr 2015Statute enters into force for Palestine.
• 22 May 2018State referral — Palestine refers the Situation to the Prosecutor.
• 5 Feb 2021Jurisdiction ruling — Pre-Trial Chamber I confirms territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
• 3 Mar 2021Investigation opened.
• 7 Oct 2023 onwardInvestigation intensifies amid the Gaza war and allegations concerning multiple parties.
• 20 May 2024Prosecutor applies for warrants against five individuals.
• 21 Nov 2024Three warrants issued — Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif.
• 26 Feb 2025Deif proceedings terminated after notification concerning his death.
• 16 Apr 2025Hungary non-cooperation proceedings opened under Article 87(7) concerning the failure to provisionally arrest Netanyahu.
• 24 Apr 2025Appeals Chamber judgment reverses the earlier Pre-Trial Chamber decision on Israel’s jurisdictional challenge and remands the matter.
• 28 May 2025Pre-Trial Chamber procedural directions issued in the continuing jurisdiction litigation.
• 24 Jul 2025Hungary non-compliance finding referred to the Assembly of States Parties.
• 2 Jun 2026Hungary’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute takes effect following the one-year period under Article 127.
• 1 Sep 2026Archive cutoff — investigation and related litigation remain part of the ICC’s continuing Situation in the State of Palestine.

The ICC’s 21 November 2024 public announcement identifies five crimes for which Pre-Trial Chamber I found reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility. The announcement distinguishes between responsibility as co-perpetrators and responsibility as civilian superiors.

Warrant-stage finding

“Reasonable grounds to believe” is the statutory threshold applied when the Court issues an arrest warrant. The Chamber found that threshold satisfied for the specified crimes and alleged responsibility.

The Chamber’s public reasoning refers to a broad evidentiary record. The categories below are described without treating any single statement, report or image as sufficient by itself.

Key findings

• Jurisdiction: the Chamber relied on the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine and its earlier 2021 jurisdiction decision.
• Starvation: the Chamber found reasonable grounds concerning deprivation of essential goods and humanitarian relief.
• Crimes against humanity: the Chamber found reasonable grounds for murder, persecution and other inhumane acts as part of a widespread and systematic attack.
• Civilian attacks: the Chamber found reasonable grounds concerning two incidents and assessed superior responsibility.
• Extermination: the Chamber did not find that all elements were established on the material before it at that stage.

What the decision established

It established the legal basis for the arrest warrants and publicly set out the Chamber’s findings on the specified crimes and alleged responsibility at the warrant stage.

The ICC does not have its own police force. Arrest and surrender generally depend on cooperation by States under the Rome Statute. A country’s political statement about the warrant should therefore be distinguished from an actual arrest, transfer or judicial cooperation event.

How the obligation works

• States Parties: Rome Statute parties have cooperation obligations under the Statute, subject to the legal framework governing a particular request.
• Arrest: national authorities are the actors who physically detain a person on their territory.
• Surrender: after arrest, the person can be transferred to ICC custody through the applicable national and international process.
• Non-cooperation: the Court can use Article 87(7) procedures where a State Party is alleged to have failed to comply.

Examples documented in the record

The ICC does not have its own police force. Arrest and surrender of a person sought by the Court depend on cooperation by States and the procedures available under their national law. For the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants, the countries below are included because their governments or responsible officials publicly stated that they would respect, implement or comply with the ICC warrants.

Countries That Publicly Declared Enforcement

How Arrest and Surrender Work

• Rome Statute cooperation: States Parties are required to cooperate with the Court under Article 86.
• Arrest request: Under Article 89, the Court can transmit a request for arrest and surrender to a State where the wanted person is found.
• National authorities: The actual detention is carried out by the authorities of the State concerned under its national procedures.
• Surrender to the ICC: Following arrest and the applicable national process, the person can be surrendered to the Court.
• Failure to cooperate: Where a State Party fails to comply in a way that prevents the Court from exercising its functions, Article 87(7) provides a procedure for a judicial finding and possible referral.

