( Middle East Monitor ) – New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly stated that he would instruct the NYPD to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he set foot in New York, citing the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against him. Netanyahu is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare and the targeting of civilians.
Despite these charges, Netanyahu announced on 3 December 2025, that he still plans to visit New York, dismissing Mamdani’s statements about enforcing the ICC warrant. This raises a critical question: Does a city mayor in the United States have the authority to arrest a foreign head of state under international law?
To answer this, we must first understand the positions of Israel and the United States regarding the ICC. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is a state party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. Israel initially signed the Statute but later withdrew its signature, while the U.S. has consistently opposed ICC jurisdiction over its nationals and allies.
Under Articles 12–15 of the Rome Statute, the ICC can exercise jurisdiction in the following situations: When the perpetrator is a national of a State Party or the crime occurred on the territory of a State Party. When a State Party refers a situation to the Court. When the UN Security Council refers a situation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. When a non-member state accepts jurisdiction by lodging ad hoc declaration to the court. Or when the Prosecutor initiates an investigation (proprio motu) based on reasonable grounds.
Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015, and in February 2021 ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation and persecution of civilians in Gaza.
The ICC does not have its own enforcement mechanism; it relies on member states to execute arrest warrants. In 2025, the US imposed sanctions on ICC officials, including asset freezes and visa bans, to obstruct investigations into alleged crimes committed by US and Israeli officials in Afghanistan and Palestine.
When ICC enforcement is blocked, international law provides an alternative mechanism: universal jurisdiction. This principle allows any state to prosecute individuals accused of grave international crimes—such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator. Several countries, including Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, France and Germany, have successfully used universal jurisdiction to prosecute foreign officials, such as the conviction of former Gambian Interior Minister Ousman Sonko for crimes against humanity in 2024 and the issuance of arrest warrant by a French court against Bashar-Al Assad the former president of Syria .
Precedents indicate that the principle of universal jurisdiction constitutes a strong legal argument against Israel, as it serves as a prominent example of its application in the well-known case of Adolf Eichmann, known as the “architect of the Holocaust.” In that case, the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, in May 1960 abducted Eichmann from Argentina and transferred him to Jerusalem to be tried before an Israeli court. The court found Eichmann guilty of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Jewish people during World War II. He was sentenced to death and executed by hanging on 1 June 1962 at Ayalon Prison in Ramla.
Israel justified Eichmann’s abduction from Argentina by invoking universal jurisdiction, arguing that Eichmann was accused of committing war crimes and genocide against Jews in Germany and for his membership in an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg 15 years earlier. Israel claimed that universal jurisdiction empowers states to arrest criminals regardless of their nationality or the country in which they reside. In Eichmann’s case, the perpetrator was a German national, the victims were believed to be German Jews, the crimes were committed on German soil, and the abduction occurred in Argentina. This means that the elements of the crime were in no way connected to Israel. Therefore, Israel’s actions in this instance constitute a strong legal precedent against it, as any state—regardless of its geographical location or membership in ICC—could arrest Benjamin Netanyahu for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Trial International asserts that individuals who commit grave crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot enjoy immunity based on their political position, as the commission of such crimes strips them of this protection due to the threat they pose to international peace and security. Political and diplomatic immunity enjoyed by war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu does not shield him from arrest under the framework of universal jurisdiction, Just as occurred in the case of General Augusto Pinochet, the former head of Chile’s military dictatorship, who was accused of committing genocide, forced disappearances, murder, and torture was arrested in London in October 1998 based on a Spanish arrest warrant in the framework of the universal jurisdiction.
Another example is the conviction of the Gambian Minister of Interior, Ousman Sonko’s, by a Swiss court for crimes against humanity. Sonko was arrested in Bern in 2017, later on, in 2024 the Swiss Federal Criminal Court sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
If we analogise Eichmann’s arrest to the potential arrest of Netanyahu by New York authorities, numerous similarities emerge. The application of universal jurisdiction to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu upon his entry into New York does not require Israel or the United States to be State members to the ICC; it suffices that the perpetrators committed heinous crimes that affect the international community as a whole and threat international peace and security—a condition that applies to Netanyahu.
Some may argue that NYPD lack the legal authority to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, as implementing universal jurisdiction in the United States falls under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), and enforcing this law may require federal approval, which is unlikely to be granted. Others contend that Israel can be held accountable under the Lehy law or 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide. It is believed that exercising universal jurisdiction does not require prior authorization, as it derives its legitimacy from customary international law, which regards norms combating grave crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity as peremptory norms (Jus cogens) that cannot be overridden or violated.
Detail. Zohran Mamdani at the White House, 21 November 2025. Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.
Legally, the possibility of arresting war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu—as described by the ICC—exists, and international law provides alternative mechanisms for enforcement when member states fail to execute the Court’s arrest warrant. Universal jurisdiction is one such mechanism. The arrest of Chilean military leader Augusto Pinochet, the capture of Holocaust architect Ehichmann, and recent arrest warrants issued against the Gambian minister of interior, the former Syrian president, and his intelligence chiefs confirm that no one, regardless of their political or military position, is immune from accountability and international prosecution.
Universal jurisdiction is an essential and complementary means to the ICC for apprehending criminals irrespective of their nationality or location. The threat by the Mayor of New York to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu represents an important step toward strengthening international justice and ending impunity. It is also crucial for reinforcing the ICC’s mandate in the face of political and financial pressure exerted by Israel, the United States, and their allies.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.
Mohammad Yousef is a doctoral candidate in International law.
Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved