The ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Netanyahu and his then-defense minister, Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. Despite these warrants, Netanyahu’s aircraft was cleared to pass through the territories of several nations that are signatories to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the court. France explicitly stated that the ICC warrant posed no obstacle to the overflight, a decision that underscores the complex legal and diplomatic calculations states must make when balancing international law with diplomatic protocol.
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry addressed the overflight by stating that authorization to pass through its airspace should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the policies or actions of the Israeli government. A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand emphasized that the request was granted in connection with the UN General Assembly, characterizing the forum as critical for diplomatic engagement. This clarification follows earlier statements by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in October 2025, who declared that Netanyahu would be arrested if he entered Canadian soil, distinguishing between overflight permissions and territorial entry.
While the physical movement of a head of state through sovereign airspace may appear routine, it carries significant legal weight in the context of international criminal law. The ICC has faced mounting pressure to retract these warrants, particularly from the United States. Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan confirmed that the court has taken no steps to withdraw the arrest warrants or related applications. “The case is still proceeding,” Khan stated, noting that the investigative team continues its work “unabated” despite sanctions imposed by Washington on the court’s leadership, including the former chief prosecutor and nine judges.
The U.S. administration has launched an escalating campaign against the Hague-based institution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in July that Washington would utilize every tool at its disposal to “dismantle the ICC – brick by brick, if necessary,” urging member states to withdraw support. In broader press statements, Rubio has described the court as a “stupid organisation,” warning of consequences for any attempt to exercise jurisdiction over American nationals. Despite this diplomatic isolation, Khan emphasized that the court remains grounded in the sovereign decisions of its member states, which negotiated and adopted the Rome Statute over decades.
The legal landscape surrounding the warrants is further complicated by ongoing appeals within the ICC itself. Israel has challenged the court’s jurisdiction over its nationals, arguing that it is not a member state. Two appeals remain in progress, including one specifically targeting the court’s jurisdictional authority. Meanwhile, the prosecutor’s office has continued to expand its reach, with confidential applications filed in May seeking arrest for Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalal Smotrich over alleged crimes in the occupied West Bank. Evidence reviews have also considered applications targeting National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, with charges including forced displacement, settlement activity, and persecution.
Back in New York, the political rhetoric surrounding Netanyahu’s presence intensified following his UN address. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani criticized the speech, calling it a repetition of “baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians.” Mamdani pointed to the ICC warrant as an immutable fact that cannot be erased by diplomatic speeches. Earlier this year, Mamdani had urged U.S. federal authorities to enforce the arrest warrant, acknowledging that while local authorities lack the legal power to execute it, the international mandate remains a central point of contention for city and federal officials alike.
The divergence between the physical freedom of movement enjoyed by Netanyahu and the legal constraints imposed by the ICC illustrates the current limits of international criminal enforcement. While the United States has threatened severe repercussions for the court, and while sovereign states have granted transit rights that effectively allow a wanted individual to travel freely, the ICC maintains that its judicial processes are intact. The next critical test for the efficacy of these warrants will depend not only on the outcome of the ongoing jurisdictional appeals but on whether any state with the political will and legal capacity chooses to act on the warrants when the individual is physically within its borders.
