Member states of the International Criminal Court are gathering at the United Nations headquarters in New York to hold a secret ballot on whether to permanently fire Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan. The 56-year-old British barrister faces an unprecedented removal vote following allegations of sexual misconduct with a female staff member.
The situation is legal drama mixed with global geopolitics. Khan won't even be present in the room when 125 member nations decide his career. U.S. sanctions prevent him from setting foot on American soil.
This isn't just about one man's misconduct case. It's a defining crisis for international justice.
Misconduct Charges and a Banted Defense
The trouble began over two years ago. In June, the executive committee of the court's oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties, formally suspended Khan after finding he committed a serious breach of duty. Their report concluded he engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate aide that escalated over time, followed by attempts to stop her from coming forward.
Khan denies every accusation. His accuser recently spoke out publicly on CNN, pointing directly to the extreme power imbalance between a top global prosecutor and a junior staffer.
Meanwhile, Khan's legal team is fighting back from afar. His lawyers, Tayab Ali and Sareta Ashraph, sent a fiery letter to the oversight body arguing that barring a prosecutor from his own removal hearing violates basic due process.
Khan enters this vote without much ground to stand on at home either. The British Bar Standards Board suspended his license to practice law in the United Kingdom pending their own internal investigation.
US Sanctions and the Gaza Warrants
You can't separate Khan's internal troubles from the geopolitics surrounding the ICC.
In 2024, Khan secured arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. That move infuriated Washington. The Trump administration responded by slapping heavy economic sanctions and travel bans on Khan, his deputies, and multiple ICC judges.
Those sanctions are the exact reason Khan is stuck outside the U.S. while diplomats weigh his fate in Manhattan.
Washington didn't stop at travel bans. The U.S. government recently launched a concerted diplomatic effort aimed at dismantling the ICC entirely, calling the tribunal an unacceptable threat to national sovereignty.
This dynamic leaves member nations caught in a tough spot. Ousting Khan might look like bowing to American pressure. Keeping him, however, risks shattering the court's ethical credibility internally.
A Divided Tribunal at a Turning Point
The court in The Hague is deeply fractured.
The Netherlands—the ICC's host country—has already declared it will vote to remove Khan. It remains the only country to publicly declare its vote so far.
Inside the prosecutor's office, staff morale has plummeted. A group of prosecutors wrote a letter to leadership warning that Khan's authority is permanently damaged and that his return would paralyze operations. Conversely, several external human rights groups have expressed worry that political pressure is corrupting the court's internal disciplinary steps.
For the removal motion to pass, at least 63 of the 125 member states must vote "yes" during the secret session.
If Khan is ousted, his two deputy prosecutors will continue running daily operations until a new chief prosecutor can be formally elected. If he survives the vote, he returns to a institution where staff distrust him and global powers are actively trying to shut the doors for good.
Regardless of how the secret ballot lands in New York, the ICC faces a long, painful road back to institutional legitimacy.
