How Did Netanyahu Reach New York Despite The ICC Arrest Warrant?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to New York this week for the 81st session of the UN General Assembly despite an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in November 2024. His aircraft crossed Greek, Italian and French airspace before continuing to the United States, with no arrest taking place during the journey.

The immediate question is why countries that are parties to the Rome Statute allowed the aircraft to pass through their airspace. France provided the clearest answer on Thursday, saying it had authorised Netanyahu's overflight and that the Rome Statute did not require it to intercept a state aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC warrant.

The episode also exposes a broader feature of the ICC system. The Court can issue arrest warrants and request states to arrest and surrender suspects, but it has no police force of its own. Enforcement ultimately depends on national authorities and the legal obligations applicable to the state involved.

Why Did The ICC Issue A Warrant For Netanyahu?

The ICC issued Netanyahu's arrest warrant on November 21, 2024, after Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected Israel's challenges to the Court's jurisdiction.

The Chamber said there were reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. It also found reasonable grounds to believe that he was responsible, as a civilian superior, for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population. The alleged conduct covered the period from at least October 8, 2023 to at least May 20, 2024.

The wording matters. At the warrant stage, the Chamber applies a "reasonable grounds to believe" standard. An arrest warrant is therefore not a conviction or a final finding of guilt.

The ICC continues to list Netanyahu as subject to the warrant and as "at large".

What Does An ICC Arrest Warrant Actually Mean?

An ICC warrant operates through the cooperation system created by the Rome Statute.

Article 86 requires States Parties to cooperate fully with the Court. Article 89 provides for requests to states to arrest and surrender persons wanted by the Court, with those requests carried out through national legal procedures.

That does not mean ICC officers can simply cross a national border and make an arrest.

The Court has no independent police force. Where a State Party fails to comply with a cooperation request, the ICC can make a finding of non-compliance and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties, or to the UN Security Council in applicable circumstances.

An ICC warrant therefore creates obligations within the Court's legal system, but physically executing it still depends on a country's authorities.

Which Countries Are Supposed To Enforce It?

Israel is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Palestine is within the Rome Statute framework for the situation before the ICC, which is why the Court rejected Israel's jurisdictional challenges and proceeded with the Netanyahu case.

France, Italy and Greece are States Parties, and Netanyahu's aircraft passed through their airspace on its way to the United States.

But being a State Party does not necessarily answer every question involving an aircraft.

The issue in the current episode is whether the Rome Statute required those countries to intercept a person aboard a state aircraft merely passing through their airspace, rather than arresting someone physically present in their territory.

That distinction is at the centre of France's explanation.

How Did His Plane Cross European Airspace?

Netanyahu's aircraft travelled towards New York through Greek, Italian and French airspace before continuing to the United States.

France later confirmed that it had authorised the overflight.

Asked about the decision on September 24, the French Foreign Ministry said it had authorised Netanyahu's flight over French territory for his journey to the UN General Assembly and considered the decision consistent with international law. The spokesperson said the Rome Statute did not impose an obligation concerning the overflight of French territory by a state aircraft carrying a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant.

The French position is therefore narrower than saying that France does not recognise the warrant.

France is saying that the Rome Statute did not oblige it to intercept the aircraft during overflight.

Why Did France Say The Overflight Was Legal?

France's current position should be separated from its response after the warrant was issued in 2024.

On November 27, 2024, the French Foreign Ministry said France would respect its international obligations and recognised that the Rome Statute required full cooperation with the ICC. It also said, however, that international law concerning the immunities of officials from states that are not parties to the ICC had to be taken into account if the Court requested Netanyahu's arrest and surrender.

That was an argument about immunity and arrest or surrender.

The September 2026 statement deals with a different question: overflight.

France did not say the November 2024 warrant had disappeared. It said the Rome Statute itself did not require interception while the aircraft was crossing French airspace.

Why Isn't The US Bound By The ICC Warrant?

Netanyahu's final destination was the United States, which has a different relationship with the ICC.

The US signed the Rome Statute but never became a State Party. US law contains specific restrictions on cooperation with the ICC. Under 22 USC Section 7423, US courts and agencies may not respond to ICC requests for cooperation and the US government may not extradite a person to the Court.