124 States Parties at the Current Cutoff

The card uses 124 Member States as the current figure at the 1 September 2026 cutoff. The Assembly of States Parties recorded 125 States Parties after Ukraine’s ratification in January 2025. Hungary’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective on 2 June 2026, leaving 124 States Parties at the stated cutoff.

Governments and officials have publicly criticized the ICC warrants, questioned the Court’s jurisdiction, or declined to cooperate. These positions are recorded as political or legal submissions, not adopted as findings by the Court.

The Court has kept the Netanyahu and Gallant warrant documents classified as secret. Publicly accessible records include the Court’s announcement, public redacted filings, decisions and the Court Records archive.

Where the records overlap

• Shared factual context: both proceedings concern the Gaza conflict and related humanitarian conditions.
• Humanitarian evidence: UN and other international reporting can be relevant to factual assessments in different proceedings.
• Different legal questions: an ICJ finding is not an ICC conviction, and an ICC warrant is not an ICJ judgment.

Official ICC

• ICC Situation in the State of Palestine
• 21 November 2024 warrant announcement and decision summary
• ICC Netanyahu defendant record
• ICC Gallant defendant record
• ICC Court Records
• ICC Decisions database

International and humanitarian sources

• UN OCHA oPt
• Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
• World Health Organization — Gaza emergency

Legal framework

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
• ICC core legal texts

ICJ connection

• ICJ South Africa v. Israel, Case No. 192

The ICC’s jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine rests on Palestine’s acceptance of the Rome Statute framework and the Court’s territorial-jurisdiction findings. Israel’s consent is not treated as a prerequisite to the Court’s territorial jurisdiction over the situation in the Court’s published reasoning.

• 1 Jan 2015: Palestine lodged an Article 12(3) declaration accepting jurisdiction from 13 June 2014.
• 2 Jan 2015: Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute.
• 1 Apr 2015: The Statute entered into force for Palestine.
• 22 May 2018: Palestine referred the Situation to the Prosecutor.
• 5 Feb 2021: Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the Court could exercise territorial jurisdiction extending to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
• 3 Mar 2021: The Prosecutor announced the opening of the investigation.

International criminal investigations collect large quantities of material before a chamber decides whether the legal threshold for a warrant is met. The public ICC record indicates that the Palestine investigation draws on national authorities, civil society, international and regional organizations, audio, video and documentary material.

Four stages

The starvation allegation is closely tied to the Court’s assessment of access to essential goods. The 21 November 2024 decision describes information concerning food, water, electricity, fuel, medicine and humanitarian relief and records warnings about Gaza’s humanitarian situation.

What it means

An arrest warrant is a judicial measure authorizing the arrest and surrender of a named person when the Court’s legal threshold for issuing the warrant is met. In the Palestine warrants, the Chamber found “reasonable grounds to believe” that the named individuals bore criminal responsibility for specified crimes.

Procedural significance

• Not a conviction: guilt has not been finally adjudicated by a trial judgment.
• Not a sentence: punishment is not imposed merely because a warrant exists.
• Not automatic arrest: the ICC depends on State cooperation and national authorities.
• Not the end of litigation: jurisdiction, admissibility and other procedural issues can continue to be litigated.

Why the warrant matters

The warrant is a formal judicial action based on the Chamber’s finding of reasonable grounds to believe the specified crimes and responsibility requirements were met at that stage.

The 21 November 2024 announcement describes two different legal routes for the alleged responsibility of Netanyahu and Gallant. The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe they were co-perpetrators for starvation, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts, while it also assessed them as civilian superiors for intentionally directing attacks against civilians.

On 24 April 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber issued a judgment on Israel’s appeal against the Pre-Trial Chamber’s earlier decision concerning jurisdiction. The Appeals Chamber reversed that decision and remanded the matter to the Pre-Trial Chamber. This created further jurisdictional litigation rather than a final merits judgment on the alleged crimes.

