Karim Khan and the fate of the International Criminal Courthttps://en.majalla.com/node/332232/politics/karim-khan-and-fate-international-criminal-courtPolitics
Karim Khan and the fate of the International Criminal Court
The man who issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders was then accused of sexual misconduct and voted out. Can the ICC survive the dismissal of its chief prosecutor?
AFP
Former International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan during a press conference at the San Carlos Palace in Bogotá, on 25 April 2024.
Bryn Haworth
last update on
28 Jul 2026
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been dogged by controversy ever since it issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant in November 2024. The issuer was the ICC’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan, a British lawyer, who has since found himself the latest casualty of this ongoing imbroglio.
On 25 July, he was dismissed from his role after the court’s governing body concluded in June that he had committed serious misconduct in connection to allegations of sexual abuse made by two women working on the court’s staff. The following day, Venezuela announced that it was withdrawing from the ICC. In a post on X, the US State Department hailed the move as “marking a partnership on American-led efforts to dismantle the corrupt and worthless ICC”.
Punishing the issuers
The decision by the ICC’s member states to oust Khan is unprecedented. According to those familiar with proceedings, at a special meeting at the UN’s headquarters, 82 of the 125 member states voted in favour of removing him. Yet his ouster is not the first unprecedented event in this story. In the spring of 2024, Lord Cameron, then Britain’s foreign secretary, is alleged to have threatened to defund the ICC if it pursued arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.
Weeks later, 12 Republican senators (including Marco Rubio, now America’s chief diplomat) wrote to Khan warning him against targeting Israeli leaders and threatening ICC judges with asset freezes and travel bans. Despite the pressure, the court went ahead and issued the warrants on 21 November 2024. Cue the punishment. On 12 February 2025, an executive order imposed tough sanctions on the ICC. Visa restrictions and financial penalties targeted those involved in its investigations concerning US citizens and allies, which included Israel.
These restrictions are by no means trivial. Kimberley Prost, an ICC judge, described the effect. “It has such a serious impact in terms of day-to-day life, it’s not symbolic,” she said. “You lose all your credit cards no matter where they were issued.” Simple tasks, such as booking an Uber or reserving a flight or a hotel room, became impossible, she said. Bank transfers could be rejected. Another ICC official told The Guardian that they felt the sanctions were being used “to destroy the court, rather than just tie its hands”.
‘This is not Hollywood’
So far, however, the work of the court has not been impacted (although Khan’s career is in tatters). ‘Sarah’, one of his accusers, said the allegations were not an existential issue for the court. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, she said: “I don’t believe that the legitimacy of the court should stand on the reputation of any one man. This is not a spectacle, this is not Hollywood. At the end of the day, this is a complaint. And what the court and other institutions do with such a complaint adds to its legitimacy, it doesn’t take away from it. It shows that they are willing to take possible misconduct seriously.”
“);
googletag.cmd.push(function () {
onDvTagReady(function () {
googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-3341368-6’);
});
});
Despite the pressure, the court went ahead and issued the warrants on 21 November 2024. Cue the punishment
Still, attention has turned to the court’s internal oversight. In November 2024, it requested an external investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS). By December, the OIOS had completed its investigation, gathering 5,000 pages of evidence. In June 2026, a panel assessed the findings and concluded that Khan had committed ‘a serious breach of duty and serious misconduct.’
The BBC explained this as “engaging in an improper sexual relationship with a junior ICC staff member and seeking to stop her pursuing her complaint”. Khan’s lawyer, Tayab Ali, said his client would challenge “the lawfulness and fairness of the decision through all available legal mechanisms”. In an interview with Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo, Khan claimed that in the 137 findings, there was nothing to support the allegations.
Conspiracies abound
Unsurprisingly, accusations have swirled that the Israelis were responsible, even that the complainant had links to the Mossad, a claim she denies. An unnamed Israeli official told CNN that Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s foreign minister, had played an active role in efforts to dismiss Khan. If reports are to be believed, there was even a taskforce dedicated to removing him from office.
Meanwhile, the administration in Washington has continued its campaign against the ICC. On 13 July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to dismantle the court “brick by brick, using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause”. Venezuela’s opt-out is likely to have transpired after American pressure.
Though the ICC may survive Khan’s departure, doubts have been raised about the choice he made of issuing warrants for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, let alone for Israeli ministers. Back in 2024, the New Statesman carried an article by Wolfgang Münchau, the German director of Eurointelligence. If the aim was to punish war crimes, he said, the warrants might be counterproductive, because they “add an additional layer of complexity to the already difficult task of finding diplomatic solutions to end wars”.
Incentivised to keep fighting
Münchau added that no amount of diplomacy can grant Putin or Netanyahu immunity under international law. “They will always be in danger of arrest,” he said. “This is a feature, not a bug, of the system. But it has a cost… Perhaps the biggest downside is that the warrant ultimately reduces an indicted leader’s incentives to seek a deal. As long as a conflict continues, the leader is at least in a position of power at home. Once the fighting stops, they are far more vulnerable, especially if ejected from office by rivals. So, one of the consequences of issuing a warrant could be a longer war and more opportunities for war crimes.”
Soon after applying for the arrest warrants, Khan spoke to Amanpour and insisted that there was no witch hunt. He said the court was criticised by some for going too slowly, by others for going too fast, but everything had to be done with forensic deliberation and the evidence had to be solid “because if we don’t apply the law equally, we’re going to disintegrate as a species”. For Khan, the stakes were that high.
+ / –
SAVE
SHARE
Related topicsInternational Criminal CourtBenjamin NetanyahuIsraeli Defence Ministerdiplomatic sanctions
“);
googletag.cmd.push(function () {
onDvTagReady(function () {
googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-3341368-4’);
});
});
“);
googletag.cmd.push(function () {
googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-3341368-5’);
});