That means an ICC request does not operate in the United States in the same way that it does within the Rome Statute's State Party system.

This does not mean the US has no legal relationship with international criminal law, or that no US authority could ever act against a foreign official on another legal basis. It means the ICC warrant itself does not create the same cooperation obligation for Washington that it can create for a State Party.

Netanyahu could therefore travel to the United States without the ICC warrant automatically triggering an American arrest.

Could The US Have Arrested Him Anyway?

The ICC itself could not simply send officers to New York to execute its warrant. It has no independent enforcement arm.

Any separate US action would require a legal basis under US domestic law rather than simply the existence of the ICC warrant.

The question is also complicated by the fact that Netanyahu's visit was connected to the UN General Assembly. The UN Headquarters Agreement contains provisions concerning access and transit to UN headquarters for representatives of member states and other persons covered by the agreement.

Those arrangements form part of the separate legal framework governing access to UN headquarters. They do not turn the ICC warrant into an independently enforceable US arrest order.

What Happens When A Country Does Not Enforce An ICC Warrant?

The ICC's treatment of Mongolia over Vladimir Putin illustrates both the legal obligations of a State Party and the limits of the Court's enforcement powers.

In October 2024, the ICC found that Mongolia had failed to comply with its request to arrest and surrender Putin when he visited the country. The matter was referred to the Assembly of States Parties.

The Court said Mongolia had failed in its international obligation to cooperate. But it could not send its own officers into Mongolia to execute the arrest.

The opposite can also occur. When national authorities cooperate, ICC warrants can result in actual arrests. The Court's Libya case involving Osama Elmasry Njeem, for example, involved an arrest in Italy following an ICC warrant and cooperation request.

These cases show the central feature of the ICC enforcement system: a warrant has legal force, but its physical execution depends on state cooperation.

Does A Head Of State Have Immunity?

This remains one of the more contested legal questions surrounding the warrant.

Article 27 of the Rome Statute says official capacity does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility before the Court. It specifically provides that being a head of state or government does not exempt a person from ICC jurisdiction.

France nevertheless raised a separate issue in November 2024. It said the immunities owed under international law to officials of states that are not parties to the ICC had to be considered if the Court requested Netanyahu's arrest and surrender.

That is why the legal debate cannot be reduced to Article 27 alone. The Rome Statute addresses official capacity before the ICC, while questions can also arise over the obligations of a state being asked to arrest and surrender an official of a non-State Party.

France's 2024 position and its 2026 overflight position therefore concern different parts of that legal debate.

What Does Netanyahu's UN Visit Say About ICC Enforcement?

Netanyahu reaching New York does not cancel the ICC warrant.

What the journey demonstrates is more specific: an ICC warrant does not automatically control every movement of the person named in it.

France has said the Rome Statute did not require it to intercept Netanyahu's state aircraft while it was passing through French airspace. The United States, meanwhile, is outside the Rome Statute's State Party cooperation system and has domestic restrictions on responding to ICC requests.

The episode therefore illustrates the gap between legal authority and enforcement capacity.

The ICC can issue a warrant, request arrest and surrender, and refer non-compliance by States Parties. But it ultimately relies on national authorities to put those powers into practice.

A Warrant Without A Global Police Force

The Netanyahu case demonstrates both the reach and the limits of the ICC system.

The Court found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu was criminally responsible for specified war crimes and crimes against humanity and issued an arrest warrant in November 2024. That was a judicial decision at the warrant stage, not a conviction.

States Parties have cooperation obligations under the Rome Statute, including those concerning arrest and surrender. But those obligations operate through national authorities and domestic procedures. The Court has no police force of its own.

In Netanyahu's case, France has taken the position that the Statute did not require it to intercept his aircraft during overflight. The United States is outside the State Party system and has laws restricting cooperation with the ICC.

That is how a person can be subject to an international arrest warrant and still travel across borders and appear at the UN in New York. The gap is not between a valid warrant and an invalid one. It is between an international court's authority and the national institutions on which it ultimately depends to enforce that authority.