ICC to Vote on Dismissal of Prosecutor Karim Khan Over Misconduct Allegations

The fate of suspended International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan now hinges on a vote by 125 member states during a special session of the Assembly of States Parties in New York on July 24. The session will determine whether Khan, accused of sexual misconduct in 2024 and facing misconduct findings, should be dismissed—a first for the court.

The case began in May 2024 when a junior female staff member in Khan’s office reported alleged sexual misconduct to colleagues. The court’s internal oversight mechanism, the Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM), initially closed the case after the complainant declined to pursue formal action. Khan has consistently denied the allegations.

On June 8, the ICC’s Bureau—a 21-member oversight body—recommended Khan’s dismissal, a decision later endorsed by Reuters based on exclusive access to documents. The recommendation now goes before member states, raising procedural questions: Will there be one vote to dismiss or two—first to confirm the decision, then to finalize it? A majority of member states will be required to approve the dismissal.

The U.S. has maintained sanctions against Khan and other ICC officials, complicating his ability to participate in the New York proceedings. The case has also prompted broader scrutiny of the ICC’s internal accountability mechanisms, with legal scholars questioning the adequacy of the IOM and the transparency of the process.

Legal experts, including Kevin Jon Heller (University of Copenhagen), Ezeiel Jimenez Martinez (Centre for International Law Research and Policy), and Sergey Vasiliev (Open University of the Netherlands), have analyzed the procedural nuances, such as whether the Rome Statute or the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure govern the decision. The distinction between substantive and procedural rules could influence the outcome.

The case has unfolded amid geopolitical tensions, with some observers linking it to Khan’s pursuit of arrest warrants against Israeli officials in 2024. However, no direct correlation has been established.

The ICC’s handling of the crisis has faced criticism for its opacity, with diplomats and legal scholars expressing frustration over the lack of public clarity. The Assembly’s Bureau has been accused of obscuring its decision-making process, fueling speculation and contradictory interpretations.

The July 24 vote represents a pivotal moment for the ICC, testing its ability to address internal misconduct while navigating external pressures, including sanctions and geopolitical divisions. The outcome will shape perceptions of the court’s accountability and independence.