For Netanyahu, Subject to Landmark Warrant, a Smaller World

The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will confront governments around the world with a dilemma: whether to detain the leader of a democracy that is also an ally of many of their countries.

The warrants issued on Thursday, which seek the arrests of Mr. Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, represent a diplomatic landmark: It is the first time leaders of a modern Western democracy stand accused of war crimes by a global judicial body. But they are also a reminder of the significant gaps in the court’s jurisdiction and the often patchwork enforcement of previous such warrants.

The court has 124 signatories, all of which are formally obliged to carry out the arrest warrants if Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Gallant or any other person wanted by the court steps on their soil, even if by accident, as, for example, because of an aircraft malfunction requiring an unscheduled landing.

The warrants “are binding on all parties to the I.C.C.,” said Philippe Sands, an expert in international law who has argued before the court. “If they set foot on the territory of a state party, that state party has an obligation to arrest and transfer to The Hague. That’s pretty binding.”

But the United States and Israel are not signatories to the court, nor are China, Russia, India, and several other countries. Even countries that are signatories do not always comply with the court’s arrest warrants, especially when leaders of powerful countries are involved.

Mongolia, an I.C.C. member that is deeply dependent on Russia for fuel, not only did not arrest the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, who is wanted by the court on charges of war crimes stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it greeted him with an official state ceremony in September.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil had said that there was “no reason” that Mr. Putin should fear attending the Group of 20 summit in Rio de Janeiro this year, though Mr. Putin sent his foreign minister instead.

But Mr. Putin has steered clear of Europe and the United States since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Mr. Netanyahu, on the other hand, has continued to tour foreign capitals and appear at the United Nations since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza.

Europe, which is considered a pillar of the court’s support, represents potentially the most problematic region for Mr. Netanyahu. Britain and France both reaffirmed the court’s standing, though they stopped short of saying whether they would arrest him if he crossed their borders.

“We respect the independence of the I.C.C., which is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern,” said a spokesman for 10 Downing Street, who spoke on condition that he not be identified by name. Israel, he added, has “the right to defend itself in accordance with international law.”

Norway’s foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, said, “It is important that the I.C.C. carries out its mandate in a judicious manner.” In Ireland, which has voiced strong support for the Palestinians in the Gaza conflict, the prime minister, Simon Harris, called the warrants “an extremely significant step.”

The Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, told his country’s Parliament that the Netherlands would act on the warrants, according to Reuters. Mr. Veldkamp has canceled a visit to Israel planned for next week, according to the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Saar.

But Mr. Netanyahu has his own political allies among I.C.C. member nations. The president of Argentina, Javier Milei, harshly criticized the court’s action, saying it “ignores Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself in the face of constant attacks by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Mr. Milei, who has also established close ties to President-elect Donald J. Trump, stopped short of saying Mr. Netanyahu would be protected from arrest if he visited Argentina.

In the United States, the arrest warrants were criticized by the Biden White House, people in Mr. Trump’s orbit and longtime critics of the I.C.C., like John R. Bolton, who served as national security adviser in Mr. Trump’s first term.

“These indictments prove precisely what is wrong with the I.C.C.,” Mr. Bolton said in an email. “A publicity-hungry prosecutor first goes after the victims of a terrorist attack, before going after the real criminals.”

Representative Michael G. Waltz, the Florida Republican named by Mr. Trump as his next national security adviser, posted on social media, “The ICC has no credibility and these allegations have been refuted by the U.S. government.” He said the new administration would respond to the “antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN.”

Many in Israel and in the American Congress will judge the warrants as based on politics and not international law, said Daniel Reisner, a lawyer and former head of the international law branch of the Israeli military’s legal division.

“Irrespective of what people think of Netanyahu or Gallant, neither of them committed genocide or war crimes, and that the court alleges otherwise is an indication of the travesty of international law when facing highly politicized disputes,” Mr. Reisner said.

Still, the world will be a smaller place for Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant, even with the support of the United States. The two men will have to plan their trips very carefully, Mr. Reisner said.

Defenders of the court said the symbolism of issuing arrest warrants for leaders of a democratic country was profound.

“Modern constitutional democracies are expected to restrain lawless behavior by their leaders, especially war crimes,” said Harold Hongju Koh, an expert in international law who teaches at Yale Law School and served in the State Department during the Obama administration.

The arrest warrants could enhance the reputation of international institutions in the non-Western world, where they are sometimes criticized as tools of the West.

Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli analyst and pollster, said: “The warrants could prop up the legitimacy of international institutions already damaged from so many failures, and this could revive the sense of some consistent application of the law to Western countries, even those backed by the United States.”

But they are likely to face great opposition in Washington, where members of Congress threatened sanctions against the court when its prosecutor first asked for the warrants to be issued.

“The U.S. will go ballistic,” Ms. Scheindlin said, “and it could also begin a significant undermining of the court by the world’s most powerful nation.”

Jack Nicas contributed reporting from Jerusalem, and Stephen Castle from London