London Mayor Sadiq Khan Raises the Stakes Over Netanyahu as ICC Warrant Tests Britain’s Resolve
A legal battle that New York could not pursue has crossed the Atlantic and landed in London.
Mayor Sadiq Khan says he would pressure Britain’s national government to enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the Israeli leader traveled to the British capital. His remarks sharpen a growing debate over whether powerful leaders accused of grave crimes can still move freely through major Western cities.
Khan made the comments during an interview with Channel 4 News. He said he believes genocide is being committed in Gaza and holds Netanyahu responsible. He added that he would lobby the prime minister to ensure the law was enforced if Netanyahu planned to visit London.
The language was forceful, but the legal reality is more complicated. Khan cannot command British police to arrest a visiting foreign leader. He can apply political pressure and urge national authorities to act, but any arrest would have to move through Britain’s government, courts and police.
A Mayor’s Warning Meets National Law
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024. Judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two men bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.
Those findings are allegations, not convictions. Netanyahu has not been tried or found guilty by the ICC. Israel rejects the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes, arguing that its campaign targets Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
Khan went beyond the formal ICC allegations by describing the Gaza campaign as genocide and calling Netanyahu responsible. That reflects Khan’s stated political and legal view, not a final judgment against Netanyahu for genocide. The ICC warrant concerns alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Britain stands in a different legal position from the United States. The United Kingdom belongs to the Rome Statute system and has domestic legislation creating a process for handling ICC arrest requests.
Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the Secretary of State receives an ICC request and sends it to an appropriate judicial officer. A judge may endorse the warrant for execution, after which police can carry out the arrest. That chain shows why London’s mayor can lobby but cannot personally order an arrest.
Why New York Reached a Legal Wall
Khan’s remarks followed a similar controversy in New York, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani acknowledged that his administration lacked independent legal authority to enforce the ICC warrant against Netanyahu.
The United States is not an ICC member. Reuters reported that American law provides no general mechanism for enforcing the court’s warrants. Legal experts also cited immunity protections for sitting heads of government and representatives traveling to United Nations meetings.
Mamdani urged the federal government to act, but experts said Washington would face major legal barriers. The United States would need significant legislative and policy changes, while diplomatic immunity connected to United Nations travel could remain an obstacle.
London’s route is more direct, though it is not automatic. The British government would need to process the request, a judicial officer would need to endorse it, and police would execute it. Immunity or diplomatic-status questions could also produce legal challenges.
The ICC cannot send officers into either city. It has no police force and relies on governments to enforce its decisions. Every warrant therefore becomes a test of evidence, domestic law and political will.
Two Cities, One Uncomfortable Question
Khan’s intervention places Britain’s government under pressure before any visit has been announced. Reports indicate there are no public plans for Netanyahu to travel to London, making the dispute hypothetical for now. Still, the warning signals how authorities could be challenged if that changes.
The dispute exposes the uneven reach of international justice. A warrant issued in The Hague may carry consequences in one country and little practical force in another. Treaty membership, domestic law and diplomatic immunity can determine whether the same person faces arrest or official protection.
For Netanyahu, the political impact extends beyond the courtroom. Even without an arrest, declarations from the mayors of London and New York can turn future travel into a diplomatic confrontation. Israel’s supporters view such statements as hostile, while critics of the Gaza war see them as pressure on governments to act.
Khan has not gained the power to arrest Netanyahu. What he has done is force Britain’s government to confront the question publicly: If an ICC suspect enters London, will the country follow the legal process it created, or will diplomacy slow it down?
In New York, local authorities stopped at the edge of federal law. In London, the legal door appears more open, but only the national government, courts and police can decide whether anyone walks through it.
