International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan was removed from office on July 24 at a special session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) in New York. The decision, passed with the votes of 82 of the 125 member states, is seen as a serious threat to the court's independence.
Retired Professor Martin Shaw from the University of Sussex in the UK and Dr. Heidi Matthews from York University in Canada say that US and Israeli pressure on the court lies behind the decision. The experts warn that this step could weaken ongoing cases, particularly the Palestine investigation.
Independent Panel Found Insufficient Evidence
Khan's lawyers claim their client was improperly removed without having the opportunity to defend himself. The independent judicial panel appointed by the court, however, found no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor had committed serious misconduct. Despite this, the ASP proceeded directly to a removal vote rather than deepening the investigation.
Prof. Shaw recalled that in its roughly 25-year history, the ICC has predominantly tried African leaders and has been criticized for this. Shaw said this pattern changed under Karim Khan, who advanced the investigation into Israel and Hamas following the start of the genocide in Gaza and issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Shaw stated, "In recent years, the court had begun to operate as an institution that takes international crimes committed by powerful actors, including Western states, seriously."
US and Israeli Efforts to Undermine the Court
Shaw pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio relaunched the campaign against the court last week, saying, "Israel and the US are trying to bring the Court down. It is impossible not to see this as part of that crisis." Noting that the removal decision does not formally change the ongoing investigation, Shaw said his main concern is the court's future stance.
Shaw stated that a new prosecutor would be aware that they too could be removed if they take steps that disturb powerful states. "Internal and external elements seeking to roll back the Palestine investigation and the Gaza charges have been further emboldened by the decision to oust Khan," he assessed.
The Most Serious Institutional Crisis in 24 Years
Dr. Heidi Matthews stressed that Khan's removal is the most serious institutional crisis in the ICC's 24-year history. Matthews explained that the ASP went directly to a vote despite the independent panel finding insufficient legal grounds, and said the decision was made in the context of the Trump administration's all-out assault on the court.
Noting that Rubio described the decisions taken against the ICC as a "government-wide campaign," Matthews said, "The removal decision cannot be separated from the unprecedented political efforts to discredit and disrupt the Court's work."
Palestine Investigation Is the Court's Litmus Test
Matthews stated that the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant remain in effect. She pointed out that it is unknown who the new prosecutor will be and that the process will be conducted under political pressure.
Recalling that last month, judges allowed charges against defendant Abdullah Banda in the Darfur case to be withdrawn after the prosecutor cited insufficient evidence, Matthews warned that a similar justification could be put forward in the Netanyahu and Gallant cases.
Matthews said the situation in Palestine is seen as a "litmus test" for the court's legitimacy within the international criminal law community, noting that three arrest warrants were also issued for Hamas leaders as part of the same investigation, but the cases have not progressed because these individuals were killed by Israel. Matthews assessed, "If the new prosecutor abandons this investigation, we will be at a critical turning point for the Court's capacity to seriously address crimes committed by Western states or their allies."