Key procedural developments

• 24 Apr 2025Appeals Chamber judgment — jurisdictional decision reversed and matter remanded.
• 24 Apr 2025Separate Article 18 appeal decision — Appeals Chamber also dealt with Israel’s appeal concerning the Prosecutor’s Article 18 notice request.
• 28 May 2025Pre-Trial Chamber procedural order — directions on the conduct of the jurisdiction proceedings.
• 26 May–9 Jul 2025Further appellate filings — public records show continuing procedural submissions and decisions.

Netanyahu visited Hungary from 3 to 6 April 2025. Hungary did not provisionally arrest him. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber opened proceedings under Article 87(7) concerning alleged non-cooperation, and the Prosecutor argued that Hungary had failed to execute the Court’s request for provisional arrest.

What followed

• 16 Apr 2025Proceedings opened concerning Hungary’s failure to execute the provisional-arrest request.
• 23 May 2025Hungary’s submission transmitted for the Article 87(7) proceedings.
• 13 Jun 2025Prosecution observations filed in public redacted form.
• 24 Jul 2025Non-compliance finding and referral to the Assembly of States Parties.
• 2 Jun 2026Hungary’s withdrawal takes effect after the one-year Article 127 period.

Major status points

• Netanyahu and Gallant remain subject to the 21 November 2024 arrest warrants and are listed at large in ICC records.
• Jurisdictional litigation continued. The 2025 Appeals Chamber judgment remanded the jurisdiction issue to the Pre-Trial Chamber.
• Hungary’s non-cooperation matter became an institutional issue. The matter was referred to the Assembly of States Parties in 2025.
• Hungary’s withdrawal took effect on 2 June 2026. That is a separate treaty-status development and should not be presented as cancellation of the ICC’s Palestine investigation or warrants.
• Investigation remains broader than these two warrants. The Prosecutor’s 2026 planning documents describe continuing lines of inquiry into alleged crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The ICC stated on 21 November 2024 that the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were classified as “secret” to protect witnesses and safeguard the conduct of investigations. At the same time, the Chamber released information about the warrants because it considered similar conduct to be ongoing and because victims and families had an interest in knowing that warrants existed.

Secret does not mean invisible

Because the full warrant documents are classified, the accessible record uses the ICC’s public announcement, public filings and Court Records entries.

An ICC arrest warrant does not itself physically transport a person to The Hague. The process depends on arrest by national authorities and cooperation with the Court.

• 1. Arrest: A cooperating State’s authorities detain the person under the applicable domestic process.
• 2. Judicial and administrative steps: National authorities address the domestic requirements for surrender or transfer.
• 3. Surrender to the ICC: The person is transferred into ICC custody in accordance with the Rome Statute and applicable procedures.
• 4. Initial appearance: The person appears before the Court and the proceedings move into the relevant pre-trial stage.
• 5. Confirmation of charges: Where applicable, the Court determines whether the charges can proceed toward trial.
• 6. Trial and judgment: Evidence is tested and the Trial Chamber decides guilt or acquittal under the applicable standard.
• 7. Appeal: Parties may have appeal rights under the Rome Statute.

Victims and affected communities are central to the ICC’s work. The Palestine Situation has generated extensive documentation from survivors, medical personnel, aid workers, civil society and international organizations. The ICC framework also provides mechanisms through which victims can receive information and, where the legal conditions are met, participate in proceedings.

Why this matters in the Palestine Situation

• Recognition: Public court records identify alleged crimes affecting civilian populations and preserve procedural findings.
• Participation: Victims may have rights under the Rome Statute and the Court’s rules, depending on the stage and circumstances of proceedings.
• Protection: The Court can use protective measures for victims and witnesses where required.
• Reparative justice: The ICC system includes a Trust Fund for Victims and reparations mechanisms in applicable cases.
• Documentation: Reliable records help preserve allegations, evidence and procedural history for accountability.