Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, was dismissed Friday following a vote by the Assembly of States Parties. The decision stemmed from allegations of repeated sexual misconduct involving a junior employee. The Assembly met in a closed session of its 125 member states to consider the removal.
Prior to his dismissal, Khan had issued arrest warrants against Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants were issued in November 2024 amid the Gaza conflict and drew sharp criticism from Israel and the United States. They remain a focal point in international discussions about the court’s jurisdiction.
The victim, identified only as Sarah, claimed that Khan repeatedly assaulted her in his office. She stated that the power imbalance made any interaction non-consensual. Her testimony was presented during the Assembly’s deliberations.
Khan’s legal team argued that the accusations were unsubstantiated and that no lawful basis existed for his removal. They maintained that Khan had denied the allegations from the outset and continued to do so. The court’s head attorney emphasized the absence of a properly reasoned finding of misconduct.
The dismissal marks the first instance in the ICC’s history where a sitting chief prosecutor has been removed from office. It underscores the seriousness with which the court treats allegations of abuse of power.
The arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were central to the ICC’s legal actions against Israeli leaders. Their issuance prompted condemnation from Israel and the United States, both of which are not members of the court. The warrants also became a political flashpoint in New York.
In New York, the mayor had threatened to arrest Netanyahu should the Israeli prime minister visit the city. The mayor later acknowledged that the city lacked authority to enforce the warrants and called on federal authorities to act. This stance highlighted the limits of local enforcement of international warrants.
The United States has criticized the ICC for threatening American sovereignty and launched a campaign to dismantle the court. The campaign reflects broader concerns among some U.S. officials about the court’s reach and accountability. The debate over the ICC’s role continues among member states.
Member states are now reassessing the court’s procedures and oversight mechanisms. The ICC’s future trajectory will depend on how it addresses both its internal governance and its external legitimacy.
